Abiogenesis is impossible

[Jenny A]

"bones in all living mammals' ears arose at least twice along independent evolutionary pathways"
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...bones.html
common descent took a big hit. a better interpretation of the observation is that God reused the design.

Really? Here's what the article says:

The configuration of these ear bones is similar in all three extant groups of mammals: the placental mammals, which bear live young, the pouched marsupials, and the egg-laying monotremes, such as the duck-billed platypus. Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups

Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. . . .

Its teeth place T. trusleri within the monotreme group, says Rich. However, a distinct groove on the rear of the animal's jawbone indicates that its ear bones were embedded in a mass of cartilage there.

This placement, more characteristic of mammals' reptilian ancestors, hints that not all early mammals possessed the modern-day configuration of ear bones. It also implies that today's monotreme descendants of T. trusleri developed the distinctive stapes-incus-malleus configuration independently of marsupial and placental mammals.

There's nothing about that suggests god had a hand in designing the ear bones. It's just one more difference between the three mammal groups extant today. It also shows mammals relationship to reptiles.

Notice by the way that scientists change their opinions in light of new evidence, unlike creationists who merely interpret everything to conform to the same preconceived ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

The evidence of common descent does not hinge on any similar bone structures (we do, in fact, know for certain that similar bone structure is not a strong indicator of common descent in and of itself). The reason that "common descent" can't take a "big hit" from this is that common descent has passed the point of being a prediction or expectation - and has entered the realm of an observation Tracks. Modern synthesis (the currently accepted model) leverages genetics to assign verifiable and reproduce-able biological metrics. Without genetics, our models were incomplete. Common descent holds so long as we all share common genetic "code". It holds..because we're only aware of one manner in which we "get" that code.....from our parents. They got it from theirs..so on and so forth. Descent.

[Esquilax]

"bones in all living mammals' ears arose at least twice along independent evolutionary pathways"
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...bones.html
common descent took a big hit. a better interpretation of the observation is that God reused the design.

Are you actually insane, that you keep doing this? You keep bringing up single papers, misinterpreting their findings and then outright lying to us, and you keep getting called out on it.

So, are you fucking crazy, or a fucking liar?

[Tonus]

If not for his earlier posts, I'd be wondering if he wasn't the first person to break Poe's law.

[snowtracks]

"bones in all living mammals' ears arose at least twice along independent evolutionary pathways"
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...bones.html
common descent took a big hit. a better interpretation of the observation is that God reused the design.

Really? Here's what the article says:

The configuration of these ear bones is similar in all three extant groups of mammals: the placental mammals, which bear live young, the pouched marsupials, and the egg-laying monotremes, such as the duck-billed platypus. Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups

Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. . . .

Its teeth place T. trusleri within the monotreme group, says Rich. However, a distinct groove on the rear of the animal's jawbone indicates that its ear bones were embedded in a mass of cartilage there.

This placement, more characteristic of mammals' reptilian ancestors, hints that not all early mammals possessed the modern-day configuration of ear bones. It also implies that today's monotreme descendants of T. trusleri developed the distinctive stapes-incus-malleus configuration independently of marsupial and placental mammals.

There's nothing about that suggests god had a hand in designing the ear bones. It's just one more difference between the three mammal groups extant today. It also shows mammals relationship to reptiles.

Notice by the way that scientists change their opinions in light of new evidence, unlike creationists who merely interpret everything to conform to the same preconceived ideas.

nice try - these thoughts ( 1 & 2) go together - 1) Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. 2) Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. The recently discovered fossil, one of six jawbones by which the species is known, is also the best preserved, says Thomas H. Rich, a paleontologist at the Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. Rich and his colleagues describe their find in the Feb. 11 Science.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm wondering if that "better interpretation" is ever going to get fleshed out. Tracks did put the words god and observation in the same sentence..after all....danger zone stuff.

[Logisch]

Really? Here's what the article says:


There's nothing about that suggests god had a hand in designing the ear bones. It's just one more difference between the three mammal groups extant today. It also shows mammals relationship to reptiles.

Notice by the way that scientists change their opinions in light of new evidence, unlike creationists who merely interpret everything to conform to the same preconceived ideas.

nice try - these thoughts ( 1 & 2) go together - 1) Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. 2) Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. The recently discovered fossil, one of six jawbones by which the species is known, is also the best preserved, says Thomas H. Rich, a paleontologist at the Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. Rich and his colleagues describe their find in the Feb. 11 Science.

Man you are way off. The flying spaghetti monster intended christians to be fooled by this. He actually allowed evolution to take course and wanted to purposely make it so that you'd interpret it that way, but the real way is the way that is interpreted by science. However, you're blind because you want to toss yahweh into it when all along, if you just ask really hard and think about it, he (His holy Noodliness) will reveal it to you that it is multidimensional space carbs that caused a genetic mutation thus causing it to appear this way. Very similar to the types of carbs in the spaghetti here we have on earth, but it is outside of your understanding of time and space.

Your logic is not sound.

[Esquilax]

nice try - these thoughts ( 1 & 2) go together - 1) Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. 2) Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. The recently discovered fossil, one of six jawbones by which the species is known, is also the best preserved, says Thomas H. Rich, a paleontologist at the Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. Rich and his colleagues describe their find in the Feb. 11 Science.

Oh, holy fuck! We've learned a new thing! We're fallible! Better throw out all of science and start prayin' to Jaysus, because obviously if one thing is wrong in anything, then the entirety of that thing is wrong!

Grow the fuck up, Snowtracks. If you want to play that game then the bible would be discounted as a true thing thousands of times over.

[Tonus]

It can be pointed out that both science and religion are in a constant state of change as we learn more about our world. Scientists are forced to modify --or even occasionally scrap-- theories as we learn more. Theists constantly reinterpret their scriptures as "god provides more understanding" or "reveals more in due time" or whatever explanation is necessary to make it seem as if they were supposed to be wrong all this time.

Maybe that's what scientists are doing wrong-- instead of admitting that their theories were incorrect, they just "reinterpret" them and claim that the theories were always perfect, it was just not the time for us to know.

[Jenny A]

nice try - these thoughts ( 1 & 2) go together - 1) Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. 2) Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. The recently discovered fossil, one of six jawbones by which the species is known, is also the best preserved, says Thomas H. Rich, a paleontologist at the Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. Rich and his colleagues describe their find in the Feb. 11 Science.

New data caused scientists to revise their opinion about whether the mammalian ear bones developed once or twice among mammals. That's it. The shrew sized creature does not call evolution into question, just clarifies one of the details.

Again notice that the shrew is brought to you by scientists openly and proudly discussing it. So the scientists (notice that it was some not all of them) who thought that the mammalian ear bones developed from one common ancestor will have to revise their opinion about the development of the ear bones in mammals. New data has clarified a detail. That's how science is done.

Creationism, on the other hand is done by looking for arguments among scientists and declaring that any disagreements about the details of how evolutions occurred prove god created the universe.