|The whole truth
Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (Freddie @ July 25 2012,23:58)|
|ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.|
|Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,|
|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.|
It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.
Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing. The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.
Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
|There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.|
"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry."
Somebody better tell joe g, stat! After all, he, as a card carrying spokesIDiot for ID, says a lot about common ancestry/descent (as do many or all other IDiots) and he says that "ID is OK with common descent" (when he's not arguing against common descent or is redefining it as common design of course).
Like with joey, the other IDiots are obviously "OK" with common descent but they're also "OK" with no common descent. The bottom line is that as long as 'God-did-it' can be crammed into something, they're OK with it.
Oh, and the "hypothesis of design"? WHAT hypothesis?
"ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so."
The pink unicorn 'hypothesis' does, however, open up the possibility that pink unicorns can fly, perhaps gracefully so.
That IDiot did say one things that's true. They're "Darwin critics". It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", scientists, science, the ToE, etc. They have NO positive evidence for ID. To them, absolutely nothing could or would "invalidate" their "position". Their delusional, arrogant minds are already made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any effect on them.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27