wow- seems you and doc have a silly little gradeschool pow wow going on there- good for you- You’re 50-is? Amazing
What exactly am I supposedly lying about Ahayes? Are there or are there NOT 300 species showing a nice neat line of supposed jawbone to ear evolution? You infered that there were and I pointed out htere weren’t- that there were 300 FOSSILS of the same species showing slight variations open to interpretation. So quit with the petty little ‘liar liar’ kiddie crap
“Supposedly contradictory fossils”? Tell me Ahayes, are there, or are there not, fossils that CLEARLY show the jaw bones moving in the OPPOSITE direction needed for the supposed ear evolution to occure? If you can show that there aren’t fossil examples doing just that, then you are free to call me a liar- until then- zip it and dispense with silly little games.. Your article did NOT show 300 seperate species who were all related and showed a clear evolutionary movement of the jawbones to the ear. They shwed fossil remains of the SAME species with perhaps slight variances in the location and positions of the bones.
For more on how lame a jump in assumptioins is needed to make the connections between the supposed ‘300 fossils’ is needed in order to make a link between the species that supposedly show the ‘evolution of hte ear and the relatedness of the supposed relatives to supposed whales based on a few simlarities, http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
More: “The mammal has two bones in the lower jaw, the reptile has six; these bones are fused by sutures so that the assembly in each case appears as a single jawbone. The mammal has three tiny bones in the ear, the reptile has one, and it is claimed that in evolving from the reptile, two bones from each side of the reptile jaw migrated into the ear to provide the full complement of bones found in the mammal ear and account for the diminished number in the mammal jaw (Colbert 1949; Manley 1972).[8] Now the general public is not usually made aware of these assertions. The reluctance to test public credulity is understandable, and since this work is reported in the esoteric language of the scientist in obscure specialist publications, it is considered worthwhile to bring to the reader just some of the details on which the claims are made. It should be borne in mind that when fossils of these extinct creatures are found, it is usually just the teeth and jaw and only sometimes the entire skull, but in virtually every case the bones are broken and disarticulated.
In 1973 Kermack and others reported finding what they refer to as the Morganucodon, which they claim is the transition that has passed beyond the stage of the Cynodont, that is, beyond the true reptile stage. Earlier (1968) the same investigators had described a similar creature they named the Kuehneotherium. Several sets of Morganucodon fossil parts were found in China and in Wales, which would seem to indicate that the same transition evolved twice on opposite sides of the earth and at approximately the same time. The investigators acknowledged that the Morganucodon had a fully reptilian lower jaw with all six bones, but the claim for its being a transition was based on an inferred assembly of the jaw hinge. Bones in the assembled condition were not actually found. Digging through some of the minutia of a monumental eighty-eight page report relating just to the lower jaw of this creature, it became apparent that this item ranged from one-half to three-quarters of an inch long, which would make Morganucodon about as big as a rat if the entire skeleton had been available. Detailed drawings of both the Morganucodon and Cynodont jaws appeared in the Kermack (1973) paper, and although both were drawn to the same size for comparison, the drawings were actually on different scales. It turns out the Cynodont was in fact eighteen times larger than the Morganucodon. We are now faced with the reality of this notion, which is saying that a mammal-like reptile the size of a rat evolved from a true reptile the size of a large pig”
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm
“They should provide a satisfactory explanation about how outer ear gained the feature of increasing the sound, how ear membrane, the three little special bones, together with a special organ in inner ear which has a special liquid and ten thousands of perceptive cells producing electric signals according to these vibrations on the surface of this organ came into existence by “coincidence.” Surely they fail to make such an explanation; there is no explanation for this. Evolutionists having more profound information , on the other hand, prefer to remain quite rather than ridiculing themselves like Atayman.”
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/evolutionist_misjudgments.php
You give me links to anectdotal simlarities in jaw bone structures, and would have me beleive, without further questioning, that the ear bones evovled? Sorry- but htere is far far more to the story than lining a few vastly dissimilar species who are supposedly seperated by many millions of years up next to each other and stating that the ear hearing evolution, repitle to mammilian hearing evolution “is well documented”
care to take your fingers out of your ears, quit yelling liar liar and address any of the faCTS Ahayes? Or is acting imature more preferable to you?
That is exactly what you are lying about. Over and over and over. If you can prove that what you're telling is the truth, please pull up the study in question. I was the one who initially gave you this information, and I've got the .pdf right here. The exact number was 322. I'm awed that you think the gorgonopsians and probainognathians were the same species!
So quit with the petty little ‘liar liar’ kiddie crap
Gee, I'd love too, but I'm afraid I can't until you stop lying. If it bothers you, maybe you should try not making up whatever the heck you like in your anti-science crusade.