Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Kokavkrystallos]

What is this obsession creos have with " fully formed"?
Do you imagine creatures with half a wing?
2/3 of a jaw?

In what way could the creature in question
have a not- fully- formed jaw?

It articulates in two places. One in reptile position
the other, mammal. You managed it miss that?




As for " sounds like "-
Sounds like a bit of dishonestly selective quoting
on your part.

I didn't miss that. But that doesn't mean it evolved that way, or that it evolved into something other than a jaw. The Platypus is such an enigma, being an egg laying mammal. There are some very odd creatures in creation, which the Creator blessed us with. The sheer variety and beauty of the myriads of different types of life attest to that.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Nobody observed Mt kilimanjaro forming. So no reason to think it's a volcano. Right?
Your logic.



Stil less, brw, basis for your so- called "Noah".
Actually, zero.

Your chosen way to read,btw, does not mean that
the theory of evolution. Is thought of as fact except by the ignorant

Volcanoes are observable, as we have seen them erupt. Volcanoes produce lava, which will be found as lava rock in an extinct or dormant volcano we have not seen erupt.
The genealogy of Noah comes down to Jesus who is a historical person. The Hebrews were meticulous about their genealogies. As for the ark, there are some discoveries that are speculated to be the ark, but I'll agree for now no definitive proof absolute. I take by faith there was.

 

[Ophiolite]

Even if so, and I don't doubt that it is,

This was you expressing doubt that this caveat was implicit in the Britania article:
"Extensive research of mammalian fossils, that is beyond the scope of this article, has revealed that . .these bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals"
Personal incredulity is not a strong debating position. That implicit remark is wholly consistent with both scientific methodology and the manner in which scientific findings are presented in the better scientific journals and textbooks. If you are going to reject it you need to bring more to the table than an unsupported opinion.

empirical science has to be based on observable fact, and we would have to ask Adam, or Noah in such a case, since the poor little critters are now extinct.

Empirical science is based upon observations and relationships, processes etc. inferred from those observations.

No one has OBSERVED the theorized transition of bones "evolving" to become middle ear bones.

There is form of child's puzzle where the child is required to connect a sequence of numbered dots. When complete this will reveal an outline of a train, a teddy bear, or a vase of flowers. Grown ups, with proper training, dedication, critical thinking and sound intelligence can connect the dots they find in nature even when they are not clearly numbered.
When palaeontologists and anatomists observe a series of anatomical features that appear to form a related sequence, and this finding is corroborated by multiple studies, by diverse individuals, then we reach a point that it would be fatuous to declare that evolution from A to B was not all but proven. (That conclusion always being provisional, subject to the potential emergence of new evidence, or a very well structured counter interpretation of the existing evidence.)

These bones evolved to become" as if it an established OBSERVED fact, which it is not.

It is established beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not reasonable and is based upon pre-judgement that evolution is not real. I suspect that you arrived at this view as an aspect of your faith. I cannot argue with that. By all means deny evolution has occurred, but please acknowledge that this is your belief despite the evidence, rather than making flawed arguments against the evidence.

 

[NxNW]

The genealogy of Noah comes down to Jesus who is a historical person.

I doubt the historicity of both of them.

The Hebrews were meticulous about their genealogies.

What's the date of the resurrection again?

As for the ark, there are some discoveries that are speculated to be the ark, but I'll agree for now no definitive proof absolute. I take by faith there was.

So evidence isn't necessary in the first place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm going to take the volcano claim since I spent the morning watching one erupt.

Volcanoes are observable, as we have seen them erupt. Volcanoes produce lava, which will be found as lava rock in an extinct or dormant volcano we have not seen erupt.

Volcanoes *are* observable, but no person keeping a historical record observed Kilimanjaro erupt. It looks like some volcanoes that are seen to erupt, but geological studies put the last eruption near the "dawn of man" about 150-200 thousand years ago. The identification of Kilimanjaro as a volcano rests on not just the "look" of the mountain, but the identification of the rocks as being those newly created by other volcanoes erupting and the lack of rocks never found in volcanoes (sandstone, limestone, mudstone, etc.).

Geologists can reconstruct the eruptive history of Kilimanjaro because they can make detailed measurements of the rocks, their ages, and their distribution on the mountain. Beyond just this one mountain, geologists use the evidence shown in the rocks to identify the environments that deposited each rock formation and when deposition took place. They can tell the difference between sand dunes and beaches, wind-blown sediments and alluvial deposits, etc.

The same sort of logical inferences used to recreated past conditions and depositions by geologists are used by other scientists studying things that can't be strictly recreated (ie, the past) in areas such as paleontology, archeology, cosmology, etc.

 

[Astrid]

I doubt the historicity of both of them.

What's the date of the resurrection again?

So evidence isn't necessary in the first place.

