Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 10:01 PM
68 online now:
DrJones*, ramoss, Tanypteryx (3 members, 65 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,821 Year: 18,644/29,783 Month: 589/2,043 Week: 141/386 Day: 44/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Admin
Director
Posts: 12565
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 361 of 416 (527850)
10-02-2009 8:51 PM


I've just issued a couple one-day suspensions for not following moderator requests and for posting off-topic.

I will continue issuing short suspensions for Forum Guidelines violations and for posting messages with no content that addresses how the example of bats either confirms or disproves evolution.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 362 of 416 (527860)
10-02-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Archangel
10-02-2009 8:24 PM


Re: Living and dead fossils
Hi, Archangel.

Archangel writes:

the evos will squirm and waffle but the fact is they found the fossils, many of which they originally considered solid evidence of evolution until they found they still exist unchanged these millions of years later.

But that's just it: the bat, Onychonycteris is not like modern bats. There are many changes that have happened over these millions of years.

Did you see this:

...posted by Jacortina in Message 39 and reposted by LindaLou in Message 308?

See how the limb dimensions of Onychonycteris (the two red circular dots that are between the two circled clusters) are more similar to the limb dimensions of non-volant (i.e. non-flying) mammals than to bats?

Onychonycteris is not just another bat like the ones we have today: it is a bat of a kind that is no longer alive, and this kind is more like non-flying mammals than modern bats are.

I think this graph should be reposted repeatedly until Calypsis at least engages the point. So far, this is all Calypsis has said on the matter:

Calypsis4, msg # writes:

Question: Are they 'bats'?

Yes/no

If your answer is 'yes' then I rest my case.

The evolutionist viewpoint is that defining things into categories is only for convenience in research and communication, not as an accurate assessment of reality.

As soon as you understand that evolutionists accept that things cannot be defined in terms of distinct "kinds," you will understand why your question is a complete, vacuous strawman.

Onychonycteris is related to such animals as Pipistrellus pipistrellus (the common pipistrelle bat) and Dyacopterus brooksi (the Brooks' Dyak fruit bat). The exact nature of the relationship, and of its relationship to any other organisms, is not well understood.

That is the proper statement of the evolutionist viewpoint. As a creationist, you will insist that this means Onychonycteris is a member of the "bat" kind. But, as soon as you begin arguing that our calling it a "bat" somehow supports creationism, you are only arguing semantics.

What if all scientists in the world agreed to call Onychonycteris something other than "bat"? What would your argument be then? Wouldn't you say something along the lines of, "But it is a 'bat'! See? It has (list diagnostic characters here), so it can't be anything but a bat! And, it's nothing like any other 'kind' of animal because (list diagnostic characters here)."

Why don't you just start with this? Tell us, in detail, all the exact characteristic that makes Onychonycteris a relative of bats, and of nothing else? As Jacortina showed you, our side is doing our part to support our argument that Onychonycteris is related to not only bats, but to other mammals as well.

You're right that we still have a long way to go to make it completely certain, but you're still stuck on, "it looks a lot like a modern bat," so it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize the amount of work that we've accomplished.

Please, give me some strong support for creationism: I am a Christian myself, and you would certainly give me great peace of mind and help me restore my faith in my religion if you could prove to me that ToE is false. But, you're going to have to do better than, "it looks a lot like a modern bat."

Edited by Bluejay, : parenthetical statement about Onychonycteris graph.

Edited by Bluejay, : "cannot" is more accurate than "can"


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Archangel, posted 10-02-2009 8:24 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Archangel, posted 10-03-2009 7:41 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 377 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 8:07 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Arphy
Member (Idle past 2409 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 363 of 416 (527861)
10-02-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Perdition
10-02-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Still No Argument
So you think in the real world that an environment could exist unchanged over millions of years? Note i said in the real world.

As for why stasis is damaging to evolution. This comes from a creationist response to "Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Steven J. Gould Harvard University Press, 2002".

Have a read:

Chapter nine, ‘Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory’ is a Trojan horse for creationists. Although unintended, in this chapter Gould provides a completely updated and superbly annotated treasure trove (almost three hundred pages) for creationists to foil arguments from any scientist who claims that there is ample evidence for gradualism in the fossil record. On the lack of change in the fossil record Gould states:

‘ … the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well—[the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species … Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives’ (p. 749).

Quoting none other than George Gaylord Simpson (p. 755):

‘ … the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century … acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would “pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life”’ (p. 755) [emphasis added].

