The lunacy of the Darwinists

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. This story, posted online at illustrates the lunacy of the Darwinists, and those who follow them.

    Yahoo! News
    Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

    Bjorn Carey
    LiveScience Staff Writer
    LiveScience.comThu Jan 19, 9:00 AM ET

    Your ability to hear relies on a structure that got its start as a gill opening in fish, a new study reveals.

    Humans and other land animals have special bones in their ears that are crucial to hearing. Ancient fish used similar structures to breathe underwater.

    Scientists had thought the evolutionary change occurred after animals had established themselves on land, but a new look at an old fossil suggests ear development was set into motion before any creatures crawled out of the water.

    The transition

    Researchers examined the ear bones of a close cousin of the first land animals, a 370-million-year-old fossil fish called Panderichthys. They compared these structures to those of another lobe-finned fish and to an early land animal and determined that Panderichthys displays a transitional form.

    In the other fish, Eusthenopteron, a small bone called the hyomandibula developed a kink and obstructed the gill opening, called a spiracle.

    However, in early land animals such as the tetrapod Acanthostega, this bone has receded, creating a larger cavity in what is now part of the middle ear in humans and other animals.

    Missing link

    The new examination of the Panderichthys fossil provides scientists with a critical "missing link" between fish gill openings and ears.

    "In Panderichthys, it is much more like in tetrapods where there is no longer such a 'kink' and the spiracle has widened and opened up," study co-author Martin Brazeau of Uppsala University in Sweden told LiveScience. "[The hyomandibula] is quite a bit shorter, but still fairly rod-like like in Eusthenopteron. It's like a combination of fish and tetrapods."

    However, it's unclear if early tetrapods used these structures to hear. Panderichthys most likely used their spiracles for ventilation of either water or air. Early tetrapods probably passed air through the opening. Scientists would need preserved soft tissue to say for sure.

    "That's the question that we're starting to investigate, whether early tetrapods used it for some ventilation function as well," Brazeau said. Whether it was for the exhalation of water or air, it's not really clear. We can infer that it's quite expanded and improved from fish."

    This research is detailed in the Jan. 19 issue of the journal Nature.
    Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) First Four-Legged Animals Inched Along Invention Allows Humans to Breathe Like Fish How Evolution Works

    Visit for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Amazing Images, Image Galleries, Interactive Features, Trivia and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

    Notice how the title of the story is definitive, as if some fact is being told...not just a speculative guess.

    Then notice how the story says:

    Scientists had thought the evolutionary change occurred after animals had established themselves on land...

    So they though that, and now they don't, but this time they are right?


    Scientific dogmatism and indoctrination into a speculative theory being doled out as fact.....
  2. First, you may wish to consult an original source before rolling around on the floor while your ass comes apart from your body, and find out exactly what this scientist is theorizing.

    Second, how does interpeting evolutionary change based on fossil evidence make one a lunatic? And how does the adjustment of the time of emergence of proto ear features undermine Darwin's thesis?

    Do you even understand Darwinian evolution? I doubt it.

    Third, you call everyone a regressive but your views are akin to those living in the dark ages????

    ZZZZ, tonight when you talk to God, ask him/her/it exactly what the story is on life and evolution so you can report here and shut the fuck up. Asswipe.
  3. jem


    Well as only a casual but somewhat skeptical observer of darwinists.... I would have to say it is kind of funny.

    What environmental stress caused the fittest to develop an ear.
  4. I've yet to see an anti Darwinist / Creationist post a theory that has the element of disprovability.
  5. Under water, no less.

  6. what would the competing argument be?
  7. There is no reason for a creationist to have to disprove this. The basis of creationism is that instead of the big bang just happening by chance, God set the wheels in motion for evolution to occur.
  8. bonsai



    I think you may have gone over the top a bit but I agree with you.There is a serious problem.

    Many statements are made as if something was a fact when (in fact) it is only a theory.

    Darwin is one
    Global Warming is another.
    there are hundreds of examples
    including a great many posts on stock bulletin boards. !!

    they all have one common factor.
    they are attempts to give authority to a statement and so enhance a person's credibilty.

    Vanity, Vanity; all is Vanity.

    have you ever read Timaeus and Critias ?

  9. I am glad you see the point.

    Had the article been titled:

    Scientist "speculate" or "believe" or "think" it projects that they really don't know.

    It is the elevation of the opinions and theories of the scientific community to some magical status, some modern day Shaman, that they and they alone are the real custodians of "reality" that I take issue with.

    I have nothing against a scientific approach and their respective theories and guesses.

    However, this has morphed into a quasi religion of science, with insufficient data to support efforts to make Darwinism something that even resembles a fact of life.

    It is never so clear as when something like this happens, that indoctrinated evolutionists only defense is "Well, your way (theistic belief) sucks worse than ours...."

    Science should not suck, it should keep to its limitations, which is not the case. Rather than offering fact upon which people can reach their own conclusion, what is first taught is theory, then facts are sought to support the theory.

    This is nothing but a form of rationalization of the mind to support a belief system, i.e. Darwinism, rather than real open minded science which at every step of knowledge must admit that ignorance of life grows at a faster rate with each scientific discovery.

  10. Ricter


    That was a mistake that began in the previous thread. Environmental stress does not cause an adaptative mutation, that's the hypothesis of acquired characteristics, which has been disproven. No, the mutations occur randomly still, and the ones that work tend to get passed on.

    And Z, who cares how the article sounds? Informed people know that it is science, therefore it is still hypothesis. And of course it's subject to change, new evidence has come in.

    What if someone condemned you for having severe mental retardation (a hypothesis), and then new evidence (highly unlikely, I'll admit) came to light demonstrating that you were not mentally retarded? You'd want the hypothesis revised or thrown out, wouldn't ya?
    #10     Jan 19, 2006