|
Author
|
Topic: Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
Message 58 of 104 (564477)
06-10-2010 6:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Huntard
06-09-2010 3:44 AM
|
|
So? That's an argument from incredulity: "This does not make sense to me, therefore it cannot be true!". That's a logical fallacy. Is there an argument from credulity too? 'This is the only way it makes sense to me. Therefore this has to be the only explanation.' Will that be a logical fallacy as well?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Huntard, posted 06-09-2010 3:44 AM | | Huntard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by Huntard, posted 06-10-2010 6:15 PM | | Europa has replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
It's a thought experiment, like your OP (in which, I note, it took "ages" for the alien plants to get round to invading the island). The point is to get you to think about what would happen under those circumstances. Do you guys honestly believe that the environment can remain similar for an organism for 200 million years? I agree that the organism can also move to what environment that suits him. So the environment of an organism is not on a fixed piece of land area. Still, to believe that an organism managed to live in an unchanging environment for 200 million years, while the others could not do it, is so counter intuitive for me.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 61 of 104 (564482)
06-10-2010 6:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
06-10-2010 6:15 PM
|
|
Sense is a very bad way of determining truth. I agree. But if we do not rely on sense, we should see evidence. Do we have the evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Huntard, posted 06-10-2010 6:15 PM | | Huntard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by Huntard, posted 06-10-2010 6:19 PM | | Europa has replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 63 of 104 (564484)
06-10-2010 6:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Huntard
06-10-2010 6:18 PM
|
|
Re: Cyanobacteria -- the ultimate "living fossil"?
what is "logically difficult to believe" to you is irrelevant, what the evidence shows to be the case is. okay. But where is the evidence? I am waiting for you to show this evidence to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Huntard, posted 06-10-2010 6:18 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 65 of 104 (564486)
06-10-2010 6:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Huntard
06-10-2010 6:19 PM
|
|
Do we have the evidence? For? Evidence to say the environment of 'living fossils' did not change much? Edited by Europa, : No reason given. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Huntard, posted 06-10-2010 6:19 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
Bear in mind that the term "living fossil" does not imply prolonged morphological stasis, which is what you actually want to talk about. Well doctor Adequate, according to Katsuhiko Yoshida, "Living fossils are taxonomic groups surviving for a long time without any remarkable morphological change." Don't know why you want to redefine what a living fossil is. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/abstract/28/4/464
Pick one in particular, and we'll discuss it. Since you insist, please tell me how the cockroach managed to remain a cockroach for hundreds of millions of years. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 70 of 104 (564500)
06-10-2010 6:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Europa
06-10-2010 6:49 PM
|
|
However, the fact is that the evidence shows that some types of organism have remained relatively unchanged (at least morphologically) over long periods of time without going extinct. And this means that there must, throughout that period, always have been some environment that was within their tolerance, otherwise they would have gone extinct, wouldn't they? Now that is logic. The fact that stromatolites (for example) have survived for hundreds of millions of years does in fact prove that for hundreds of millions of years there must have been, at any particular time in this interval, some place on Earth in which stromatolites could survive. So yes, I "honestly believe" that it is possible, because the evidence shows that it has actually happened; and things that happen are of course possible. Now, now, now. doctor. You started with an explanation. Then you called it logic. And in the end you are calling it evidence. Huntard told me sense [and probably logic too] is not good enough. We need evidence. But a mere label of 'evidence' is not enough for me. If it is so, you can label what i called logic also as evidence. I would still call what you explained an explanation. That explanation unfortunately, for me, is so counter intuitive. When I say it is counter intuitive, you say it is an argument from incredulity. That is what lead me to ask for evidence. Where is the evidence that the environment did not change?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 6:49 PM | | Europa has not replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Hi wounded,
Which of the thousands of species of cockroach were you thinking of? The one that survived without much morphological change, for the longest duration. lol
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2010 6:59 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
And which is that, and how long was the duration? This is info can be researched but this is not important. You are evading my question. The cockroach has been around for more than 300 million years. Please give me the evidence that the environment did not change for the cockroach and THAT is why it has been around for more than 300 million years.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
But if you are going to take that as a definition of living fossil then a lot of things that people call living fossils aren't living fossils, and you should bear this in mind when selecting your example. Lets stick to standard definitions. Lets not rely on what people CALL. Sometimes people call 'logic' also evidence. But that is wrong. 
From WP: These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("Blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period between 354—295 million years ago. However, these fossils differ from modern cockroaches in having long external ovipositors and are the ancestors of mantises as well as modern cockroaches. The first fossils of modern cockroaches with internal ovipositors appear in the early Cretaceous ... Current evidence strongly suggests that termites have evolved directly from true cockroaches, and many authors now consider termites to be an epifamily of cockroaches, as Blattaria excluding Isoptera is not a monophyletic group. So, after I read this, I am asked to believe that the cockroaches are cockroaches even after 295 - 354 million years because the environment did not change for them? Is it explained in this quote? Am I missing something? Edited by Europa, : No reason given. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
If a species has survived for x million years, then it is necessarily the case that for x million years there has been some environmental niche in which that species could survive. Otherwise it would not have done so. Hence, while the environment of the species may have changed somewhat, it must always have been within the limits of what that species could survive without undergoing (significant, morphological) evolutionary change. Otherwise the species would be extinct. But, doctor, this is not EVIDENCE. This is an EXPLANATION. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
In the same way, the fact that a species has not gone extinct is unarguable evidence that since it first arose there has always been some environment somewhere that it could live in. It does not, however, explain why this should have been so. Unarguable evidence? It is not even evidence. I will tell you why. Suppose Zeus abducted an organism 300 million years ago. He froze it in one of his freezers in Alpha Centauri. Suppose after 299 million years, Zeus thought that that organism has been sitting in his freezer for too long and he should release it back. So he releases the poor thing 1 million years ago. Zeus also made sure the organism did not die in the process. Now in 2010, this organism is alive and well and we call it a 'coplimite.' Dr Adequate argues with Europa and says the fact that coplimite is alive is EVIDENCE it lived in a favourable environment for 300 million years. How can Europa accept that as evidence when Zeus has frozen the creature for 299 million years? Therefore, the mere fact that we find an organism alive and well DOES NOT provide EVIDENCE that the environment did not change for the organism.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
This takes special pleading to a whole new level. You have misunderstood my point. My Zeus story is not true by any means. I called my creature 'coplimite' also to emphasize that this is nto a true story. But I hoped it demonstrated that the fact we see organisms alive is no fact that their environment did not change.
|
Europa
Member (Idle past 4712 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 06-05-2010
|
|
|
Message 87 of 104 (564585)
06-11-2010 2:42 AM
|
|
|
I just noticed that my member rating is 1. lol This is a new development. Did I get rated because I posted 33 times? lol
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by Huntard, posted 06-11-2010 2:57 AM | | Europa has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2