But that's the point, how is a philosopher an expert on the development of a central nervous system in an embyo? He's not qualified to make that claim. Plus the book you quoted was written in 1979. Do you think there haven't been any other developments in embryology since then? Or did you know that and you were purposefully trying to mislead us as many religious people/creationists like to do?
Do you understand what we were debating about? We were debating ETHICS and Peter Singer is an expert on ethics, and the book I quoted was published in 1993 - Singer is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective.
And please don't drag my personal beliefs into this. Science doesn't say you're not allowed to have personal beliefs. Whatever I believe for myself, I'm not saying it should be taught in schools or in science books because I don't have any evidence either for/against it. Hence the text under my pic says 'agnostic'. I could be proven to be wrong tomorrow and I'll accept it.
You don't even know the meaning of agnosticism, agnosticism is about withholding judgement on a phenomenon until one has all the facts, belief does not even come into it, ie when you believe coincidence has some supernatural meaning to you, that cannot be called agnosticism, I should know as I am an Atheist Agnostic, Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims - especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims - is unknown or unknowable. You my friend are a Agnostic theist