: : : : The most that can be said of embryology in support of Darwinim is that embryos in a given class tend to resemble one another in a given stage of development. Pharangula have been misinterpreted as "gill slits" by some mis-informed evolutionists, in vertebrates these structures go on to form various structures of the neck region in different species. "Recapitulation" is the term used to describe the [imagined?] process whereby evolution is recapitulated during ontology and has been discarded as a means of supporting evolutionary theory.

: : : ***Mammilian embryonic pharangula has no origin in the past related to other species/evolution? : : : What is their purpose during that stage?

: : :

: : bzrd here: To propose that embryonic pharangula are evolutionary artifacts can only be regarded as an assumption without empirical basis; from a purely objective standpoint, you can only say that it is simply a stage of development.

: ***So what is the purpose of them? And what do you judge the odds are of such a coincidence of form/shape/function/simularities? realated?

bzrd here: One of the first stages of embryology is cleavage; does cleavage have a purpose beyond just being a stage of development? It is not scientific to attempt to assign something a purpose as means of justifying a preconceived notion. One could just as easily argue that the Designer used similar stages to develope different orginisms.