The human ear. Product of Intelligent Design or mindless evolution?

[essentialsaltes]

What good is a pulsing ear drum without the three tiny bones behind it that use leverage to amplify the sound signal by a factor of 1.7 and connect to a water-charged cochlea filled with fluid?

A tympanal organ (or tympanic organ) is a hearing organ in insects, consisting of a tympanal membrane (tympanum) stretched across a frame backed by an air sac and associated sensory neurons.

Tympanal organs have evolved in at least seven different orders of insects. [3] Tympanal organs can occur in just about any part of the insect: the thorax, the base of the wing, the abdomen, the legs, etc., depending on the group of insects.

 

[Joseph G]

A tympanal organ (or tympanic organ) is a hearing organ in insects, consisting of a tympanal membrane (tympanum) stretched across a frame backed by an air sac and associated sensory neurons.

Tympanal organs have evolved in at least seven different orders of insects. [3] Tympanal organs can occur in just about any part of the insect: the thorax, the base of the wing, the abdomen, the legs, etc., depending on the group of insects.

Hallelujah, let's chew the fat then...

Interesting info. So... where are the pics of the prior insects with less evolved tympanal organs?

And why not go for broke, how about just one ancient human mummy or skeleton or fossilized body part with a prior-developed tympanic organ?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting info. So... where are the pics of the prior insects with less evolved tympanal organs?

Developmental and comparative studies have identified the evolutionary precursors of the tympanal chordotonal organs in several insects; they are uniformly chordotonal proprioceptors.

 

[eleos1954]

THE HEARING SYSTEM - NOT BY CHANCE!

Evolution is supposed to be a mindless, random process that takes place over millions of years. If this is the case, how did the human hearing system arise, with its five separate components that don’t function without the others? Five separate parts to our hearing system all work in unison to enable us to hear, and none of the five make any sense by themselves. What good is an outer ear (engineered for capturing sound waves) if there’s not an ear drum to capture the sound wave pulses? What good is a pulsing ear drum without the three tiny bones behind it that use leverage to amplify the sound signal by a factor of 1.7 and connect to a water-charged cochlea filled with fluid? The cochlea converts the mechanical leverage to a hydraulic system that amplifies the signal another 22 times. And what good is all of this without the 20,000 tiny hair cells (stereocilia) inside the cochlea that convert the fluid movement into an electrochemical signal that we can immediately comprehend as speech?

Creationists see this as an intentional design by a Divine Creator. Evolutionists see this as the result of time + chance + mutuations + natural selection. Which explanation makes more sense? What creature would have devoted its genes and energies to crafting non-functional ear parts for generations while it waited for the fifth precision part to spontaneously appear?

View attachment 355623

Matthew 13:9-16 NIV

"Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear."

Great complexity in life forms ... the idea of complex order happening randomly to me is illogical regardless of how much time passes.

If we take the "chicken and the egg" scenario ... if the egg came first then how did it survive until it had the ability to survive on it's own? Likely theories for that .....

Does Order dome from chaos?

Embedded in the modern understanding of emergence from complex systems is the notion that the order that creates the emergent behavior is or can come from randomness. Put another way order can spontaneously arise from chaos. In fact, chaos destroys order, rather than building it up.

It's a "notion" ... Seems like illogical thought to me. Something from nothing over "time"?

As it is written ....

Psalms 139:14

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Time is the major pillar of evolution theory ... time is an illusion ... if an intelligent mind don't exist then time don't exist.

A philosophical perspective that views time as a construct largely dependent on an observer's perception and interpretation, suggesting that without an intelligent mind to perceive and measure time's passage, it wouldn't meaningfully exist; essentially, "time is an illusion created by the mind.".

How long was a "year" before there was an intelligent mind? How long was a "year" before planet earth "evolved"?

There are many unanswerable questions in evolution theory ... as such ... it will remain a theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are many unanswerable questions in evolution theory ... as such ... it will remain a theory.

You've been told multiple times what a theory is and what a theory isn't. At this point, you're just being willfully disingenuous. Not a good look for anyone.

 

[BCP1928]

Then quit farting around. Address those misrepresentations point by point, and also take up the challenge to explain what you plainly observe and how it can be anything other than awe-inspiring and guide you to understand it's Source. Let's engage!

OK, sure. Keep in mind, though, that my awe is already inspired and my understanding of the ultimate source is based on faith, not science.

