Ah, Bex. I see cognitive dissonance has set in.

The point you keep dodging is that there should be visible sign of the embryo, particularly in the later stage miscarriages where there is still just an empty sac. The reason there is no visible embryo is that none developed, not because it is too early for one to be visible. An embryo of 3 weeks is large enough to see with the naked eye, and it is perched on a "stalk" within the sac.

Are you disputing that there is an identifiable embryo by 3 weeks of gestation? All you need to do is look on the web to prove that embryos exist at 3 weeks and earlier.

Week 2 -- Carnagie Stage 6: Primitive Streak (see picture):
Pretty clear where to look for an embryo if there was one, yes?

Week 3 -- Carnagie Stage 9: Appearance of Somites (see picture):
Certainly it is big enough by this time to tell whether there is one inside a pregnancy sac or not, even for those who are not medical experts, eh? Perhaps you would like to look at these and the two intermediate stages, (7) and (8), to see where you think an embryo would not be detectable.

Remember that the pregnancy sac begins to form at 10 to 12 days, shortly followed by the stalk formation and the embryo -- when all goes well. The miscarriages that occur between weeks 3 and 8 and that have empty pregnancy sacs are cases were all does not go well, where, in fact, an embryo has failed to grow ... and never will.

Previously you said:
Anyone can clearly see that this is not a developing baby when the embryo is missing in the pregnancy sac between weeks 3 and 8, that something necessary is missing that should be there for normal development.

What comes into play here is the fact that there are deleterious mutations, and there are mutations where both evolutionists and creationists can agree that information has been lost (while still disagreeing on whether or not it can be added). The point here is that the information in these cases is not sufficient to produce a human being -- information on how to complete that job has been lost. No amount of quotes or appeals to emotion etc will change that fact.

You can keep telling yourself that it is a human being, but you are mixing up the definitions in the process.

As has been shown previously, when humans procreate 70% of the time they do not make a human being: 55% of the time all they make is a single cell, and in the remaining 15% of conceptions that do not become human beings some of them only make empty pregnancy sacs, some have such abnormal (ie - non-human) development that they cannot survive even in the womb, even with the best medical care, some just stop developing and die.

This is the definition of life, not human life. Nobody is saying that the zygote is not alive. That is not the issue. The sperm was alive, the egg was alive, cells in an organ that is removed by surgery are alive, but they are not human beings. You are equivocating on the definitions of life and what distinguishes a human life from other life.

Previously you said:
Here you equivocated between conception and conception plus time in the womb. If a human being was automatically generated by any fertilized egg, then all the zygotes that passed out of the uterus (55%) would continue to develop into human beings, and time in the womb would not be necessary.

Even with time in the womb there are failures during development, cases where the information necessary to produce a human being has been lost. You cannot say that a zygote is alive, that it has human DNA and that it necessarily develops into a human being, because that flat out does not occur in 70% of the cases.

An empty pregnancy sac is not - and never will be - a human being. When all that develops is a pregnancy sac, a human being cannot be developed from the zygote.

We can liken this to a coin toss game. You are saying that all coin tosses are heads, from the moment the thumb flicks the coin, when obviously half of the tosses end up tails. Then you say that all coin tosses are heads, from the moment the thumb flicks the coin plus the time in the air, when obviously half of the tosses still end up tails.

You are mistaking the end point - those times when the coin toss has ended in heads - with earlier events, things that do not always produce heads (or eyes or hands ... ).

And to get the probabilities closer to reality you would have to toss the coin once, take all those that landed on heads and toss those a second time: those that landed on heads represent healthy babies that are delivered at the end of term, while all the tails from both tosses represent the cases where no human being is or will be produced.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]