Introducing Krauze

[John_Harshman]

@scd

wha is the jaw bone that we see only in embrio but not in adult?

It’s called the mandibular or Meckel’s cartilage, depending on species. In mammals, it starts in the jaw but eventually part of it becomes the malleus of the middle ear. Again, I suggest you find yourself a comparative vertebrate anatomy text.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

In mammals, it starts in the jaw but eventually part of it becomes the malleus of the middle ear.

It is also interesting that testes and ovaries are found in the body cavity of fish and many other vertebrates. In human embryonic development, the testes start in the chest cavity and then slowly move downwards, eventually pushing through the internal body cavity. This often leads to problems with hernias. This is another great example of embryonic development giving us clues about evolutionary histories.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

what about the things that dont fit well with evolutionery history?:

What are those, how well don’t they fit, and is that sufficient to be a problem significant enough to cast the entire theory into doubt?

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

what about the things that dont fit well with evolutionery history?:

How do those things not fit well with evolutionary history?

[AlanFox]

Late to the welcome party but hello to Krauze!

I have a copy of The Design Matrix by one Mike Gene, who speaks highly of Krauze in his introduction. Would that be you?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

It can give some small indications here and there, but nowhere enough to give a full picture of what the first stages in the origin of life process were like.

@Rumraket

We might have to accept that we can only explain how some sort of life could have originated, but never be able to say with any appreciable certainty that this is how our kind of life did originate.

Thank you. These are the sort of statements I would like to see in high school and college freshman biology textbooks when the subject “origin of life” is introduced. Also in popular presentations of the origin of life on the PBS, etc.

[Krauze]

@AlanFox

I have a copy of The Design Matrix by one Mike Gene, who speaks highly of Krauze in his introduction. Would that be you?

That would be me. I collaborated with Mike Gene and other teleology-friendly people on the now-defunct Telic Thoughts blog.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Thank you. These are the sort of statements I would like to see in high school and college freshman biology textbooks when the subject “origin of life” is introduced.

Are you saying that because you think it is improperly introduced?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

Are you saying that because you think it is improperly introduced?

I’m saying that any statement about the topic that doesn’t include your frank admissions of what is not known, and what may never be known, will mislead the public. I read lots of popular science in my youth (most of it written by scientists, though some by journalists cheerleading for science), and the difficulties that you’ve alluded to tended to be smoothed over with simplified discussions of the Urey-Miller experiments, leading the reader to reason: “Well, if in just a few weeks those molecules could be produced, over hundreds of millions of years, producing a living cell would be a breeze!” That was the takeaway lesson, whether it was stated explicitly or only left implicit. Your cautious statements provide a better model for writing about this subject. That’s all that I meant.