Gould provides additional creationist evidence stating:

‘The long term stasis following a geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists’ (p. 752).

‘The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants’ (p. 753).

Gould provides additional testimony for predominant stasis in numerous species, and to eliminate any possibility of confusion he hammers on with ‘…but stasis is data’, and ‘Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: “stasis is data; stasis is data” …’ (p. 759).

Gould then debunks the ‘ … exceedingly few cases that became textbook "classics” of the coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of horses etc. … (p. 760). (Interestingly, nearly all these ‘classics’ have since been disproved, thus providing another testimony for the temporary triumph of hope and expectation over evidence).’

He continues:

‘Indeed proclamations for the supposed “truth” of gradualism—asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity—emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most “textbook classics” upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the “case study” method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective
reading of the fossil record’ (p. 773).

From where do you go with this. Many evos on here don't agree with puncuated equalibrium and see it as a minority view. Again the old, if something is a minority view this = wrong. OK so there is no evidence for puncuated equalibrium other than gaps (which means what?), so now you really do have a dilemma.

You guys seem to want to have it both ways. Evolution is change over time. So when presented with evidence that things don't change over time, you say that this is evidence for evolution. WHAT THE...????

A theory that supposedly explains even contradictory observations—in this case change and no change in fossils—in reality, explains nothing at all. This type of loose thinking has become commonplace among people who speculate about evolutionary origins.
http://creation.com/evolutionary-stasis

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took out the extra lines feeds and added blank lines in the first quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Perdition, posted 10-02-2009 5:22 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jacortina, posted 10-02-2009 11:18 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 365 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 12:39 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 366 by dwise1, posted 10-03-2009 2:00 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 367 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-03-2009 2:17 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 374 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-04-2009 2:05 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3060 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(2)
Message 364 of 416 (527864)
10-02-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Still No Argument
So you think in the real world that an environment could exist unchanged over millions of years? Note i said in the real world.

Yes. In fact there are many places in the world which have not changed very much in millions of years (as well as others which have changed). The redwood forests of the western U.S. are estimated to be 200 million years old; the Gobi desert, while expanding, is at its core at least 25-30 million years old; Antarctica, of course, has been (mostly) ice covered for millions of years.

As I noted far upthread, the probability of many species maintaining similar forms for long periods isn't anything new. It was pointed out by Darwin in The Origin...

quote:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes
on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made
somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more
probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then
again undergoes modification." (pp. 152)

Darwin, C. 1872. "Chapter 4 - Natural Selection" The Origin of Species,
Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.


There's not a lot of ambiguity about that 'each form remains for long periods unaltered'.

I certainly wouldn't say it's evidence FOR Evolution. Simply that it's fully consistent with what has always been expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(5)
Message 365 of 416 (527870)
10-03-2009 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi, Arphy.

Arphy writes:

You guys seem to want to have it both ways. Evolution is change over time. So when presented with evidence that things don't change over time, you say that this is evidence for evolution. WHAT THE...????

You are mistaken: the evidence does not show that things are not changing over time. Every example so far brought to this thread supports the model of things changing over time: it's just that creationists don't want to acknowledge that they don't get to dictate which changes should occur under the evolutionary model (only evolution itself is afforded that luxury).

For example, Calypsis feels that Onychonycteris, which is not like modern bats, can be used to prove that change is not happening over time, even after a number of major differences between that bat and modern bats have been pointed out to him. Do you acknowledge that these changes have occurred?

Furthermore, nearly every species in the fossil record is only found in a very small range of time, rarely exceeding several million years.

So I ask you, how is it that you think the fossil record shows stasis, when it actually shows rapid turnover of species in a period of just a few million years? This is not stasis: this is change over time.

-----

Arphy writes:

So you think in the real world that an environment could exist unchanged over millions of years? Note i said in the real world.

It need not be the entire environment that exists without change over millions of years... it could be simply an environmental feature that persists across a long succession of environments.

For instance, the environment in Africa has turned over a lot in 150 million years. But, all the environments that have existed in Africa thoughout the ages have included rivers and coastal habitats, where all kinds of fish live and all kinds of animals come to drink. And, as long as animals come to riversides to drink, their will always be a niche available for crocodilians.

It isn't about evolution being able to explain both sides of a dichotomy... it's about creationists not understanding that this dichotomy does not touch on what ToE actually says. There is nothing in ToE that dictates that large-scale changes must occur, nor that they must occur the same for all species, so there is no contradiction when some things change less than others.