Evolution is supposed to be a mindless, random process

Evolution is not a "random process" it is a biological process with a randomizing element and non-random results. I am assuming that you are using the scientific definition of "random" here rather than the definition of popular speech which is generally "without cause or purpose." Sometimes creationists equivocate those two definitions as a rhetorical strategy.

Creationists see this as an intentional design by a Divine Creator. Evolutionists see this as the result of time + chance + mutuations + natural selection. Which explanation makes more sense?

The explanations are compatible with one another so one is not forced to choose between them. The presence of a designer is unfalsifiable and cannot be ruled out empirically. The metaphysical basis for this dates from the time of Aristotle and has been part of Traditional Christian theology since the Middle Ages.

What creature would have devoted its genes and energies to crafting non-functional ear parts for generations while it waited for the fifth precision part to spontaneously appear?

No creature. The theory of evolution does not propose or require any such thing. The parallel evolution of related features is actually an interesting phenomenon, if you wanted to look into it. For the time being, just consider that the selective environment to which the feature is exposed includes not only the environment external to the creature, but the related evolving features as well.

 

[Joseph G]

Developmental and comparative studies have identified the evolutionary precursors of the tympanal chordotonal organs in several insects; they are uniformly chordotonal proprioceptors.

Ok, checked out the site, interesting info.

Question: between chordotonal proprioceptors and tempanal organs, where is the evidence of any observable stages of development in between?Got pics?

Or are we just supposed to take the word of these researchers on... faith?

At least another site was a bit more honest and stated that one was "considered" the precursor to the other.

But again, in this, and in the broader typical preaching of evolutionary theory, anything less than observable, ah hem, science, doesn't cut it. Razzle dazzle doesn't impress everyone.

Also, still left unaddressed is the incredible interdependence between all the elements involved, not just one organ.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok, checked out the site, interesting info.

Question: between chordotonal proprioceptors and tempanal organs, where is the evidence of any observable stages of development in between?Got pics?

Or are we just supposed to take the word of these researchers on... faith?

At least another site was a bit more honest and stated that one was "considered" the precursor to the other.

But again, in this, and in the broader typical preaching of evolutionary theory, anything less than observable, ah hem, science, doesn't cut it. Razzle dazzle doesn't impress everyone.

Also, still left unaddressed is the incredible interdependence between all the elements involved, not just one organ.

They evolved together, exerting selection pressure on one another as they evolved.

 

[Joseph G]

OK, sure. Keep in mind, though, that my awe is already inspired and my understanding of the ultimate source is based on faith, not science.




Evolution is not a "random process" it is a biological process with a randomizing element and non-random results. I am assuming that you are using the scientific definition of "random" here rather than the definition of popular speech which is generally "without cause or purpose." Sometimes creationists equivocate those two definitions as a rhetorical strategy.

The explanations are compatible with one another so one is not forced to choose between them. The presence of a designer is unfalsifiable and cannot be ruled out empirically. The metaphysical basis for this dates from the time of Aristotle and has been part of Traditional Christian theology since the Middle Ages.

No creature. The theory of evolution does not propose or require any such thing. The parallel evolution of related features is actually an interesting phenomenon, if you wanted to look into it. For the time being, just consider that the selective environment to which the feature is exposed includes not only the environment external to the creature, but the related evolving features as well.

As expressed elsewhere, all this still doesn't account for WHY these elements came to a state of incredible interdependence such that the greater objective was achieved - hearing. What were they all doing prior, waiting around hoping they would be useful to a greater cause one day?

I would think it a greater miracle for specimens of tissue and cartilage and hair follicles to somehow communicate with each other along the way so they could jointly fulfill their destiny upon maturation.

A Creator God as their source is infinitely more logical. And again, lacking ANY observable evidence to the contrary, created complete at a specific point in time - reproducing exactly as the Bible states - after its own kind.

Observable. Repeatable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What were they all doing prior, waiting around hoping they would be useful to a greater cause one day?

Exaptation or co-option is a shift in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another. Exaptations are common in both anatomy and behaviour.

--

Developmental and comparative studies have identified the evolutionary precursors of the tympanal chordotonal organs in several insects; they are uniformly chordotonal proprioceptors.

--

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles was an evolutionary process that resulted in the formation of the bones of the mammalian middle ear. These bones, or ossicles, are a defining characteristic of all mammals. The event is well-documented[1] and important[2][3]as a demonstration of transitional forms and exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.[4]

 

[Zaha Torte]

As the very next post says. The topic of the thread and sub-forum is science, not religion, and I already told you it was because this is not about theology.

