72
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + +
→Objections to common descent
Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>
Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>
Some advocates of ''Intelligent Design'' also accept common descent. Most notably Michael Behe:
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>
Most textbooks used in modern biology classes use photographs of real embryos now rather than the drawings. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html</ref>
Most textbooks used in modern biology classes use photographs of real embryos now rather than the drawings. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html</ref>