There are hundreds of reasons why one thing would change much less than something else:

  • slower reproductive rates allowing fewer opportunities for mutations in the same time period (e.g. elephants)
  • ability to weather short calamities via hardened cysts or hibernation/aestivation (e.g. seed plants and plasmodial slime molds)
  • continuity in the resource base selecting for continuity in adaptations to exploit the resource base (e.g. crocodilians)
  • a pre-exising ability to adapt behaviorally or exploit a wide resource base, such that morphological change is not necessary (e.g. rodents)

And, there are hundreds of reasons why one thing would change a lot:

  • intense competition for a single resource, favoring extreme specializations (e.g. wingless parasitic flies, "bee lice")
  • rapid reproduction rates, allowing many opportunities for mutations to occur (e.g, fruit flies)
  • unstable environments demanding rapid changes (e.g. mosquitos in vernal pools)
  • runaway sexual selection (e.g. diopsid flies)

ToE acknowledges and incorporates all of these possibilities within itself. Remember that ToE consists of many distinct mechanisms that are collectively referred to as "natural selection," so we shouldn't expect everything to show the same patterns of change and diversity.

-----

(To Admin: I realize that this doesn't focus entirely on the bat example, but it does address the broader concept of living fossils. If you think this is detracting from the focal topic of the thread, I can stop.)


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:23 PM Blue Jay has responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 366 of 416 (527876)
10-03-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Evolution is change over time.

No, evolution is adaptation to the environment. Which will result in change over time when that is needed to adapt to the environment. Or statis when the population is already adapted well enough to its environment.

Are you at all familiar with electronics? Power supplies maintain a constant voltage output regardless of how much current is being drawn (within its design parameters, of course). That's accomplished by the voltage regulator which samples the output voltage and adjusts that voltage accordingly by subtracting a portion of the output voltage from the output voltage. That's called a "negative feedback loop".

Another example of a negative feedback loop is a missile or a torpedo that's designed to track its target. The missile senses where its target is, measures how far off it is from heading towards that target and in which direction, and subtracts a portion of that error from it's current heading to redirect it towards its target.

Adaptation to the environment also operates via a negative feedback loop. Now obviously, there's no actual device nor explicit mechanism that implements that loop. Rather, it's implicit in how life itself works. The population produces the next generation of offspring who are very much like their parents, yet a bit different. A lot more offspring are produced than will survive to reproductive age; the ones better adapted will have a better chance of surviving and reproducing than the less well adapted will have. Thus, the better adapted ones will be more likely to survive and to breed the next generation. In effect, that is the negative feedback loop. In this manner, the population will track its environment. If the environment is changing or the population is moving into a new environment (read "niche"), then that tracking will result in change. But if the environment is not changing and the population is already well enough adapted to that environment, then that population will not change; in fact, in that case it's evolution that's actively keeping the population from changing.

So you see, we do view evolution differently. Those who accept evolution view it in terms of how it actually works, whereas those who believe that it violates their religious beliefs view it in terms of what the creationists say it is. Let's face it, those who accept evolution are interested in figuring out how it works, whereas creationists are mainly interested in disproving it. So it should come as no surprise that creationists will present evolution in as negative a manner as possible. For that matter -- and I'm speaking from 3 decades of experience with "creation science" -- , most creationists will even present a distorted view of evolution which is designed to be easier to "refute". A caricature. A strawman.

So we're looking at evolution in two very different ways. The one side is viewing it as it is, whereas your side is viewing it as creationists have mis-taught you. Rather than each side thinking that both side is talking about the same thing, we need to be open about what we mean and understand by "evolution" and be ready to hammer out a commonly agreed-upon definition.

So you have stumbled upon Cal's problem here. He has, after all, been feeding on creationist misinformation for about 40 years now. He has one distorted definition of evolution in mind, one which his mindless photos would indeed refute. The problem is that that is not what evolution actually is. He thinks that all he needs to do is to show that uniform gradualistic change is not the norm and evolution is refuted. Whereas we already know that uniform gradualistic change is not the norm, so his "atomic bomb" is a big dud. Cal needs to be open about what his assumptions about evolution are and why he thinks that, according to those assumptions, his "evidences" are supposed to be so devastating. He apparently doesn't think that that should be necessary, not knowing that his ideas about evolution are different from ours.

So to answer the basic question: stasis is not damaging to actual evolutionary theory. It is damaging to certain misconceptions of evolution, such as is taught to creationists, but not to actual evolutionary theory.

Good eye! Thank you for bringing this up! I hope it gets through to Cal!

From where do you go with this. Many evos on here don't agree with puncuated equalibrium and see it as a minority view.

Why? Punc Eq makes an enormous amount of sense. And, to be honest, I'm sure that most "evos" here agree with it to some extane and do not see it as a minority view. Again, you only know what your creationist handlers have hand-fed you. Time to get out of the yard and see what the world really looks like. Engaging other members of this forum would be a good opportunity for you.

Now, I'm not so sure about you, but Cal has talked about "evolutionist" views he had encountered. Of course, that begs really big-time the definition of "evolutionist" (which is a creationist buzzword that I have, for the past 3 decades, found most creationists to be especially loathe to define). Cal himself even declares that 40 years ago he was himself an "evolutionist", but he has not yet revealed just what he means by that. I have also over the decades seen many other creationists also present themselves as "ex-evolutionists", also without ever offering any kind of definition or explanation. There's even a local creationist activist who falsely proclaims that evolution had turned him into an "atheist" so that he could indulge his "bubbling teenage hormones" guilt-free -- yet he also states that he prayed to God every single night, so he wasn't really an atheist, but rather was only pretending to be one, in accordance with Christian doctrine.

The thing is that many people accept many philosophies and viewpoints and positions. Just because they decide that they accept something doesn't mean that they know anything about it. I have most certainly seen far too many "creationists" and Christians who had no clue what they were talking about, so the idea that there are "evolutionists" out there who are ignorant of the basic science should come as no surprise.

When my web-site was up, I included a quote from the then-governor of Mississippi that I heard one day on NPR. Even though I had grown up and lived most of my life in Orange County, Calif, I was stationed in Mississippi for the better part of a year. It was a culture shock ... and that was long after it had immensely improved (one former Air Force brat told us that in the late 60's, the most popular bumper sticker on the Gulf Coast was "Keep Biloxi Clean. Kill an Airman"). This governor said was a very strong advocate of education reform. His justification for his position was: "We've already tried ignorance, so we already know that that does not work!"

Arphy, Cal! You have already tried ignorance, so you should already know that that does not work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 907 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(4)
Message 367 of 416 (527878)
10-03-2009 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


Stasis, PE, and Gould
Hi Arphy,

I wanted to address a few points in your posts. From reading a few of your other posts in the past you seem like a very reasonable person.

First - be very suspicious of creationist sources that cite Gould. I will be the first to admit that Gould has said some very odd things. But more often than not (and by that I mean always) creationist sources love to misinterpret Gould. Again, I am afraid he often set up the situation which allows that to be possible (he tended to speak and write in grandiose terms).

In the work your source cites they are in fact citing Gould correctly but are using the quotes to support a different concept. Notice the repeated use of the word 'species' throughout. He is using the term as biologists (and most everyone) use the term. He is NOT talking about larger taxonomic categories, what creationists would call 'kinds'.

What Darwin expected, and he was incorrect in many (but not all cases) was that we would see a smooth transition from one species to another in the geologic record. What has been found is that we find individual species remain static, then seem to abruptly change to another species that remains static and so on. Eldredge and Gould argued that this was not an artifact of an incomplete fossilization record but the nature of speciation. Again note this is species and speciation, change that pretty much all creationists are comfortable with as it is 'microevolution'.

This does not in any way replace gradual change, Gould acknowledges that gradual change is the rule, but that apparent change in the fossil record is quick.

Picture a large population of snails with smooth shells that occupy a valley. The majority of that population have smooth shells so as they die they record layer after layer of that species with smooth shells. Meanwhile, on the fringe of that population a group that is heavily preyed upon are gradually developing thicker shells with spines. After a few thousand years the environment changes and suddenly the predator can exploit the whole population. In a few generations the thick-shelled spiny genes swamp the whole population.

What would that look like to a paleontologist studying the fossils of this snail? Would you expect to see smooth snails gradually changing to spiny ones or would it seem like they abruptly morphed into another species? Darwin predicted the former, facts revealed the latter. Darwin wasn't altogether wrong, change does go by increments, but apparent change in the fossil record appears saltational because the main body of a population remains stable while change occurs in fringe or isolated populations. That is punctuated equilibrium.

