Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, that is not always the case. Sometimes the offspring are infertile; sometimes they are fertile, such as coyotes and wolves, as one example. In the wild, occasionally individuals of closely related species hybridize (mule deer and white tails; closely related bird species), but the offspring are usually less fit and are not as successful as the pure-breds, which tends to keep the species seperate, but not always.

I think there are probably several definitions for species. I definitely learned in GCSE that two different species cannot produce fertile offspring, and according to Wikipedia, 'a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring'.

Taxonomy is a really vague discipline anyway.

I find it amusing when people say that evolution is just a theory as if that disregards it. I mean after all gravity is a theory and so is the Earth circling the Sun, but people dont disregard them. There is so much evidence that corroborates the theories they might as well be facts and the same goes for evolution.

I think Science still calls them theories because there is still more to be learned thats all.

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

why would Haeckel fake embryo drawings

Haeckel didn't fake them. The issue was that he supposedly exaggerated traits to increase similarities. Further research and modern technology shows that he was almost entirely correct. Humans DO have pharyngial gill slits in the womb. Haeckel's conjecture as to why they were there may have been wrong, but undeniably they DO exist. Further, human, fish, chicken and many, many other species' embryos are remarkably similar in early stages of development, not diverging until several stages into development.

Also, the most popular image attributed to Haeckel was actually drawn by Romanes. Haeckel had several hundred embryo drawings, and of them, only eight could be considered "fake". Haeckel explained these images: "[For embryos] in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge."