Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]

Nature Magazine ^ | 18 January 2006 | Helen Pearson

[Mamzelle]

re: Your suggestions for improvement...?)))

Liberals and utopians believe in perfectability, and I'm neither and I don't. It's already a pretty darn good system--except that people are flawed and scientists are as flawed as any humans. This seems to me a rather straightforward assertion--which has produced some alarm among the white-coated. ("Heavens--are we no better than the next guy? Then why did I get that Phd, anyway?")

Ineffectiveness of peer review led the dingaling state guv in CA to set aside $3B based on stem-cell "discoveries" which have since been exposed as fraud. Here is a monumental failure, which ought to cause more than a moment of humility.

Maybe my suggestion would be to look at the peers of peer review with a speculative and skeptical eye...? Like, who watches the watchdog?

[Dimensio]

That is quite a leap to imagine that a fossil fish means that we once breathed through our ears.

So please point out why the evidence is faulty.

It is as absurd as concluding that my Buick evolved into a Ford truck because there are some similarities.

False analogy. Neither your Buick nor Ford trucks are imperfect replicators. Why creationists think that such bad analogies are stinging arguments is a mystery to me.

[chipguy123]

Awesome. The evolution of ears and the evolution of hearing is fascinating.

[ColdWater]

Irreducible complexity is not an argument that evolution does not occur, but rather an argument that it is “incomplete”.

[ColdWater]

If people want to knock religous thought, let them do that. Just don't try to mislead the whole world into believing that a microbe tripped on the sand, grew into a snail, which fell off a ledge and became a snake that became a monkey that metamorphed into a human being. That's just stupid!

Right. It is much more intelligent to say that man was created from sand.