Note - we also have found examples of species that do change gradually over time as well, PE does not describe all cases of speciation.

Your source is trying to make you think that Gould doubted that 'kinds' have intermediates that are are seen to gradually appear in the fossil record. This is blatantly false. Transitions between what creationists call kinds, whether it be defined as genus, family, phyla, etc. are well know for a huge number of groups, and only getting better as time goes by. Gould discusses many of these in his essays as well.

I urge you to read "Structures of Evolutionary Theory" yourself, it is very readable and interesting. Also, I am surprised to hear that anyone acquainted with PE find it a marginal theory or a minority view. It has held up over time and been supported repeatedly. It is not the only way species appear to change, but it is strongly supported.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 6:06 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2487 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 368 of 416 (527881)
10-03-2009 3:01 AM


Could this help?
Just a small observation. It occurs to me that Calypsis's assertions might make more sense if it were granted that:

1) We only use the Mosaic system of classification to determine kinds. Thus, if it flys, we'lll say that it's of the same "kind." Case closed. Modern classification systems just get in the way.

2) We accept a YEC timeline so that all fossils would then be considered to be contemperaneous with each other and with modern species. Agreed, this flys in the face of all available evidence. However, at least it's a way to recast lineages as just "variations within a kind." Maybe this is why the idea of living fossils is supposed to be the "atom bomb" that destroys evolution. If you can pretend that all species have remained unchanged over time, well then, of course evolution doesn't make sense.

While neither of these suppositions has any support in any available, credible evidence, maybe they're at least a way of making sense of what Calypsis is trying to say.


Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 369 of 416 (527889)
10-03-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Lithodid-Man
10-03-2009 2:17 AM


Re: Stasis, PE, and Gould
Also, I am surprised to hear that anyone acquainted with PE find it a marginal theory or a minority view. It has held up over time and been supported repeatedly. It is not the only way species appear to change, but it is strongly supported.

I strongly disagree. There have now been several decades of study into punctuated equilibrium, and the the predominant finding is that it represents a misreading of the geological record. Where the geological record of sufficient quality to determine whether the actual pattern of evolution is gradual or punctual, the fossils do not support punctuated evolution while the apparent punctualism of less well preserved sediments is easily explicable by the nature of sediment production. Stasis (suitably defined) followed by period of rapid change does occur but it is not the major pattern of evolution.

At the time that Gould and Eldridge were writing the prevalent view was that rates of evolutionary change were much more constant than we now know to be the case, and the real variation that is found* is a highly variable, especially during period of adaptive radiation (of which the Eocene bats are an excellent example) when it proceeds very rapidly indeed. So they did help move our understanding of evolutionary change forward, although their specific ideas were wrong.

Robert L. Carroll's Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution deals with the subject in some depth, if you're interested.

* - As an interesting aside, rates of genetic change don't follow the same pattern as rates of morphological change. Different species of organisms such as King Crabs show as much genetic difference as morphologically very different species of mammal that diverged at a similar time. This, perhaps, suggests that looking merely at morphological evolution is misleading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-03-2009 2:17 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12565
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 370 of 416 (527890)
10-03-2009 7:07 AM


Suspensions
I have regretfully issued one day suspensions to several more people for posting off-topic. The only off-topic posters spared were relative newbies. If you click on the "Admin Posts Only" link to your left you'll see that the topic is living fossils, and the example we're focusing on is bats.

To Calypsis:

I understand that you find this very difficult to believe, but no one understands why you think your argument of "Is it still a bat? Yes? End of story!" is so effective an argument against evolution that it requires no elaboration. Incredible, I know, but there it is.

The rebuttals have offered several relevant explanations, and I think if you begin addressing these that it would help move the discussion forward. For example, one of these explanations says that evolutionary change is a response to environmental change, and that environments that change little provoke little evolutionary change.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 371 of 416 (527892)
10-03-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Blue Jay
10-02-2009 9:59 PM


Bluejay writes:

But that's just it: the bat, Onychonycteris is not like modern bats. There are many changes that have happened over these millions of years.

Did you see this:

Here's the problem Bluejay, only in the minds of evolutionists will this chart be considered evidence at all. I want to see the quality and completeness of the fossils used to come to these conclusions. Conclusions I submit are fallacious since you can't prove your fossil record is accurate, nor can you prove the ages of these fossils are accurate. Everything your so called science offers in these eloquently written dissertations which claim to be based in fact are nothing more than unprovable assumptions which which make massive leaps of assuming facts which are NOT in evidence in order to come to conclusions which cannot be sustained in reality.

