'Gill slits' = 'ear holes'???

[tas8831]

Sometimes I search old threads - usually to see if a creationist's claims are original or not (often, they are not) and if so, how were they dealt with before.

Mark seems to really want me to 'debate' his claims about the supposed 'overnight, 3-fold expansion of the brain', but I had read some of those claims before in older threads and knew it would be a waste of time. So a a few minutes ago, I re-searched some of those old threads, and came across some whoppers.

Here, for example, a couple folks were having a side discussion on Haeckel, when Mark jumps in:

"The oxygen and everything else the embryo needs comes through the umbilical cord. What you are calling gills are actually ear holes at an early stage of development. The argument is absurd."

He expands on this a few posts later:

"They don't look like gills, they never work like gills, they become ears later in development. Recapitulation never stands up to close scrutiny. Those are not gills, they never process anything and they ultimately become ears. Study a little real embryology and start making sense. "

Now, it is not an issue for me that he clearly does not understand embryological development. But what amazes me is his supreme confidence in his 99% erroneous assertion, to the point at which he finished up with "Study a little real embryology and start making sense."

That is Dunning-Kruger, written across the sky in 10 mile tall letters.


The development of the ears has little to do with the 'gill slits' (which are not gill slits, not even in fish - they are the pharyngeal arches or apparatus):

The thing in the circle is the otic pit, the primordium of the ear. To the left of it are the 'gill slits.' Close proximity, but the pharyngeal arches are NOT 'ear holes'. Some individual parts of the ear are derived from a couple of the arches, but it is not at all correct that the arches are or become the 'ear holes'.

The pharyngeal apparatus develops in ALL vertebrate embryos. In fish, they DO give rise to gills (but the 'slits' themselves are not gills - not until later) and some structures in the head. In mammals, they become parts of the face and neck.

To say that they become the ears is something someone needing to study a little real embryology and start making sense should do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It might be in reference of the fact that two of the bones of the middle ear, the incus and malleus, do form from tissue in the mesoderm of the pharyngeal arches in humans, as well as some of the ear muscles.

You are right in that the outer ear portions aren't derived from this tissue, though.

 

[LickedByaDog]

If you think thats crazy check out all the flat earth stuff down on the conspiracy section lol.

 

[tas8831]

It might be in reference of the fact that two of the bones of the middle ear, the incus and malleus, do form from tissue in the mesoderm of the pharyngeal arches in humans, as well as some of the ear muscles.

You are right in that the outer ear portions aren't derived from this tissue, though.

I am also right that 'the gill slits' are not 'ear holes.'

"What you are calling gills are actually ear holes at an early stage of development. "

 

[omega2xx]

Sometimes I search old threads - usually to see if a creationist's claims are original or not (often, they are not) and if so, how were they dealt with before.

Mark seems to really want me to 'debate' his claims about the supposed 'overnight, 3-fold expansion of the brain', but I had read some of those claims before in older threads and knew it would be a waste of time. So a a few minutes ago, I re-searched some of those old threads, and came across some whoppers.

Here, for example, a couple folks were having a side discussion on Haeckel, when Mark jumps in:

"The oxygen and everything else the embryo needs comes through the umbilical cord. What you are calling gills are actually ear holes at an early stage of development. The argument is absurd."

He expands on this a few posts later:

"They don't look like gills, they never work like gills, they become ears later in development. Recapitulation never stands up to close scrutiny. Those are not gills, they never process anything and they ultimately become ears. Study a little real embryology and start making sense. "

Now, it is not an issue for me that he clearly does not understand embryological development. But what amazes me is his supreme confidence in his 99% erroneous assertion, to the point at which he finished up with "Study a little real embryology and start making sense."

That is Dunning-Kruger, written across the sky in 10 mile tall letters.


The development of the ears has little to do with the 'gill slits' (which are not gill slits, not even in fish - they are the pharyngeal arches or apparatus):

The thing in the circle is the otic pit, the primordium of the ear. To the left of it are the 'gill slits.' Close proximity, but the pharyngeal arches are NOT 'ear holes'. Some individual parts of the ear are derived from a couple of the arches, but it is not at all correct that the arches are or become the 'ear holes'.

The pharyngeal apparatus develops in ALL vertebrate embryos. In fish, they DO give rise to gills (but the 'slits' themselves are not gills - not until later) and some structures in the head. In mammals, they become parts of the face and neck.

To say that they become the ears is something someone needing to study a little real embryology and start making sense should do.

What is absdure id believeing a gill caN B ECOME AN EAR HOLE/

Sometimes I search old threads - usually to see if a creationist's claims are original or not (often, they are not) and if so, how were they dealt with before.

Mark seems to really want me to 'debate' his claims about the supposed 'overnight, 3-fold expansion of the brain', but I had read some of those claims before in older threads and knew it would be a waste of time. So a a few minutes ago, I re-searched some of those old threads, and came across some whoppers.

Here, for example, a couple folks were having a side discussion on Haeckel, when Mark jumps in:

"The oxygen and everything else the embryo needs comes through the umbilical cord. What you are calling gills are actually ear holes at an early stage of development. The argument is absurd."

He expands on this a few posts later:

"They don't look like gills, they never work like gills, they become ears later in development. Recapitulation never stands up to close scrutiny. Those are not gills, they never process anything and they ultimately become ears. Study a little real embryology and start making sense. "

Now, it is not an issue for me that he clearly does not understand embryological development. But what amazes me is his supreme confidence in his 99% erroneous assertion, to the point at which he finished up with "Study a little real embryology and start making sense."

That is Dunning-Kruger, written across the sky in 10 mile tall letters.


