I didn’t say they were all the SAME species, I said there were only a few species- you made it sound like there were 300+ different species KINDS Ahayes, and that isn’t true. All your chart shows is a FEW species KINDS and shows variation within the KINDS that is normal and expected but in no way shows an ‘evolutionary evolving of hte ear’, and it leaves out species who’s jaw variations show the bones moving the other way. The species KINDS that are shown as well do NOT show hte bones moving into the ear and assembling in a complex hearing system. How many subspecies were left out that showed regression of the backwartd moving bones?
There were what? 8 or so psecies KINDS (major groups) shown Ahayes? This is the point I was making, which I suspect you knew all along and tried to make it out that I was stating they were ALL the same species KIND which I absolutely was not if you care to go back and read for yourself!
I’d also be interested in seeing the PDF file posted here or a link to it. Will be interesting to note the fact that the species KINDs that were lsited show a serious disconnect in sizes, and hte point being that setting a hippo sized species KIND next to a rat sized species KIND which evos claim are direct descendants, and claiming it shows a ‘clear evolution of the ear hearing system’ is disingenuous and quite frankly deceitful- As you full well know- the excluded myriad sized species KINDS between the hippo sized species and the rat sized species KINDS would not support the hypothesis that the jawbone evolved into the hearing system.
As I mentioned before- the chart is paramount to placing an apple next to a pinapple and pointing out the annecdotal similarities (ie: they both have stems, they both have a skin covering, and htey both are round as opposed to triangular) and claiming that the one evolved into the other- there are a TON of missing facts to support this- and placing a grapefruit, an orange and pear inbetween the two- and again pointing out anecdotal similarities which would, when compared side by side, SEEM to indicate that the stems or were ‘evolving inward to make up a seed system’ is rediculous at best. One could even take the pear KIND, and show examples of variation in stem placements down through the ages, and make the claim that they were ‘evolving into a ‘more robust’ seed encasement system- but the disconnect comes from a severe lack of evidence showing htis actually happening- making hte leap from stem to seed- One could hypothesise all day long about it happening- but the fact is, there is no evidence to back this up. Placing hippos sized animals next to rat sized ones, and claiming a hearing system evolved from jaw boens, is completely lacking in evidentiary examples of hte hearing system aseembling in species KINDS. The hypothesis is still nothing more than an assumption that both has no evidence to back it up other than some dissimilar species who’s variation in jaw bone placement SEEM to look as if they are migrating, and the charts neglect to include all the myriad species and subspecies which would show the jawbones SEEMINGLY migrating in the other direction.
Again- please post hte PDF showing the 8 or so major species KINDS and all the supposed subspecies-
Yes, it is.
and it leaves out species who’s jaw variations show the bones moving the other way.
You realize accusing someone of academic misconduct without a shred of evidence is libelous? Fortunately the author doesn't care about your opinion.
I’d also be interested in seeing the PDF file posted here or a link to it.
I presented you with the reference and key summaries before. Are you admitting that you actually have no clue what the contents of the paper in question are? I mean, it's amply obvious that you're just making it up as you go along, but to admit that is another thing altogether.
In conclusion,
WHEE!!