The evolutionist viewpoint is that defining things into categories is only for convenience in research and communication, not as an accurate assessment of reality.

As soon as you understand that evolutionists accept that things cannot be defined in terms of distinct "kinds," you will understand why your question is a complete, vacuous strawman.

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that you can't really prove anything you claim, yet you promote it as assumed facts anyway. The fact is that based on this statement you have no right calling evolution a science in any way. It is nothing more than a conglomeration of collections of bones which people from all around the world are attempting to catalogue and interpret. But when the reality is that with almost every new fossil discovery, the previously discovered fossils must be redefined and recategorized, it should be obvious to you that what is taking place isn't a science at all. It's a guessing game.

Onychonycteris is related to such animals as Pipistrellus pipistrellus (the common pipistrelle bat) and Dyacopterus brooksi (the Brooks' Dyak fruit bat). The exact nature of the relationship, and of its relationship to any other organisms, is not well understood.

That is the proper statement of the evolutionist viewpoint. As a creationist, you will insist that this means Onychonycteris is a member of the "bat" kind. But, as soon as you begin arguing that our calling it a "bat" somehow supports creationism, you are only arguing semantics.

Not at all. Our problem is one of factual deductions which are universally fluid in evolution science while the basic facts upon which other sciences rely are absolute, even though new technologies and applications are added to them as we learn more about the respective science. Let me give you a twofold example here.

First, regarding the problem of the fluidity and constantly redefining ages and placement of fossils in the record, let's look at the history of the automobile. Here is a link to some of Jay Leno's classic cars. http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/classics/ The second video down is of the 55 Packard Caribbean. What kind of confidence or respect would we have for the history of automobiles if next week, after getting in another 1955 Packard Caribbean, Leno announced that he must revamp his prior year of manufacture for the video above and redate it to a 1953 Packard? Would we call this a reliable science worthy of museum exhibits if cars couldn't be accurately categorized in absolute and consistent terms? I think not. It would be relegated to junk collections which have no value at all since nothing about their place in history could be confirmed absolutely at all.

Also, has the automotive physics which made this Packard run in 1955 changed at all when compared to the internal combustion engines of today? Not at all. Sure we have learned to make cars more efficient and powerful while more economical. But the physics which causes them to run hasn't changed at all. We have also discovered different types of power plants like hybrids and fuel cells but they are determined worthy of production based on their ability to live up to the standards of reliability established by the internal combustion engine decades ago.

But what do we have with evolution? A constantly redefined interpretation of the existing evidence based on every new piece of evidence discovered. Yet at every turn when the ages of fossils are discussed in a vacuum, their alleged ages are stated to be absolutely known and confirmed. But keep in mind that just 10 years ago, none of these absolute ages existed as they are stated to be today at all.

Here's a simple timeline as evidence of what is currently believed, but has little relevance to what was believed to be true when I was in school in the early 70s when the earth was believed to be only 2 to 2.5 billion years old. My point being that if evolution was founded in actual and unchanging facts as all other sciences depend before moving on to establishing other new conclusions, the information gaps would constantly be filled by new discoveries, but at no time would the previously discovered facts have to be revamped, recategorized or redefined as is the reality with this cult like pseudo science.

5 billion years ago: earth is formed, along with the other planets
3.7 billion years ago: earth's crust solidified (square 104)
3.5 billion years ago: first life appears in oceans (square 120)
3.25 billion years ago: photosynthesis begins in oceans (square 140)
2.4 billion years ago: oceans contain significant amounts of oxygen (square 208)
1.9 billion years ago: first cells with nuclei appear in oceans (square 248)
0.65 billion years ago: first multicellular organisms appear (square 348)
0.5 billion years ago: first land plants with inner vessels (square 359)

250 million years ago: mass extinction of 99% of all life (square 380)
245 million years ago: Age of Dinosaurs begins (square 380)
150 million years ago: Supercontinent breaking up; continents
drifting apart (square 388)
65 million years ago: Age of Dinosaurs ends, with mass extinction
of 70% of all living things (square 394)
3.5 million years ago: First proto-humans appear, in what is now
Africa (last square, 3.1 cm from end)
100,000 years ago: First Homo sapiens appears
(last square, 1 mm from end)
10,000 years ago: Recorded human history begins
(last square, 0.1 mm from end)


http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/t.../history.html

So, to summarize, nothing you post in the way of evidence has any relevance in reality since you can't prove that any of your conclusions are testable, provable, supportable by real science or will sustain the test of time in any way.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 9:59 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 7:10 PM Archangel has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2591 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 372 of 416 (527934)
10-03-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:42 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Hello Calypsis4 and welcome to EVC

