Re: ID vs. ?

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 18:39:46 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: 1. my new email management strategy, 2. evidence against Darwinism-there isn't any!"

    Reflectorites

    On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:26:42 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:

    [...]

    >NA>Lets apply the definition. The function is that it sends vibrations from the
    >ear drum to the oval window. I can remove, one bone and it will still do
    >this, I can remove two and it will still do this, heck, I can remove the
    >whole thing and I could still hear sound when pressure impacts the oval
    >window. >>

    FJ>Remarkable, I am amazed at your comments here. And yet this was used to argue
    >against evolution until evolution found the explanation. You remove one of
    >the bones and hearing in that ear becomes severely impaired. Sure you can
    >hear with the other ear. Nelson disagrees with you

    As one who had to have an ear operation to have one of these bones (the
    stapes) in one ear replaced, I can confirm Nelson's point. I found to my
    amazement when I went to the ear specialist for testing that I, and
    everyone, can hear faintly through their skull and even their teeth!

    The ear is not IC and it is not even ID, but IMHO it is designed. IC is
    ID but not all ID is IC, and ID and IC are Design, but not all Design is
    IC or ID.

    And BTW I have no problem accepting that mammals' earbones were
    progressively mediately created (see tagline) from a reptile ancestor's
    jawbones.

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have
    described? Could cause a tube to roll up into a helix? Could cause other
    tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each
    other. Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the
    convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place it will register gravity?
    Even more amazingly, some fishes do not trouble to secrete a crystal but
    incorporate a bit of sand or stone. What kind of mutation could achieve
    this - when and only when a natural crystal is not formed? The purpose is
    fulfilled, the means are unimportant. It just doesn't make sense." (Taylor
    G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery", Abacus: London, 1983, p106)
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 18:42:31 EDT