Jaw to Ear Magic
Evolutionists claim the mammilian ear bones (ossicles) derived from the jaw bones of non-mammilian ancestors. This claim is demonstrably false by science because evolutionism is based upon a paradigm which is formed into an endless number of assumptions for which there either is no supporting evidence or which contradicts the physical evidence.
Three of the most serious problems for this idea that evolutionists simply ignore because they value their assumptions and philosophy of evolutionism more than they respect science.
1. Liaoconodon hui is dated to the Early Cretaceous at 120 which is 40–75 Ma (million years after) after the appearance of the first fully formed mammalian middle ear.1 This is 75 Ma younger than the first “definitive mammalian middle ear” (DMME), Hadrocodium.2
2. The 75 MY that Liaoconodon hui precedes Hadrocodium is nearly equal to an entire geologic period - the Cretaceous, which lasted supposedly 79.5 MY. It should not take 75 MY for the middle ear to evolve if a precursor middle ear and "difinitive middle ear" required vastly less time to evolve. Why an entire geologic period of time for this transition? Is it logical that any anatomical feature could take so long to evolve considering the evolutionist's timescale for the evolution of fish into land-dwelling amphibian tetrapods or other such complete transitions in anatomy?
1. Meng, J., Wang, Y. and Li, C., Transitional mammalian middle ear from
a new Cretaceous Jehol eutriconodont, Nature 472:181–185, 2011.
2. Luo, Z.-X., Crompton, A.W. and Sun, A.-L., A new mammaliaform from
the Early Jurassic and evolution of mammalian characteristics, Science
292(5521):1535–1540, 2001.
3. The genetic pathway for the ear bones and jaw bones of the creatures involved are not the same!
The evolutionists use an opossum skull in their images trying to show the evolution of the jaws of mammals because it is believed that their bones follow the same developmental pathway as their assumed evolutionary transitional forms of the animal groups Thrinaxodon, Probainognathus, and Morganucodon. This is highly selective and unscientific, since other mammals have a different developmental pathway for the same bones!
There have been two competing theories of the development of the middle ear bones (ossicles). The oldest theory stated that all of the middle ear components developed from the first pharyngeal arch. More recent studies have concluded that the components of the middle ear, including the ossicles, develop from both the first and second pharyngeal arches! In humans, the mandible (lower jaw bone) develops from the first pharyngeal arch only. Yet the tympanic bones (ossicles) of the middle ear are developed by both the first and second pharyngeal arches. Thus, two genetic development pathways through both the first and second pharyngeal arches work together to form the ossicles, as well as other structures of the middle ear. It cannot be said therefore that the claim of the evolution theory that the middle ear bones (ossiles) evolved from the first pharyngeal arch which develops the mandible in mammals is responsible for the evolution of the human or other mammilian ossicles. If the theory were correct, since the mandible of mammals develops from the first pharyngeal arch only and has no genetic development pathway from the second pharyngeal arch, then the ossicles of the human middle ear would likewise develop from the first pharyngeal arch only, and would have no contributing development pathway from the second pharyngeal arch. But this is not the case with humans. Therefore, since both the first and second pharyngeal arches represent separate genetic development pathways which are involved in the development of the middle ear bones, we must conclude:
1. the genetic information for the development of the ossicles is located in separate gene sets in different loci of the DNA resulting in separate genetic developmental pathways, which indicates a designed information process.
2. the theory that the human middle ear developed from the mandible of an imagined ancestor is untenable, since human ossicle development is conducted from not just the first pharyngeal arch, but the second arch also. If the theory of mammilian ossicle development were true, this should not be the case.
3. modern scientific discovery has yet again discredited an evolutionary story because it has revealed that the evolutionist's assumptions are not supported by the scientific facts.
These facts present unanswerable questions for the evolutionist, which reveal the unscientific, faith-based, outrageously illogical beliefs of evolutionism:
1. How can undirected, unintelligent molecular interactions (random mutation) create complex gene sets (or any gene at all) and their co-expression to develop any structure of an organism? The process of fetal development is the most complex process that exists in the world. How can something orders of magnitude more complex than anything man (an intelligent agent) is capable of designing be produced by random, unintelligent molecular interactions which contradict the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?
2. How is it logical that undirected, unintelligent molecular interactions can result in anything which is unfathomably complex and intricate? The concept contradicts the laws of nature - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which verifies that matter moves towards disorder, not towards complexity - the opposite of what evolution claims has happened (and must still be happening) trillions of times?
3. How could evolution (an outrageous number of unintelligent, undirected molecular interactions) cause a second genetic developmental pathway (2nd pharyngeal arch) to become integrated with the developmental pathway of the mandible so as to produce the middle ear?
4. What environmental pressures could possibly exist to cause jaw bones to evolve into ear bones?
5. What possible environmental pressure could cause new developmental pathways to evolve that result in a more complex hearing mechanism than already existed, and then integrate them into an ear that already exists?
6. How could Natural Selection cause bones to detach from the jaw and remain in the anatomy without removing them because they are uselessly floating in soft tissue? Natural Selection should remove useless and functionless features!
7. How could natural Selection cuase migrating and functionless bones to slowly integrate, in numerous successive steps, into the hearing system of an animal that already has functional hearing, since introducing a completely new structural design and merging it with an already functioning one should disrupt hearing until the process were complete?