I think we may be able to clear up some confusion if we can agree to a definition of biological evolution. I know you posted the Huxley quote about evolution, and several members disagree with it. How about this definition from
Wiki on Biological Evolution:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

Notice that this definition (and any that would be acceptable) does not mention rates of change. Evolution does not require any specific rate of change. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. This is what everyone here wants you to explain.

Now let us compare this to Gravity:

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency which lends weight to objects with mass

Notice again how that definition does not mention anything about rates of acceleration of objects towards each other.

What does this have to do with this thread?

Well essentially, what you have argued for 120 some posts is, "Here is a picture of a fossil. Here is a picture of an existing species. There is not enough change so evolution is false."

It is the same argument as this, "The gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 m/sec squared. The gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is 25.9 m/sec squared. The two planets have different accelerations therefore gravity is false."

If this is not your argument please, for the clarity of everyone here lay out your argument why living fossils disproves evolution.

Thanks,
Joe

Edited by dokukaeru, : removed incomplete thought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:42 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM dokukaeru has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 373 of 416 (527989)
10-03-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Archangel
10-03-2009 7:41 AM


Hi, Archangel.

Archangel writes:

Here's the problem Bluejay, only in the minds of evolutionists will this chart be considered evidence at all. I want to see the quality and completeness of the fossils used to come to these conclusions. Conclusions I submit are fallacious since you can't prove your fossil record is accurate, nor can you prove the ages of these fossils are accurate.

The accuracy of the fossil record has nothing to do with this graph.

Here is the graph again:

The chart compares the ratio of arm length to leg length ("intermembral index") to the ratio of arm length to arm width ("brachial index").

The organisms used in this chart are not fossils (a number of Eocene bats are included, though: black dots). Most of them are living animals for which these measurements are quite certainly accurate. They include living sloths, squirrels, bats, apes, tree shrews, carnivorans and a colugo (which spans the range of known limb proportions in mammals).

It is clear that Onychonycteris, which is known from a superb, complete fossil skeleton, has limb measurements more like non-volant (non-flying) mammals than it does like other bats.

There is no assumption here: there is only data on limb measurements.

-----

Archangel writes:

Bluejay writes:

The evolutionist viewpoint is that defining things into categories is only for convenience in research and communication, not as an accurate assessment of reality.
As soon as you understand that evolutionists accept that things cannot be defined in terms of distinct "kinds," you will understand why your question is a complete, vacuous strawman.

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that you can't really prove anything you claim, yet you promote it as assumed facts anyway.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Archangel. What you claim that I said bears absolutely no relationship to what I actually did say.

I said that "species" and "kinds" categories are used as means to facilitate communication and understanding among scientists, and not as a device for explaining perfect evolutionary relationships.

I also did not claim that anything was either "assumed" or a "fact": I would not promote it as a fact (which was the point of what I write), and it is only libel on your part to call it an assumption.

I'm sorry if my wording somehow misled you, but as it stands, it seems to me that what you read is not what I actually wrote. How can I debate with you if you don't read my arguments for what they are?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Archangel, posted 10-03-2009 7:41 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 3:20 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3871
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 374 of 416 (528037)
10-04-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


You didn't source credit some of your quoted material
Judging from all the extra line breaks (since repaired by me), that first big box of quotations seems to have come from http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/collapse.htm. They, in turn, quoted and credited it as being from http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/after/after.htm.

It's always a good and proper thing, to give credit and links to your sources.

NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. DOING SUCH COULD RESULT IN (ANOTHER?) 24 HOUR SUSPENSION.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit - Correction - The source seems to be page 2 of http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_48-51.pdf, which is the source of the above cited.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 375 of 416 (528038)
10-04-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Blue Jay
10-03-2009 7:10 PM


The chart compares the ratio of arm length to leg length ("intermembral index") to the ratio of arm length to arm width ("brachial index")

The bit I've bolded is not quite correct. Brachial index is 100 x radius length/humerus length, which is the ratio of the length of the forearm to the upper arm, not a measure of "arm length to arm width".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 7:10 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018