Actually it is very undesireable

 

[BCP1928]

Actually it is very undesireable

And inappropriate for religious beliefs in any case..

 

[Astrophile]

It's cute! I want one.

View attachment 344162

From what I looked at the jaw is fully formed. It may appear transitional, but where are transitions?

"In true mammals, one jaw joint is formed by the squared bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw. In other tetrapods, the location of this joint is determined by the intersection of the quadrate bone above and the articular bone below. In Diarthrognathus, both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals." - Britanica

The last statement is speculative.

"both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. (Therefore, because of this, we assume,) These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals"

Sounds like a non sequitur fallacy, which in college they told us never to include in any of our essays.

What other explanation for Diarthrognathus is there besides that of an evolutionary transition? This is the most important question; please answer it even if you ignore the rest of this post.

According to Diarthrognathus - Wikipedia , Diarthrognathus (which lived during the Early Jurassic period) had a primitive jaw joint located between the quadrate and articular bones and a derived, mammalian jaw joint located between the squamosal and dentary bones.

Diarthrognathus must have had ancestors*, but earlier cynodonts that could have been its ancestors do not have the derived mammalian jaw joint; it therefore follows that this joint must have been an evolutionary innovation. Therefore Diarthrognathus must be part of an evolutionary transition between the earlier primitive jaw joint and the later, derived mammalian jaw joint.

*If you deny that Diarthrognathus had ancestors, you have to explain how it could have come into existence without them. (Don't say 'spontaneous generation'; that was disproved during the 19th century.)

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

What other explanation for Diarthrognathus is there besides that of an evolutionary transition? This is the most important question; please answer it even if you ignore the rest of this post.

According to Diarthrognathus - Wikipedia , Diarthrognathus (which lived during the Early Jurassic period) had a primitive jaw joint located between the quadrate and articular bones and a derived, mammalian jaw joint located between the squamosal and dentary bones.

Diarthrognathus must have had ancestors*, but earlier cynodonts that could have been its ancestors do not have the derived mammalian jaw joint; it therefore follows that this joint must have been an evolutionary innovation. Therefore Diarthrognathus must be part of an evolutionary transition between the earlier primitive jaw joint and the later, derived mammalian jaw joint.

*If you deny that Diarthrognathus had ancestors, you have to explain how it could have come into existence without them. (Don't say 'spontaneous generation'; that was disproved during the 19th century.)

No, not spontaneous generation. But Diarthrognathus was originally created after its kind with all other animals. There were not "earlier" Cynodonts. Diarthrognathus has a unique jaw structure, which only shows the wonderful diversity of the created fauna.

This article is interesting. It is 1994, but states this in it:
"Perhaps the most famous cynodont is Diarthrognathus broomi (Crompton 1958), one of a group of cynodonts known as ictidosaurs or tritheledontids. The name means "two joint jaw": reptiles and mammals have entirely different jaw suspensions, so it has long been realised that at some stage a mammalian ancestor must have existed in which both types of joint were present. Diarthrognathus was considered by Crompton to represent that stage, but such is not the case (Gow 1981). The honours belong instead to the very earliest mammals, such as Morganucodon."

New find of Diarthrognathus (Therapsida: Cynodontia) after seventy years - CORE Reader

core.ac.uk

So there's a scholarly article refuting the claims that it's a transitional creature. Instead they pick an entirely different creature, and this one is absolutely adorable! What I've read about Morganucodon is that it's a mammal....
Aw...it's so cute!

"The teeth grew in mammalian fashion, with deciduous teeth being replaced by permanent teeth that were retained throughout the rest of the animal's life.[19] The combination of rapid growth in juveniles and a toothless stage at infancy strongly suggests that Morganucodon raised its young by lactation; indeed, it may have been among the first animals to do so.[20] The molars in the adult had a series of raised humps and edges that fit into each other, allowing for efficient chewing. However, unlike the situation in most later mammals, the upper and lower molars did not occlude properly when they first met; as they wore against each other, however, their shapes were modified by wear to produce a precise fit.[21]"

 

[Psalm 27]

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

??

I find discussion about these ancient creatures fascinating.
How can you not fall in love with this cute little guy? It's the epitome of cuteness! It's too bad they went extinct.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you not fall in love with this cute little guy?

QV please: Behold the Terrible Lizard!

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

QV please: Behold the Terrible Lizard!

Aw....it frightened me so much...the horror of the lizard!

You remembered a thread from 4 years ago, nice!

 

[AV1611VET]

Aw....it frightened me so much...the horror of the lizard!

You remembered a thread from 4 years ago, nice!

Thanks.

It's a joke, actually.

Since "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard," and since birds are considered "avian dinosaurs" on paper, I thought I'd inject a little satire in there.

 

[Larniavc]

The honours belong instead to the very earliest mammals, such as Morganucodon

So that is the transitional form. Interesting.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Thanks.