How could the genetic information that determines the developmental parthway of jaw bones become swapped with the genetic information that determines the develpomental pathway for the incus and malleus of the middle ear? How could the influence of the environment cause this change in genetic development pathway by numerous successive genetic mutations? For evolution to accomplish this, each mutation would have to be selected because it caused a beneficial change to the morphology of the articular bones of the jaw through the process of evolving into the bones of the inner ear.
Amphibians and reptiles (including birds) use the quadrate and articular bones as part of the hinge joint of the jaw. In mammals, these bones are not part of the jaw hinge.
In mammals, the hinge joint of the jaw is the temporomandibular joint, where the mandibular condyle fits into the mandibular fossa (which is part of the temporal bone). See the skulls page for more detail. The quadrate and articular bones are not part of the jaw hinge.
The difference between the inner ear bones and their imagined jab bone precursors is stark, without transitional form, and of unknown mechanism. It is therefore a sheer assumption not based upon physical evidence, as admitted in the fosllowing statement:
"The sharp contrast between the precise structure of these tiny mammalian bones and their non-auditory reptilian counterparts drew the attention of Associate Professor of Animal Biology Karen Sears and postdoctoral researcher Daniel Urban, who led the study." In the developing ears of opossums, echoes of evolutionary history https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216104002.htm
University of California Berkley states they know of no mechanism for the imagned transition of jaws:
"For reasons we don't fully understand, several lineages of synapsids — including the one that would eventually give rise to the mammals — began to evolve changes in the jaw joint." - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_05
They then state,
"Originally the quadrate and articular bones formed the jaw joint, but these synapsids (e.g., Probainognathus) evolved a second pair of bones involved in the jaw articulation."
So - they are claiming these evolutionary changes to jaw bone numbers and locations has in fact taken place, but acknowledge they do not know of a mechanism for such evolution - the development of new, integrated bones in jaws and their changing integration and form over time. How is that scientific?
They then state,
"This unusual paired condition did not last long, though. Soon, the quadrate and articular lost their function in jaw articulation and even their position in the jaw as they evolved."
Their assumption is presumed because of their belief that one kind of organism existed prior to another. Sedimentology demonstrates that the difference in time between these organisms becoming buried in sediments is months at most because strata form horizontally and in numbers, not one at a time over vast ages of time.
They then state,
"So, over time, the synapsids' quadrate-articular jaw joint (which the rest of the tetrapods possess) was replaced by a dentary-squamosal joint (which all living mammals possess), while the quadrate and articular migrated, shrank, and became part of the complex of middle ear bones."
The bones which comprize the jaw or animals is determined by seperate pathways by cell specialization. The bones claimed to migrate and change in morphology are developed by the different physical arrangement of specialized cells early in the development of the animal. The process which determines how cells are organized to become physically arranged and fused together is not understood:
"The cranial sutures form as the margins of the developing bones approximate, and the mesenchymal tissue separating the bone fronts is recruited into the osteogenic fronts (Opperman, 2000). It remains unknown whether the formation and spatial arrangement of the sutures occurs as a response to the approximation of the bone fronts, if they are prepatterned in a manner similar to the joints in the developing limb, or if signals from the surrounding epithelia determine the position of the sutures." Cranial Suture Biology
Kelly A Lenton, ... Michael T. Longaker, in Current Topics in Developmental Biology, 2005 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/squamosal-bone
The cranial sutures form as the margins of the developing bones approximate, and the mesenchymal tissue separating the bone fronts is recruited into the osteogenic fronts (Opperman, 2000). It remains unknown whether the formation and spatial arrangement of the sutures occurs as a response to the approximation of the bone fronts, if they are prepatterned in a manner similar to the joints in the developing limb, or if signals from the surrounding epithelia determine the position of the sutures.
In humans, the middle ear bones (ossicles) are derived from separate origins in the first and second arch mesenchyme. (Mesenchyme, in vertebrate embryology, is a type of connective tissue found mostly during the development of the embryo.)
The evolutionists use an opposum skull in their images trying to show the evolution of the jaws of mammals because it is believed that their bones follow the same developmental pathway as their assumed evolutionary transitional forms of the animal groups Thrinaxodon, Probainognathus, and Morganucodon. This is highly selective and unscientific, since other mammals have a differrent developmental pathway for the same bones!
Scientists admit they do not know the mechanism for these independant developmental pathways becoming changed by evolution:
"A new developmental mechanism for the separation of the mammalian middle ear ossicles from the jaw[2]"Multiple mammalian lineages independently evolved a definitive mammalian middle ear (DMME) through breakdown of Meckel's cartilage (MC). However, the cellular and molecular drivers of this evolutionary transition remain unknown for most mammal groups. Here, we identify such drivers in the living marsupial opossum Monodelphis domestica, whose MC transformation during development anatomically mirrors the evolutionary transformation observed in fossils. Specifically, we link increases in cellular apoptosis and TGF-BR2 signalling to MC breakdown in opossums. We demonstrate that a simple change in TGF-ß signalling is sufficient to inhibit MC breakdown during opossum development, indicating that changes in TGF-ß signalling might be key during mammalian evolution." - Hearing - Middle Ear Development https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Hearing_-_Middle_Ear_Development
I could ask a hundred more question no evolutionist is capable of answering, all of which reveal the unscientific, illogical, faith-based, miraculous nature of the evolution belief system.
Sorry Charlie. Go fish.