Interesting that the account of the Creation should not be considered in a discussion about Creation - but whatever.

 

[Joseph G]

Exaptation or co-option is a shift in the function of a trait during evolution. For example, a trait can evolve because it served one particular function, but subsequently it may come to serve another. Exaptations are common in both anatomy and behaviour.

--

Developmental and comparative studies have identified the evolutionary precursors of the tympanal chordotonal organs in several insects; they are uniformly chordotonal proprioceptors.

--

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles was an evolutionary process that resulted in the formation of the bones of the mammalian middle ear. These bones, or ossicles, are a defining characteristic of all mammals. The event is well-documented[1] and important[2][3]as a demonstration of transitional forms and exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.[4]

Not a word observable and repeatable. And you still got the problem of said feathers, deciding by their own initiative, to switch from one function to another. Preposterous!

I'm old enough to remember when they said our little toes would shrivel up and fall off one day. Still waiting...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And you still got the problem of said feathers, deciding by their own initiative, to switch from one function to another.

What a truly odd comment to say. That's not how evolution works at all, and not even the most ardent creationist would say such a bizarre thing. Things do not choose to evolve in certain ways.

 

[BCP1928]

As expressed elsewhere, all this still doesn't account for WHY these elements came to a state of incredible interdependence such that the greater objective was achieved - hearing. What were they all doing prior, waiting around hoping they would be useful to a greater cause one day?

I would think it a greater miracle for specimens of tissue and cartilage and hair follicles to somehow communicate with each other along the way so they could jointly fulfill their destiny upon maturation.

A Creator God as their source is infinitely more logical. And again, lacking ANY observable evidence to the contrary, created complete at a specific point in time - reproducing exactly as the Bible states - after its own kind.

Observable. Repeatable.

They communicate with one another by exchanging information. That's how selection works. That's how the biosphere works, if you want to use that paradigm. The biosphere is a realm of interconnected stochastic processes with, in total, enough information processing capacity to account for the appearance of design you observe.

 

[Joseph G]

What a truly odd comment to say. That's not how evolution works at all, and not even the most ardent creationist would say such a bizarre thing. Things do not choose to evolve in certain ways.

Er, that's what the theory has been preaching consistently as adaptation since it's inception. Or has that been redefined now?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Er, that's what the theory has been preaching consistently as adaptation since it's inception. Or has that been redefined now?

That's not what the theory of evolution says AT ALL. There is no conscious effort on the part of organisms, or even parts of organisms, to evolve in certain ways. Evolution is merely the name given to biological reaction to changes in environmental pressures.

Whoever told you that was how evolution went outright lied to you since there's no way anyone of any intelligence would make that sort of mistake.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Feathers are incapable of deciding.

 

[BCP1928]

They communicate with one another by exchanging information. That's how selection works. That's how the biosphere works, if you want to use that paradigm. The biosphere is a realm of interconnected stochastic processes with, in total, enough information processing capacity to account for the appearance of design you observe.

But do you really care how it all works? Suppose we could convince you that the theory of evolution was plausible and reasonably well evidenced.
Would that change your beliefs about the Bible? That's a serious question, BTW, not a rhetorical stunt. See, I was raised and still am a Traditional Christian. When the theory of evolution was presented to me as plausible and reasonably well evidenced I didn't have to change my religious beliefs to accept it as such. I don't know how I would have responded if it had threatened them.

 

[Joseph G]

They communicate with one another by exchanging information. That's how selection works. That's how the biosphere works, if you want to use that paradigm. The biosphere is a realm of interconnected stochastic processes with, in total, enough information processing capacity to account for the appearance of design you observe.

Yes, they exchange, by design. What they cannot do is plan the future through such exchange. That takes... a mind - not an "appearance" of a mind.

For that matter, they would not survive to exchange or grow at all in any direction unless they were supported by nutrients supplied by blood supplied by a beating heart supplied by - every breath given by the breath of God - using oxygen supplied by an even greater creation which exists on the most improbable and delicate threads of existence.

Ah... sometimes it's good to look up from the microscope and appreciate that ALL creation is incredibly interconnected and co-dependent. One would think it would all humble a guy, but for some, alas...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's the main nub with the creationist argument:
It's one thing to CLAIM design, but it's a whole other thing to SHOW design.
And here is also where the creationist argument fails, since creationists always say that ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING is a product of design. So how can we test for design then? What's the outlier? What's the negative?

If everything is designed, then nothing is designed.