It's a joke, actually.

Since "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard," and since birds are considered "avian dinosaurs" on paper, I thought I'd inject a little satire in there.

I knew exactly what you intended, as evolutionists think dinosaurs evolved somehow into birds....on paper anyways.

Larniavc, the academic paper suggested that creature was transitional. It really wasn't. They appear to be grasping at straws...eh, grasping at JAWS...LoL

"Morganucodon (‘Glamorgan tooth’) is a mammalian genus which supposedly lived during the Late Triassic. According to evolutionists it first appeared about 205 million years ago. It was small, with a skull only 2–3 cm in length and is believed to have looked like a shrew or mouse. Morganucodon is represented by abundant and well preserved, though in the vast majority of cases, disarticulated, material. Most of this came from Glamorgan, in Wales (Morganucodon watsoni), but fossils have also been found in the Yunnan province in China (Morganucodon oehleri).

The skull of Morganucodon A detailed description of the skull published in 19814 is a key publication which is widely quoted. Diagrams from this paper are repeatedly redrawn as evidence of a transitional stage in the evolution of the mammalian jaw and ear bones. However, it should be noted that the skull was damaged, and the jaw joint and ear bones were not attached. The jaw joint of Morganucodon Morganucodon is claimed to have had a double jaw joint; that is, both a dentary-squamosal (mammalian) joint and a quadrate-articular (reptilian) joint, which were side by side. However, key parts were missing or disarticulated. The complete lower jaw (dentary) was missing from this specimen and only partial dentary bones have been found. Furthermore, the squamosal, quadrate and articular were not attached, a complete squamosal bone has never been found and all were damaged. Therefore, key parts of the double jaw joint were inferred.

The supposed double jaw joint is shown in figure 3, which is based on figure 91 from reference 4. Only part of the stapes (yellow) was recovered. The quadratojugal (pink) was never recovered. In addition, the authors write that “the correct orientation of the squamosal was difficult”, which makes their interpretation of the dentary-squamosal joint somewhat subjective. The quadratojugal bone having never been found presents a very serious problem. Yet the authors stated that “its existence is certain from the presence of the facets on the quadrate and the squamosal with which it articulated” [emphasis added]. They go on to write that “The quadratojugal formed the main articulation between the quadrate complex and the squamosal.” It is noteworthy that later publications, which include diagrams redrawn from the publication, simply omit the quadratojugal, while at the same time maintaining that Morganucodon had a double jaw joint.

The fact that the reconstruction was based on the belief in the existence of the missing quadratojugal and that it linked the quadrate and squamosal adds to the doubts about the position of the squamosal and seriously undermines the idea of the double jaw joint. If only the quadrate is involved in the proposed joint, this requires a more robust articulation between the quadrate and the articular, which would have limited its movement and consequently reduced the effectiveness as part of the middle ear. However, there is a more serious problem because the quadrate is not large enough to fill the gap between the stapes and the squamosal. Neither can it completely articulate with the articular, which reportedly has two facets, one for the quadrate and another for the quadratojugal. Simply increasing the length of the stapes doesn’t help either, because the dorsal lamina of the quadrate has to fit into the quadrate notch of the squamosal. Not to mention that this would require a rather long stapes, which would be unusual.

The question of what the second facet on the articular connects with remains unanswered. All of these problems with the joint between the quadrate and articular are good reasons to conclude that Morganucodon had a mammalian jaw joint between the dentary and squamosal alone and calls into question the nature of the quadrate. The middle ear of Morganucodon The questions raised above also have an impact on the claim that Morganucodon had a mandibular middle ear involving the quadrate, which functioned simultaneously as major problem is the lack of fossil evidence for the reflected lamina of the angular and the manubrium; this is enough to cast doubt on the whole idea of a mandibular eardrum. There is also the question of the gap between the quadrate and the squamosal, which suggests that if the quadrate was part of the jaw joint it had to be larger than the bone which had been identified as the quadrate, which in turn calls into question the effectiveness of sound transmission through such a large bone. The whole middle ear assembly is essentially guesswork!"

https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p137/c13759/j34-3_95-98.pdf

(Sorry Psalm 27 ..... )

 

[sfs]

“George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be fiction, or is it supposed to be an actual molecular biologist lying about other biologists?

 

[Astrid]

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be fiction, or is it supposed to be an actual molecular biologist lying about other biologists?

It's probably a parody of creationists

 

[Hans Blaster]

??

I find discussion about these ancient creatures fascinating.
How can you not fall in love with this cute little guy? It's the epitome of cuteness! It's too bad they went extinct.

View attachment 344248

Looks like the size of a chipmunk. It would have a hard time surviving in a world with domestic cats...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be fiction, or is it supposed to be an actual molecular biologist lying about other biologists?

The whole thing seems invented by the "journalist" who reported it.