Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid

Adam’s Wall (2008) IMDB rating: 7.10 Plot: Adam, a Jewish teenager and Yasmine, a young Lebanese girl, fall in love. Their relationship is overshadowed by the ongoing feud between their families, but also by the raging conflict in the Middle East. From the heart of Mile End, Montreal’s multicultural neighborhood, comes this modern-day story of two lovers fighting against the walls that separate them.

Download

Available versions:

DivX Version (Normal Quality), iPod/iPhone Version

Actors: Dwyre Jesse Aaron,Ahmarani Paul,Gascon Gabriel,Benskin Tyrone,Nesrallah Kyler,Travis Malcolm,Kroetsch Neil,Sabongui Patrick,Ezerzer Oury,Spreekmeester Stephen,Bauer Ya’Acov,Young Ferelith,Drama,

Download Full Version>>

Creationists, why do human embryos have yolk sacs, tails, and gill clefts?
" ‘In a blastocyst less than two weeks old…the microscope reveals the amnion (a sac surrounding the embryo), chorion (a membrane that develops around the amnion and lines the uterine wall), yolk sac, and distinct germ layers…At the beginning of its fourth week the embryo, now about 4 to 5 mm (about 0.16 to 0.2 in) long, has the rudiments of eyes and ears, and each side of the neck shows four gill clefts. A tail is also present.’
A yolk sac? A tail? Gill clefts? If god designed adam as an entirely independent, perfectly created creature literally from the ground up, where do humans get off having gill clefts? Why do they have a tail? Why on Earth do we need a yolk sac? These features only make sense within the theory of evolution. They make no sense whatsoever from a creationist point of view. "

source: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier /1766/hovindlies/H.html

---

For a start the spine has to end somewhere, its not a tail but the end of the spine..

Gills are on fish and possibly on anything that is naturally surrounded by fluid, its not an evolutionary trait but a logical natural trait..

Just because mammals have nostrils does this mean they cant go in water? of course not..

How do you expect anything to develop without having some similarities to nature..

Frizby | Oct 14, 2009

---

Great question! Evolution rocks!!!
ms_beehayven | Oct 14, 2009

---

They make no sense to you because you are not the Creator!
JP (Jan) | Oct 14, 2009

---

You correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the ‘recapitulation’ theory of evolution/embryology fell out of favor a long time ago.
Rockadayjohnny | Oct 14, 2009

---

Why are you believing something that was proven to be a fraud, proposed by Earnst Haeckel in 1874?

Get with the times!
Monica V | Oct 14, 2009

---

Because a tail is simple extra spine and the spine grows faster. All of these ‘features’ as you’re calling them are simply needed to survive…. do you even know the creationist point of view? We’re not delivered by a stork god we’re created from sperm and egg.
Lilmissykato DOF | Oct 14, 2009

---

God knew one day we’d have machines capable of seeing what you just described, see, and made it so to test us nonbelievers.
Cosmos | Oct 14, 2009

---

gotta surviv in the womb somehow
Adam (of the wired) | Oct 14, 2009

---

Gill slits: http://creation.com/the-fish-gills-girl
tail : http://creation.com/human-tails-and-fair y-tales
A yolk sac : http://creation.com/the-human-umbilical- vesicle-yolk-sac-and-pronephrosare-they- vestigial

Your predisposition to belief in a lie is noted. Evolution is nonsense, regardless of ‘evidence’ fabricated to promote life from inanimate matter.
Jay Z | Oct 14, 2009

---

The yolk sac functions as a primitive circulatory system for the embryo.

There is no tail. It is the spine in its earliest form. It later becomes the tailbone section of the spine. It’s the way our skeletal system forms. Did you know that the features of our face migrate too? They grow down from the sides. It’s just the way we form.

As for gill slits, most scientists don’t actually hold to that theory anymore. It is known that the pharyngeal arches, as they are now called, develop into the sides of the face, the jaws, and the neck.

If you want to ask questions like this in an attempt to put down creationism, you should do some research first so you are more aware of these things. Why doesn’t it jive with creationism that a human embryo needs a yolk sac before its own circulatory system is developed enough to do the job? Why don’t pharyngeal arches and a developing spine fit in with creation? That’s illogical. God made Adam and Eve from scratch but then He gave them, and therefore all humans, the ability to reproduce sexually so that He doesn’t have to create each one of us from the ground up. How we develop in the womb has no bearing on that.

Whoever wrote that article you are quoting clearly doesn’t know what he or she is talking about.
Blue-Eyed Christian | Oct 14, 2009

---

Please cite a source for your assumption that God designed Adam as an entirely independent, perfectly created creature. The bible doesn’t say that…it merely says that God created Adam from the dust of the earth…and nothing suggests that he didn’t create every other living thing on this planet from the same dust.

Consider the image of a little boy playing with a big pile of Legos. He picks out a bunch of the Legos and builds a car…he tinkers with it a bit (taking away some of the original blocks and adding some new ones) to make wings and it becomes an airplane…tinker some more and it becomes a space ship…tinker some more and it becomes a laser gun.

If God created the universe…and this planet…then it makes perfect sense to think that he would use the "building blocks" of life he created to make every life form on this planet. I can still see parts of the race car he built first in my son’s Lego space ship…the one that he declared his "masterpiece" that sits on his desk…just as we can see parts of God’s other creations in ourselves, the only life forms he created in his image.
KAL | Oct 14, 2009

---

To the deniers: Recapitulation of evolution witnessed through embryology was a bit of a hyped theory, but there is no doubt that it is still (especially now) dead-on…obvious…no-brainer…clearly true, common sense, in the BASIC sense. To call it fraud..? Please!

All organisms (having evolved from single-celled life forms according to evolutionary theory) however complex, can be seen during the process of embryological development, to grow from single-celled life stages.

Embryological development from a single-celled stage in the life cycle to the full complexity of the mature form is therefore, at the very least, meaningfully analogous to evolution from the single-celled life FORM to the more complex body structure of the highly evolved form. And it’s also yet more circumstantial evidence for evolution. There should be nothing remotely surprising or radical about this, since both embryology and evolution are organic processes of growth/development! When you see a single fertilized human zygote, you are looking at something that is much more similar to the single cells of all early life than an adult human being, right?

There is no problem with recapitulation as a scientific interest…only we shouldn’t take it too seriously. Embryologists and evolutionists have always known this. The idea that it is a path of science which is disreputable or scandalous somehow is preposterous. It is true.
xaxorm | Oct 14, 2009