Science Disproves Evolution

[karadan]

ZOMG!!!11

I see the light now! I read that post and it makes SO MUCH SENSE TO ME NOW! How could i have been so stupid before?? How could i have wasted so much of my life bereft of a god?

What else to trollers expect to see when they post that shit?

Meh.

[Pahu78]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve.   They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)â€"but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survivalâ€"and reptile-to-mammal evolutionâ€"would cease.

Concluding that a miracleâ€"or any extremely unlikely eventâ€"happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a.   â€œ... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).”  Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ€"in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid  Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b.   Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1612912

[Asmodean]

Concluding that a miracleâ€"or any extremely unlikely eventâ€"happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

If I don't believe in miracles and understand that "un-likely" is a matter of perspective, this statement's point melts like a snowman in Sahara on a particularly hot day.

That said, if you don't care to discuss what you post and people's responses to you and are only here to hotlink this site to that creationist dump, I suggest you go somewhere else. Spam is against forum rules.

[myleviathan]

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your world=view.

Bro - it's just the way you came on the board. I think if you take time to look at the site you'll find plenty of discussion regarding these issues, ad-nauseum.

If you're here to chat, Welcome. Consider introducing yourself to let us know a little about you. Tell us why you're posting your information here. You may feel the information speaks for itself, but it's nice to hear what your take on it is. If it's as simple as: "you guys are wrong and I'm right - here look at this stuff I've copied and pasted" - it doesn't make your case very appealing to read. Maybe try putting one topic at a time into a thread and we'll discuss it.

[Squid]

a. “... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

It’s fun when people quote studies that they haven’t read.  The line is mined from the abstract of the paper and they omit the preceding part.  Here is the entire abstract:

A dentary of the oldest known monotreme, the Early Cretaceous Teinolophos trusleri, has an internal mandibular trough, which in outgroups to mammals houses accessory jaw bones, and probable contact facets for angular, coronoid, and splenial bones. Certain of these accessory bones were detached from the mandible to become middle ear bones in mammals. Evidence that the angular (homologous with the mammalian ectotympanic) and the articular and prearticular (homologous with the mammalian malleus) bones retained attachment to the lower jaw in a basal monotreme indicates that the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).

To understand what we’re talking about, we need to understand what organisms are involved.  Monotremes are mammals belonging to the order Monotremata.  Monotremes are mammals which lay eggs including platytypuses and echidnas.   Monotremes also, like many fish, have the ability of electroreception.

Now, what the article is looking at is if the jawbones were on their way to becoming inner ear bones prior to or after the divergence of the two clades.:

In other words, did the accessory jaw bones that gave rise to the ear ossicles and ectotympanic become detached from the lower jaw only once in the common ancestry of monotremes and therians (a monophyletic origin), or did they become detached from the jaw independently in the two living groups subsequent to their evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor (a polyphyletic origin).

The authors examine several specimens and their possible taxonomic placement in relation to the two clades.  While they view some of the evidence as possibly showing the formation of the inner ear bones took place following divergence, they do end the paper with this statement:

As noted earlier, a well-developed mandibular trough, indicative of a complete Meckel's cartilage and postdentary jaw bones contacting the dentary in adult individuals, occurs in a number of Mesozoic mammals (or near-mammals) other than Teinolophos. However, because of the uncertain phylogenetic positions of these taxa with respect to true mammals (monotremes and theriiforms), none provides unequivocal support for the multiple origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear bones. Nonetheless, they suggest the possibility that the freeing of the mammalian ear bones from the lower jaw may have occurred more often than can be conclusively documented at present. If the postdentary bones were already functioning in hearing in late nonmammalian cynodonts and basal mammaliaforms , then this final step in the functional separation of the mammalian middle ear system from the feeding apparatus would be expected to occur in all later lineages.

Contrary to what some would attempt to lead others to believe, this is not some evidence that evolution is mistaken theoretically, on the contrary, it shows support for common ancestry.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ€"in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

This quote is from an article in Science News which is referring to the article above which I just explained, therefore no further explanation is needed.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

In keeping with the common ancestry idea of the precursors to the vertebrate ear - a year after Rich et al. published their paper Brazeau and Ahlberg published a paper which they state shows precursors of the later middle ear beginning to “migrate” toward where they would eventually come to be.  They examined a specimen of Panderichthys, a Devonian fish. They found this fish to have what is effectively a spiracular tract which was utilized for breathing, yes breathing.  Aside from this, other findings link this morphology to later tetrapods:

Despite its tetrapod-like spiracular tract, Panderichthys lacks a true stapes. Like typical osteolepiforms, Panderichthys has a slender, rod-like hyomandibula. However, we observe considerable differences in the hyomandibula of Panderichthys that show the earliest evidence of significant modification in the tetrapod stem lineage.

