• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

justintime said:
Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.
Click to expand...

^^^More stuff from page 78? :rolleyes:
 
justintime said:
Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.
Click to expand...

Gills didn't evolve into ears. Bones that evolved as supports for gills continued to evolve into jaws. Those jaws evolved in multiple directions (jawless fish are still with us today--this is not a linear process, but a branching one, and we're only addressing one branch). One of those branches had several bones in the jaw adapt to the point where they became part of the ear. This is a well-documented process and we have fossils from most if not all of those stages.

There is no serious scientific support for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Paleontologists and anthropologists treat is as a joke; we get a good laugh out of it. The hypothesis is an exercise in speculation--it takes a few oddities of human physiology and speculates on how they could have arisen. The fossil record disproves it rather completely.

The last line has been demonstrated to be false repeatedly. 65% of retracted papers on PubMed had questions of fraud, and only 45% or so actually contained fraud. The actual percentage of fraud in PubMed publications is closer to 0.005%.

The only statement you made that's even close to reasonable is that scientists believe fish (however you define that term) and humans share a common ancestor. That ancestor has nothing to do with aquatic apes, however; it was a fish, or more accurately it was an extremely primative chordate more similar to fish than to mammals.
 
Dinwar said:
Gills didn't evolve into ears. Bones that evolved as supports for gills continued to evolve into jaws. Those jaws evolved in multiple directions (jawless fish are still with us today--this is not a linear process, but a branching one, and we're only addressing one branch). One of those branches had several bones in the jaw adapt to the point where they became part of the ear. This is a well-documented process and we have fossils from most if not all of those stages.

There is no serious scientific support for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Paleontologists and anthropologists treat is as a joke; we get a good laugh out of it. The hypothesis is an exercise in speculation--it takes a few oddities of human physiology and speculates on how they could have arisen. The fossil record disproves it rather completely.

The last line has been demonstrated to be false repeatedly. 65% of retracted papers on PubMed had questions of fraud, and only 45% or so actually contained fraud. The actual percentage of fraud in PubMed publications is closer to 0.005%.

The only statement you made that's even close to reasonable is that scientists believe fish (however you define that term) and humans share a common ancestor. That ancestor has nothing to do with aquatic apes, however; it was a fish, or more accurately it was an extremely primative chordate more similar to fish than to mammals.
Click to expand...

You might be a little behind in your reading.
Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills
http://www.livescience.com/558-human-ears-evolved-ancient-fish-gills.html
 
justintime said:
You might be a little behind in your reading.
Click to expand...
That site does not contradict what I said. Structures that evolved to support gills continued to evolve in support of jaws, some of which evolved into ear bones. The mammalian ear didn't evolve until well after reptiles had evolved, and we know which bones became the ear bones.

Your continued attempt to discuss evolution of MODERN fish into MODERN humans would be detrimental to your credibility, if you had any left.
 
Dinwar said:
That site does not contradict what I said. Structures that evolved to support gills continued to evolve in support of jaws, some of which evolved into ear bones. The mammalian ear didn't evolve until well after reptiles had evolved, and we know which bones became the ear bones.

Your continued attempt to discuss evolution of MODERN fish into MODERN humans would be detrimental to your credibility, if you had any left.
Click to expand...

There is no mention of jaw in the article. Please indicate where this is mentioned in the linked article.
Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills
http://www.livescience.com/558-human-ears-evolved-ancient-fish-gills.html
 
justintime said:
There is no mention of jaw in the article.
Click to expand...
That's because it's discussing the stuff prior to the evolution of the jaw structures seen in terrestrial animals. The discussion is about a newly-understood nuance of the evolutionary pathway, and in no way refutes anything I've discussed or the concept of evolution. It adds detail to those concepts.
 
justintime said:
Scientists are protected from public ridicule, they belong to fraternities that protect them by limiting their speculation, conjectures and misrepresentation of data to peer review. But as some point they have to deal with reality and the general public. This is one such occasion.
Click to expand...


