The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/evo_no.arj/EVO_NO.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-18 | 9KB | 158 lines

                                       I
                              Therapsid Reptiles

a. As I have come to understand the argument, the Evolutionist claims
that the lower jaw and the three ear bones of canine mammals evolved
from the lower jaw of therapsid reptiles.  LOWER JAW of the therapsid
reptile has 6 bones on the right side of the face and six bones on the
left side of the face. The LOWER JAW of Canine mammals (dogs, wolves etc.)
has only one bone on each side of the face.  Also, therapsid reptiles have
ONE EAR BONE between the drum and inner ear, whereas canine mammals have
THREE EAR BONES.  Finally, the jaw joint for the therapsid reptiles hinges
at a different part of the skull than the canine jaw does.

Compared side by side it looks like this:

   Canine mammals: three ear bones go from the drum to inner ear Therapsid
                   reptiles: one ear bone goes from drum to inner ear

   Canine mammals: lower jaw is one bone on each side of face Therapsid
                   reptiles: lower jaw is six bones on each side of face

   Canine Mammals: lower jaw hinges with the skull at the squamosal area
                   Therapsid reptiles: lower jaw hinges with the skull at
                   the quadrate bone. A bone not found in mammals.


c. Now, Evolutionists believe that the many jaw bones of the reptile (the
small bones near the hinge) evolved into the three ear bones of the mammal
(jaw bones evolved into ear bones).  And, the reason canines only have one
jaw bone is because the "other jaw bones" are now evolved into their ear
(six jaw bones evolved into one jaw bone).  And the reason the jaw bone
has "moved" to a new hinge is due to some of the bones shifting into the ear.

d. On the face of it it sounds quite incredulous. In fact, one school text
book which taught evolution put it this way:

              "Of course, there are numerous unresolved
              questions about this story; for example, how did [they]
              hear, and chew while these fantastic changes were
              taking place?  But, despite such functional problems
              there is little doubt that it happened."


e. Now the evidence against these changes come from a simple consideration of
what the transformation would require. The hinge would have to shift to a new
location, five bones of the lower jaw would have to break away from the
largest bone. The top of the jaw bone ( up where the hinge was) would have to
force its way into the middle ear and form itself into an entirely new kind of
hearing mechanism. While all this was happening two NEW complicated structures
would have to develop in the inner ear simultaneously, the organ of Corti and
the vestibular component of balance.

f. The organ of Corti, peculiar to mammals, comprises some 3000 arches placed
side by side so as to form a tunnel, and along with its nervous connections it
makes for a tremendously complex formation. Add to this the vestibular
component of balance, which includes the semi-circular canals in planes at
right angles to each other, and you have plenty of reason to doubt evolution
could have effected such changes.

g. In other words I doubt seriously that the skulls offered by evolutionists
as intermediate transitions are correctly interpreted. But, at the same time I
have no affirmative explanation to offer for them. So although I am unsure as
to what they are I am more sure as to what they are not.

h. I think you could appreciate my doubts a little better if you were to
imagine what would happen to your interpretation if a fully developed mammal
jaw was discovered at a level lower than the fossils it was supposed to have
evolved from. If that were to occur it would prove these fossils had not been
transitional to start with, and the entire interpretation would have to be
reworked. My point?  I feel the interpretation could be reworked with little
difficulty.

i. Creationists have a more scientific argument, however. They argue that a
modern understanding of genetics would make your interpretation impossible. In
view of the fact generations upon generations of fruit flies and e-coli
bacteria have been interbreeded, isolated, bombarded with radiation and
exposed to diverse heat and cold environments, the lab has been unable to get
any thing to evolve except fruit flies, and ecoli bacteria!  It is true that
micro evolutionary changes are brought about, but in no case is a macro
evolutionary change achieved. Fruit flies beget fruit flies and ecoli begets
ecoli. Apply that principle to your fossils and you have good reason to doubt
they could be a bridge between reptiles and mammals.

j. For the evolutionist the entire argument rests upon a similarity in
structure. But, Creationists point out that similarities (homologies) are
known to develop independently. Here I quote one such example:

    "An edifice of presumed relationships has been built up from the
    careful study of homologous structures-not least from the study
    of bones in the skull of reptiles. However, does such study still
    support evolution?  Recently a bone in the floor of the skull that
    lies between the eyes of amphisbaenian lizards has been causing
    trouble. In other lizards this bone, the orbitosphenoid, is formed
    in the normal way from a cartilaginous precursor. It was presumed
    that this also occurred in amphisbaenians and that the bones unusual
    thickness was an adaptation to their burrowing habit. Now it has
    been found out it develops in the embryo in quite a different
    way-from soft tissue instead of cartilage. Because of this it
    fails the test of homology, although it completely mimics `normal'
    orbitosphenoid bones in other lizards. Does it derive from a similar
    genotype? Could this kind of phenomenon have been more widespread
    than previously believed? An anatomist, Dr R. Presley of University
    College, Cardiff, has written: `...this apparently obscure finding seems
    to me in light of my present knowledge of the subject to have shaken the
    philosophical and logical framework of comparative biology to a very
    serious extent, and lots of people ought to be worried by it. I bet they
    aren't"  (Adam and Evolution pg 41,42 by Michael Pitman)

            II. What, you want me to wait ANOTHER few hundred years?

You will find I answered that argument before you even made it. In message 67
item 4 I pointed out that millions of years had already gone by. Nascent
organs and appendages ought to be emerging even now. Yet they are not. To say
that the right conditions haven't occurred yet requires us to reject the
evidence before our own eyes in favor of a secondary assumption.

                          III. Is Evolution Testable?

I made two comments in message 67 regarding the non-testability of Macro
Evolution.

First, I pointed out it did not fall into the same realm of testable science
as does the theory of electricity or the theory of gravity. I then went on to
compare it to a forensic science which reconstructs circumstantial evidence.
It is not testable because it can not be demonstrated in the lab or directly
observed. The fruit fly and e-coli experiments have failed to produce a macro
evolutionary change and the whole theory is over burdened with hypothesis. It
is not testably proven.

Second, I said that Macro Evolution was not falsifiable. I feel you have
answered this second statement quite well. Your point about the man tracks was
well taken, and my own point about what would happen if a mammal fossil was
found falls in line with your argument. In other words Evolution is
theoretically falsifiable and I concede that point to you.

However, Creationism falls into the same category. I think you are equally in
a position to admit that Creationism is falsifiable. It could be falsified if
macroevolution ever resulted from the fruit fly experiments or if a living
example of macro evolution occurred today, or if a fossil was discovered which
removed all reasonable doubt.

                                  IN Summary

I think the evidence you offer falls considerably short of what I had in mind
as a transitional form. However, I see why you regard it as transitional. I
pointed out though that your evidence does contain a hypothetical element that
could be reinterpreted. I also pointed out that modern genetic theory as
evidenced in the fruit fly experiments would indicate your interpretation had
to be wrong. Also, the fact that homologies (similar structures) are capable
of independent formation would cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation as
well. You ask me to wait another few hundred years, but the millions that I
have waited should be enough. Nascent organs and appendages should be emerging
today, but none are. Evolution is overburdened with hypothesis. Evolution is a
forensic science, and is not testably proven.  However, it is theoretically
falsifiable, but then again Creationism is also.

Arminius2