Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Many creationists hold up the inner ear as a defacto refutation of evolution. They are wrong of course.

Cool picture on the link.

1 posted on 08/16/2008 9:47:38 AM PDT by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Soliton

OK, so prove it’s not.


2 posted on 08/16/2008 9:52:25 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("What Our Enemies Couldn't Do To Us Our Liberal Democrat Politicians Will")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

Of course? Oh, ok, so a smug and glib ejaculation like this is proof positive that creationists are wrong? Sorry, you do your evolutionist faith no credit. Try offering your own version of what you believe. I bet you you cannot do it.


3 posted on 08/16/2008 10:06:33 AM PDT by sleepy_hollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton
I wonder if any of you evos have ever designed and implemented a system of at least moderate complexity. (I have. Maybe some readers have seen some of these at Epcot/Olympics/YankeeStadium/Etc.) The idea that something as complicated as a human ear (any ear for that matter) could just sort of happen as the result of zillions of accidents is so preposterous that it begs further description.

ML/NJ

4 posted on 08/16/2008 10:10:43 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

Get ready for an onslaught of the Young Earth Creationists.


5 posted on 08/16/2008 10:13:52 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

Excerpt form the article:

“In a new study, anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison finds that eight hearing-related genes show signs of having evolved systematically in human populations over the past 40,000 years. Some alterations on these genes took root as recently as 2,000 to 3,000 years ago.”

So, this “proves” something? Actually it seems to me it confirms the “newness” of our higher order abilities like language. In fact, this is the whole point of the article. Why golly gee, that seems also to fit the “myth” of creation as well!

A presumption of evolution requires the convoluted explanatiion postulated in this article. Again there are no facts presented, no obesrvations presented, just references to genes. Has anyone ever seen a gene evolve?

What is a systematic evolution? I thought evolution was the name for the supposed system? Evolutionary thinking is so muddled and confused. I really don’t understand how people believe it to be scientific.


6 posted on 08/16/2008 10:15:14 AM PDT by sleepy_hollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton
This is a fantasy

Selective hearing has my vote.
9 posted on 08/16/2008 10:29:53 AM PDT by SouthDixie (We are but angels with one wing, it takes two to fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

YEC INTREP


10 posted on 08/16/2008 11:04:54 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

Obama is all ears.


12 posted on 08/16/2008 11:43:39 AM PDT by GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton
“Hawks makes a compelling case that not only is human evolution ongoing in the past 10,000 years, but it has sped up,” says anthropologist Clark Larsen of Ohio State University in Columbus.

Sped up? rotflmao

....and this is supposed to be science

13 posted on 08/16/2008 2:37:05 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson