Monday, March 27, 2017

Evolutionists Have a Simple Proposal for the Evolution of the Mammalian Jaw

Simultaneous, Concurrent, Convergent Evolution

Somehow random mutations creating an incredibly complicated set of bones, muscles, teeth, and behaviors, with “extremely precise” functions, all of which “likely” arose independently rather through common descent, just doesn’t sound right. So as usual evolutionists view the problem teleologically. According to the latest study of the mammalian jaw, it seems that “mammal teeth, jaw bones and muscles evolved to produce side-to-side motions of the jaw, or yaw, that allowed our earliest ancestors to grind food with their molars and eat a more diversified diet.”

To produce?

As usual, the infinitive form tells all. Aristotelianism was not rejected, it was incorporated.

But how could such interdependent complexity evolve in the first place? The jaw, dental, and ear characters comprise so many highly complex, moving parts that need each other to work. And furthermore, they appear in different lineages. The answer is simple: simultaneous, concurrent, convergent evolution.

Based on results of the morphometrics and functional analyses, I develop a novel hypothesis for the simultaneous origin of unique jaw, dental, and ear characters in cladotherians. […] Here, I examine concurrent evolutionary changes to functional anatomies of jaws, molars, and ears in early cladotherian mammals […] The jaws, molars and ears of australosphenidans (which include monotremes) are morphologically similar to those of therians, suggesting convergent evolution of similar functional traits in this group.

All of this, the study concludes, “may have been an especially significant event in mammalian evolution.” Indeed. But for a paper entitled, “The evolutionary origin of jaw yaw in mammals,” there is remarkably little explanation of just how this design evolved.

The bottom line is the evidence does not fit the theory. If the answer is simultaneous, concurrent, convergent evolution, then let’s just admit the obvious.


  1. Do you have any evidence to suggest morphological traits can't evolve in parallel?


    Makes the OP claims kinda silly then.

    1. Do YOU have any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce mammals?


      Makes your comments kinda silly then

    2. No Ghostrider, you misunderstood the post. If simultaneus, convergent concurrent evolution is possible there is no need for CD to explain the nested hierarchy of traits.

    3. Actually it isn't Common Descent that explains the nested hierarchy of traits. Common Descent would expect a smooth blending of traits, given a gradual process.

      Darwin used well-timed extinction events that allegedly produced the distinct categories required by nested hierarchies.

    4. "Do you have any evidence to suggest morphological traits can't evolve in parallel?"

      Oh what a beautiful own goal. The shifting-the-burden-of-proof fallacy has been popular ever since Darwin used it so much. Always good to have contemporary examples to illustrate that evolutionary thought hasn't changed.

  2. Evolutionists seem to forget that they have to be able to pack the evidence down to the genome- meaning they need a genetic basis for the anatomical changes required. Unfortunately they don't have any genetic evidence that changes to the genome can account for the anatomical changes required.

  3. Admitting the obvious is not easy for some. As the saying goes "Love is blind."

  4. Blind Darwinian evolution is fake science. And it's not just evolution. From the Big Bang and dark matter to conscious artificial intelligence and man-made global warming, much of what passes for science in this world of lies is fake science.

    It's time to disrupt the anti-science fascists who are hellbent on BS-ing the public and cut them down to size.

  5. They do need these anatomical details to work right quick, right away to justify them being selected on.
    Once again convergent evolution can be invoked when needed.
    When anything can evolve anyway they one could not ever prove it didn't or one never would need to prove it did.
    its lines of reasoning without any evidence. whatever is true, or could be true, would have no evidence however thats their problem.
    Many contrary options means no option has actual evidence in the observation of anatomy.
    once again making the point evolutionism is greatly a line of reasoning from raw data.
    not a conclusion from evidence in the data.