Also, last year, a specimen from the Cretaceous period was examined in a paper in the journal Nature.  Luo et al. (2007) found particular aspects of the formation of the inner ear that were in keeping with what evolution would predict.  The specimen showed how the bones have yet to become the inner ear configuration that we have today.  This adds to findings of other specimens of early mammals from the Jurassic such as the Morganucodon.
The fossil evidence is also supported by molecular inquiries.  Examination of the cellular physiology and its evolutionary history show, as Fritzsch et al. (2007) state unequivocally:

Mechanosensory cells may represent an evolutionary variation of a generalized cellular theme.

The precursors of the ear we know today were there long ago and evolution as the ever-tinkerer, played with configurations and through natural selection we eventually get those wonderful structures that let us detect soundwaves.  As to the actual “hearing” as we think of it also involves the brain.  The efferent pathways from ganglia in the cochlea first links to the medulla (one of the older evolutionary structures of our brain).  It then passes through the pons, the midbrain and finally reaching the primary auditory cortex found in our temporal lobe.  This pathway is known as the central auditory pathway (Hudspeth, 2000).  The simple examination of this pathway alludes to a long evolutionary history for this sensory system.

We also have to remember that hearing itself is not limited to some bones vibrating to innervate sensory pathways.  Hearing in flies utilizes what is called Johnston’s organ found in the antennae which is important for mating .

In summary, the evolution of the ear and its functional parts is not as big of a mystery as some people would like to think.  The scientific evidence doesn't disprove evolution, it supports but you have to understand it first and that is where most evolution opponents fail - not because they can't understand it but because they either don't want to or rely on the fact that the average Joe won't and try and dazzle them with bullshit.

You should really stop getting your scientific information from creationist sites - go to the library and read the scientific publications themselves instead of someone's spin on it.

References

Fritzsch, B., Beisel, K., Pauley, S. & Soukup, G. (2007). Molecular evolution of the vertebrate mechanosensory cell and ear.  Internation Journal of Developmental Biology, 51 663-678.

Hudspeth, A. (2000). Hearing. In E. Kandel, J. Schwartz & T. Jessell (Eds.). Principles of Neural Science (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luo, Z., Chen, P., Li, G. & Chen, M. (2007). A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals.  Nature, 446, 288-293.

Rich, T., Hopson, J., Musser, A., Flannery, T. & Vickers-Rich, P. (2005). Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians.  Science, 307, 910-914.

[Asmodean]

Squid, did I ever tell you that I love the way you operate?  

[Jolly Sapper]

Squid, that broad side of knowledge reminds me of a time I was parked next to a battery of Paladin self propelled artillery who were in the process of sending about fifty rounds down range in the span of a few minutes.  Very impressive.

[curiosityandthecat]

Hooray for APA citation!

[Squid]

Thanks.  I do what I can.

[TheDutchAthiest]

Please don't ban the christians immediately- they're funny. Let them say what they have to say, and threaten them with a ban if there are too many cursewords used (ouch, I hope you fundies realize that everytime you curse, god kills a baby duck).

[Pahu78]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c.   â€œBy this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...”  Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d.   Fix, pp. 189â€"191.

Denton, pp. 142â€"155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e.   â€œStructures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” Ibid., p. 13.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1612912

[curiosityandthecat]

Boy, ya just don't get it, do ya...

[Asmodean]

Food, anyone?  

[myleviathan]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

That's a huge stretch to assume there's a designer just because life forms on earth are similar.

The only way to come to the conclusion that there's a designer based on the presented information is because you presupposed one before you started.  

Be honest: were you familiar with the Bible before you became familiar with evolution?

[Whitney]

Pahu78 has been given a 1 month ban for spamming after being asked not to do so.  If s/he decides to return after his/her current ban and decides to spam again, a permanent ban will follow.

Additionally, as mentioned by myself previously in this thread...Since it is not obvious that the posted content is not his/her own without clicking the link, the manner in which Pahu78 has decide to post his sources is borderline plagerism.  If Pahu78 returns and continues to post in that manner, even while using his/her own words, it will result in a permanent ban.  It's not that hard to use the quote feature.

-admin