"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
 
Dinwar said:
That's because it's discussing the stuff prior to the evolution of the jaw structures seen in terrestrial animals. The discussion is about a newly-understood nuance of the evolutionary pathway, and in no way refutes anything I've discussed or the concept of evolution. It adds detail to those concepts.
Click to expand...

Please provide references or citations for your assumptions. The article I linked made no such assumptions.
 
justintime said:
Please provide references or citations for your assumptions. The article I linked made no such assumptions.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've read the article.

But hey, you want to play, that's fine.

http://www.amazon.com/Processes-Vertebrate-Evolution-Cambridge-Paleobiology/dp/052147809X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987331&sr=8-1&keywords=Patterns+and+Processes+in+Vertebrate+Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Fossils-Life-Introduction-Paleobiology/dp/0073661708/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987367&sr=8-1&keywords=Bringing+Fossils+to+Life

http://www.amazon.com/On-Origin-Phyla-James-Valentine/dp/0226845486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987382&sr=8-1&keywords=the+origin+of+the+phyla

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Evolution-Mammals-Oxford-Biology/dp/0198507615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389987418&sr=8-1&keywords=mammal+evolution

It's a good start. Read through those references, focused on the evolution of the mammalian ear. Then get back to us. I'll give you more advanced reading once you've demonstrated an understanding of these basics.
 
justintime said:
Scientists are protected from public ridicule, they belong to fraternities that protect them by limiting their speculation, conjectures and misrepresentation of data to peer review. But as some point they have to deal with reality and the general public. This is one such occasion.
Click to expand...
How silly is this as we read public ridicule. It is telling that the diatribe is against "scientists" in general. Of course, I presume you mean that scientists are not ridiculed by anti-scientists in scientific publications. Yes, they belong to a "fraternity" that demands these things be done scientifically, and that is reluctant to publish bad science. Wow. That's news for sure. In the meantime though we do not see any scientific cabals gagging people like you, or Ken Ham, or any other crackpot theories, and such things abound. Go to any bookstore. Of course if you don't know the difference between science and nonsense, you'll believe that scientific journals should be filled with nonsense. That's kind of why they're run the way they are - to prevent people like you from filling them with nonsense, just as poetry journals tend to be run by poets, to minimize the useless publication of illiterate twaddle. How dare experts claim expertise?
 
justintime said:
Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.
Click to expand...
99% of the Babble is fraud. Who wins there?
 
bruto said:
Of course, I presume you mean that scientists are not ridiculed by anti-scientists in scientific publications.
Click to expand...

Even that's not true. I've seen Creationists give talks at the Geological Society of America convention. As long as they play by the rules, they can ridicule us as much as they want. They just can't seem to abide by the rules.
 
justintime said:
There is no mention of jaw in the article. Please indicate where this is mentioned in the linked article.
Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills
http://www.livescience.com/558-human-ears-evolved-ancient-fish-gills.html
Click to expand...

I know how pointless this is, given how much of your argumentation depends upon stating a demonstrable lie, and stating it over and over and over and over (remember the "next generation of intergalactic rockets" that were actually proposed interplanetary solar sails?) but you may have missed this, through lack of background:

In the other fish, Eusthenopteron, a small bone called the hyomandibula developed a kink and obstructed the gill opening, called a spiracle.
Click to expand...

JFG, look up "hyomandibula"...
 
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Gawdzilla said:
99% of the Babble is fraud. Who wins there?
Click to expand...

I said 65% of the studied papers were found fraudulent not 99%.

Here is a link to aquatic ape theory.
Evolution: a new boost for ‘aquatic ape’ theory
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ew-boost-for-aquatic-ape-theory/#.UtmUs7ROncs

Humans and fish once shared a common ancestor....no kidding!!!!

Cartilaginous fish, which today include sharks, rays, and ratfish, diverged from the bony fishes more than 420 million years ago. But little is known about what the last common ancestor of humans, manta rays and great white sharks looked like.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613133032.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom