Evidence for Design (3)

[Loudmouth]

I didn't see it or I would have commented.

Here is what I wrote before. I really can't understand how you could have missed it if you had read the post. Just read the first sentence:

The mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex, and yet we have the step by step evolution of that IC complex. Without all three bones (hammer, anvil, stapes) we can't hear, and yet reptiles only have a single middle ear. ID supporters would like you to believe that this would require deaf intermediates while the IC middle ear is built, but is this true? Nope. It was functional throughout each step.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

There is even a transitional stage where the mammal-like reptiles had a two jointed jaw as one of the bones served as both a middle ear bone and a jaw bone.

ID supporters claim that IC systems can not evolve. Well, they can and we have the fossils to prove it.

 

[createdtoworship]

interesting quotes from scholarly secular articles from 2007, 2011 show some intersting questions regarding your hypothesis...


paper published in Nature 2007
"The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage." - See more at: On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear - Evolution News & Views

hey loudmouth, this was my reply. It's not as clearcut as you would think.

 

[Loudmouth]

hey loudmouth, this was my reply. It's not as clearcut as you would think.

Instead of one IC system evolving, you are saying that two IC systems evolved independently?

 

[createdtoworship]

Instead of one IC system evolving, you are saying that two IC systems evolved independently?

yes,

Moreover, Meng et al. (2011) report that Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon." The supplementary information document supplied with the paper covers this in more detail, noting:

In general, what have been interpreted as ear ossicles in Yanoconodon differ significantly from the middle ear elements of Liaoconodon. In Yanoconodon all ossicles are broken, fractured and displaced. These elements are embedded in the matrix and only their broken sections and impressions anre visible.

The element identified as the incus of Yanoconodon was considered similar to modern mammals in having a crus longum (stapedial process) and a crus breve (for basicranial articulation). This element is proportionally much smaller than that of Liaoconodon and shows a different morphology. The articular facet for the malleus is not clearly shown. Because only the impression of the element in Yanoconodon was illustrated, it is difficult to make any detail comparison with the incus of Liaoconodon.

The ectotympanic and its impression are probably preserved more completely in Yanoconodon; the outline of the element is similar to that of Liaoconodon. The dorsal crus of the ectotympanic and the prearticular element of the malleus in Yanoconodon was interpreted as being fused to each other and both are further connected (fused) anteriorly with the fossified Meckel's cartilage. This differs from the condition of Liaoconodon in which the ectotympanic, the malleus and the OMC are clearly not fused.

above from:
- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_the_evolutio062511.html#sthash.ZMVCK1x6.C7BVRd6u.dpuf

 

[Loudmouth]

yes,

Would you agree that IC systems are not evidence for design since they are produced by the process of evolution?

 

[createdtoworship]

Would you agree that IC systems are not evidence for design since they are produced by the process of evolution?

did you even read what I posted, or are you just going to ask another question thats baited?

 

[Loudmouth]

did you even read what I posted, or are you just going to ask another question thats baited?

Yes. It said that the mammalian middle ear evolved twice, independently. The mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex.

"The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage."

That is what YOUR reference stated.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes. It said that the mammalian middle ear evolved twice, independently. The mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex.

"The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage."

That is what YOUR reference stated.

it's a secular source yes and teh point of the clip was that " Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon."

so they can't compare, also:

it's circular reasoning to assume assent because of similarity:

"the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset"

-evolutionnews.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's a secular source yes and teh point of the clip was that " Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon."

so they can't compare, also:

it's circular reasoning to assume assent because of similarity:

"the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset"

-evolutionnews.com

"evolutionnews.com" is not a secular source. That is a publication of the Discovery Toot.

 

[Split Rock]

it's a secular source yes and teh point of the clip was that " Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon."

so they can't compare, also:

it's circular reasoning to assume assent because of similarity:

"the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset"

-evolutionnews.com

Common ancestry is not "presupposed," it is an inference supported by the physical data. Why don't you give us an explanation for both Liaconodon's and Yanoconodon's middle ear that does not make use of common ancestry.

 

[Loudmouth]

it's a secular source yes and teh point of the clip was that " Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon."

so they can't compare, also:

Why can't you compare middle ears that differ? Isn't that how you determine which parts are different, by comparing them?

it's circular reasoning to assume assent because of similarity:

It is not circular reasoning when the prediction is a nested hierarchy, not just simple similarity.

"the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset"

-evolutionnews.com

Flat denial of evidence is not an argument. Is your source saying that common descent will not produce a nested hierarchy of shared and derived features, or that mammals evolving from reptiles will not produce mammal-reptile transitionals? Creationists try to claim that the lack of transitionals falsifies evolution, yet when we point to the transitional fossils they no longer mean anything. It's a complete double standard.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why can't you compare middle ears that differ? Isn't that how you determine which parts are different, by comparing them?

below from evolution news.com

It is not circular reasoning when the prediction is a nested hierarchy, not just simple similarity.



Flat denial of evidence is not an argument. Is your source saying that common descent will not produce a nested hierarchy of shared and derived features, or that mammals evolving from reptiles will not produce mammal-reptile transitionals? Creationists try to claim that the lack of transitionals falsifies evolution, yet when we point to the transitional fossils they no longer mean anything. It's a complete double standard.

nested hierarchy is addressed as well:

"Furthermore, remember that a major prediction of the evolutionary narrative is the "nested hierarchy" phylogenetic pattern. Indeed, the supposed presence of this pattern is hailed by many as among the strongest lines of evidence pointing to common ancestry. But it's not quite as straightforward as that -- strong convergence (that is to say, the independent appearance of highly similar traits across multiple lineages) is a widespread phenomenon in biology. The methodology for inferring common descent is thus dependent on circular reasoning. If similarity can be accounted for with reference to common descent, then it is taken as evidence for common descent. On the other hand, if similarity cannot be accounted for with reference to common descent, it is evidence for convergent evolution. It's a typical "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" tactic. I have written about this topic more generally"

here:
Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem - Evolution News & Views

 

[mzungu]

nested hierarchy is addressed as well:

"Furthermore, remember that a major prediction of the evolutionary narrative is the "nested hierarchy" phylogenetic pattern. Indeed, the supposed presence of this pattern is hailed by many as among the strongest lines of evidence pointing to common ancestry. But it's not quite as straightforward as that -- strong convergence (that is to say, the independent appearance of highly similar traits across multiple lineages) is a widespread phenomenon in biology. The methodology for inferring common descent is thus dependent on circular reasoning. If similarity can be accounted for with reference to common descent, then it is taken as evidence for common descent. On the other hand, if similarity cannot be accounted for with reference to common descent, it is evidence for convergent evolution. It's a typical "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" tactic. I have written about this topic more generally"

here:
Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem - Evolution News & Views

Why do you insist on posting links from creationist sites? These sites have as much science in them as cartoon physics.

So far you have never given us any evidence for any of your claims. Don't you realise that creationist sites are pure quackery? The worst is that they try to hide behind scientific sounding names, and that is not only bearing false witness but is a sin if ever there was one.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do you insist on posting links from creationist sites? These sites have as much science in them as cartoon physics.

So far you have never given us any evidence for any of your claims. Don't you realise that creationist sites are pure quackery? The worst is that they try to hide behind scientific sounding names, and that is not only bearing false witness but is a sin if ever there was one.

thats poisoning the well, just because 1 or 2 creationist sites are unscientific, it does not mean that ID related sites are unscientific as well.

 

[mzungu]

thats poisoning the well, just because 1 or 2 creationist sites are unscientific, it does not mean that ID related sites are unscientific as well.

Show me one shred of evidence that is scientific that proves creationism (ID) to be correct. Just one.

All you do is attack ToE as if this proves creationism right.

Give us the evidence!

 

[EternalDragon]

Show me one shred of evidence that is scientific that proves creationism (ID) to be correct. Just one.

All you do is attack ToE as if this proves creationism right.

Give us the evidence!

How about the Genome using two different languages, on top of each other, that can be read simultaneously? It would be like writing an essay on a subject that can be read by a German and also a French person without changing the words. And knowing beforehand who is going to read it and structuring it as thus.

Genome Uses Two Languages Simultaneously; Try That Yourself Sometime, Why Don't You - Evolution News & Views

 

[mzungu]

How about the Genome using two different languages, on top of each other, that can be read simultaneously? It would be like writing an essay on a subject that can be read by a German and also a French person without changing the words. And knowing beforehand who is going to read it and structuring it as thus.

Genome Uses Two Languages Simultaneously; Try That Yourself Sometime, Why Don't You - Evolution News & Views

How is that evidence for creationism?

 

[bhsmte]

How is that evidence for creationism?

Didn't you know?

All material from evolution news and views is evidence for creation.

 

[EternalDragon]

How is that evidence for creationism?

Show me something that is written in two languages, on top of each other, that can be read simultaneously and understood by two different interpreters at the same time and show me how this was formulated before hand with no knowledge it would be needed as thus, by unintelligent agents, and then we can move forward.

Or is this another "We don't know yet because evolutiondidit" answers?

 

[kellhus]

How is that evidence for creationism?

It's just ignorance of basic cell biology.