The development of the ears has little to do with the 'gill slits' (which are not gill slits, not even in fish - they are the pharyngeal arches or apparatus):

The thing in the circle is the otic pit, the primordium of the ear. To the left of it are the 'gill slits.' Close proximity, but the pharyngeal arches are NOT 'ear holes'. Some individual parts of the ear are derived from a couple of the arches, but it is not at all correct that the arches are or become the 'ear holes'.

The pharyngeal apparatus develops in ALL vertebrate embryos. In fish, they DO give rise to gills (but the 'slits' themselves are not gills - not until later) and some structures in the head. In mammals, they become parts of the face and neck.

To say that they become the ears is something someone needing to study a little real embryology and start making sense should do.

What is absurd believing gills become ear holes. They both have specific, unrelated functions.

It is an issue for me when someone dogmatically says something that is refuted by proven genetics. All characteristics in the offspring must come from the gene pool of the parents. No gene for ear holes, no ear holes. A bene for gills, will always end up as gills.

If you think a picture is scientific evidence, you need to take a basic course in genetics.

 

[Speedwell]

What is absdure id believeing a gill caN B ECOME AN EAR HOLE/


What is absurd believing gills become ear holes. They both have specific, unrelated functions.

It is an issue for me when someone dogmatically says something that is refuted by proven genetics. All characteristics in the offspring must come from the gene pool of the parents. No gene for ear holes, no ear holes. A bene for gills, will always end up as gills.

If you think a picture is scientific evidence, you need to take a basic course in genetics.

Can you look at the human genome sequence and point out the "ear hole gene?"

 

[tas8831]

What is absdure id believeing a gill caN B ECOME AN EAR HOLE/

Yes - that is what the creationist proposed.

Crazy, isn't it?

What is absurd believing gills become ear holes. They both have specific, unrelated functions.

I see that you did not read what you are responding to.

It is an issue for me when someone dogmatically says something that is refuted by proven genetics. All characteristics in the offspring must come from the gene pool of the parents. No gene for ear holes, no ear holes. A bene for gills, will always end up as gills.

If you think a picture is scientific evidence, you need to take a basic course in genetics.

I suggest you get some rest, then re-read the post you are replying to and realize that your comments were off topic and laughably irrelevant.

 

[tas8831]

Can you look at the human genome sequence and point out the "ear hole gene?"

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[omega2xx]

Yes - that is what the creationist proposed.

Crazy, isn't it?


I see that you did not read what you are responding to.


I suggest you get some rest, then re-read the post you are replying to and realize that your comments were off topic and laughably irrelevant.

I suggest you explain how it happens.

 

[Jimmy D]

I suggest you explain how it happens.

How what happens?

 

[omega2xx]

Can you look at the human genome sequence and point out the "ear hole gene?"

Irrelevant---no gene for an ear hole, no ear hole. That is basic genetics.

How what happens?

How the gill of a fish becomes the ear hole of a land animal or how how the ear hole of a land animal becomes the gills of a fish.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How the gill of a fish becomes the ear hole of a land animal or how how the ear hole of a land animal becomes the gills of a fish.

They don't.

Next?

 

[Jimmy D]

Irrelevant---no gene for an ear hole, no ear hole. That is basic genetics.


How the gill of a fish becomes the ear hole of a land animal or how how the ear hole of a land animal becomes the gills of a fish.

 

[tas8831]

I suggest you explain how it happens.

You clarify this in respopnse to Jimmy:

"How the gill of a fish becomes the ear hole of a land animal or how how the ear hole of a land animal becomes the gills of a fish."


I specifically said that this is what your fellow creationist wrote, not any of us.

It does not happen, I never said it did, no evolutionist ever said it did.

It was a CREATIONIST.

Please re-read the relevant posts, and I will eagerly await your apology.

 

[Jimmy D]

You clarify this in respopnse to Jimmy:

"How the gill of a fish becomes the ear hole of a land animal or how how the ear hole of a land animal becomes the gills of a fish."


I specifically said that this is what your fellow creationist wrote, not any of us.

It does not happen, I never said it did, no evolutionist ever said it did.

It was a CREATIONIST.

Please re-read the relevant posts, and I will eagerly await your apology.

Don't worry, I was fully up to speed with the gist of everyone's posts.... unlike some.

(I am guilty of encouraging a certain poster of digging his own hole a bit deeper though).

 

[tas8831]

(I am guilty of encouraging a certain poster of digging his own hole a bit deeper though).

As fate would have it, that does not seem to require much effort around here...

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am also right that 'the gill slits' are not 'ear holes.'

"What you are calling gills are actually ear holes at an early stage of development. "

Well, yeah, they start out as pharyngeal arches in both humans and fish, but only become gill slits in fish.

Funnily enough, though, the auditory canal isn't derived from these arches in the first place, so the creationist got the wrong part of the ear.

 

[tas8831]

Well, yeah, they start out as pharyngeal arches in both humans and fish, but only become gill slits in fish.

Funnily enough, though, the auditory canal isn't derived from these arches in the first place, so the creationist got the wrong part of the ear.

Thats what they do - they get things wrong.

We all do, of course - the difference is creationists cannot seem to accept that they made a mistake.

 

[Ophiolite]

Those creationists with a leaning towards Intelligent Design like to talk about specificity. This is ironic, as one of the great weaknesses of creationist argument is the notable lack of specificity in their arguments, the absence of sound definitions, the ambiguity of terms, etc. I offer their cladistic masterpiece of "kinds" as the type example. The creationist quoted in the OP appears to have fallen victim to the same issue.

 

[Job 33:6]

Can you look at the human genome sequence and point out the "ear hole gene?"

This is great, lol.