|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Well Dr A, you make a statement, "we have the fossils", I assume that means more than a handful, and it means you can show the evolution of an interior scapular girdle to the rib-cage, in turtles from an exterior girdle, by showing the transitionals for all pre-turtles and how that change could occur because of the disjunct? Does this mean you have all of the transitionals for pre-Pterosaurs, pre-bats, pre-spiders, pre-seahorses, pre-Ichthyosaurs, pre-Jellyfish? How about ancestors from terrestrial quadrupeds to arboreal bipeds? Got any to show? I doubt it.
Here is the list I have accumulated of all of the stasis, please note the term, "evolutionary stasis" is the biggest oxymoron in history. "changing stasis". Lol! Here is my own list of organisms, none of which have any transitionals, but they pop up in the fossil record abruptly, and stay the same. (yes, I have heard the evolutionist sophistry of, 'this poses no problem for evolution', so don't bother to waste your time) (so, "you win". Yes- you win, you win the right to an argument-from-credulity, you have found a handful of fossils and so infer an astronomical non-sequitur, that a woeful whale is related to a holy cow. (I know ambulocetus and Rhodocetus weren't cows , I was waxing lyrical Mr evolutionist, so don't be obtuse!)
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) Gingko Trees (125 million years), Crocodiles (140 million years), Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years). Avocets (65 million years) Wollemi Pine (150 million years) Ferns (180 million years) Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut) Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene) Jellyfish (500 million years) Alligators (75 million years) Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber) Turtles (110 million years) Gladiator Insect (45 million years) Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber) Starfish (500 million years) Bats (48-54 million years) Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years) Pelican Spider (44 million years) Shrimp - (100-300 million years) Rabbitfish - (150 million years) Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years) Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years) Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous) Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date) Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox) Sharks: (450 million years) Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million) Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years) Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently-- non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently-- Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene)) Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene) Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years) Tuatara Lizard - (200 million years) Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years) Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth) Herring fish (35-55 million years) Garfish ( 30-55 million years) Earliest spider (300 million years) Grasshopper (100 million years) Please note the real-life list is far more extensive, this is only my own personal compilation of evidence that supports created kinds. Of course you could commit intellectual-suicide and say that this is not evidence of created kinds, but then what are you saying - that bats looking like bats is NOT what we would expect if creation was true? That a pine should NOT look like a pine if creation was true? You have to bare in mind this is the EXACT evidence we would expect if creation was true and evolution was false since the transitionals are also none-existent. Where these magical organisms, these transitionals? Have they had an invisibility spell placed on them by Harry Potter? Just why do we see a variety of such organisms but never their ancestors? Showing us 1% of 1% of the "transitionals" Dr.A, is exactly what we would expect if evolution had not happened, because in a world of millions of species all you would expect is a handful of transitionals, because those transitionals would only really represent what chance would allow. In a world with millions of species it is mathematically GUARANTEED that you would be able to collect a few species that might make it look like they evolved. This type of reasoning is ultimately post-hoc reasoning, that species X preceded species Y on your evolutionary timescale, by coincidental fortune, therefore species X led to species Y. The most parsimonious explanation is that the majority of the evidence shows NOT evolution, therefore I regard your argument to be the slothful-induction fallacy. By focusing on the cherry-pickings of the circumstantial evidence of evolution, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! Bye for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Trilobite and crabs, Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I have no idea what information your odd list is supposed to convey about evolution or creation.
mike the wiz writes: Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently-- What does (45-50 million) mean? Was believed extinct by who? References please.
Proxylastodoris kuscheli is not a beetle. Beetles belong to Order Coleoptera. This insect belongs to Order Hemiptera. Your post seems to be a drive-by, scattergun, Gish Gallop, but I'd have to say you are shooting blanks because it is mostly incoherent. What is your list suppossed to represent?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Mike, the stuff you have made up is interesting. But because it's made up, it's not actually evidence one way or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Tanypteryx writes: What is your list supposed to represent? Whole cloth. Now that you are responding, he'll wrap it round his head."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here is the list I have accumulated of all of the stasis, please note the term, "evolutionary stasis" is the biggest oxymoron in history. "changing stasis". Lol!
Mike, could you kindly tell us how fast evolution should proceed, and then show us where evolution 'says' that it must proceed at that rate? Just curious. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Imagine how confused he'll get if someone tells him about the phrase "travel stop".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Whole cloth. Now that you are responding, he'll wrap it round his head. A whole cloth blindfold.....What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mike writes:
If creation was true, we wouldn't expect bats and whales to have the same "kind" of hands. Putting the same structures in airplanes and submarines is not good design.
... but then what are you saying - that bats looking like bats is NOT what we would expect if creation was true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Isn't this just a glorified version of the 'why are there still monkeys?' question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
With added pretentious gibberish, and some stuff he made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Here is the list I have accumulated of all of the stasis, please note the term, "evolutionary stasis" is the biggest oxymoron in history. "changing stasis". Lol! Thank you so very much. You have just demonstrated that your understanding of evolution is virtually zero. That renders all your other mindless mauderings completely and totally moot. IOW, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If you disagree, then do please respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I thought I'd take just one example from you list to show how the 'living fossil' concept confuses.
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years). Tuataras are not lizards - that is the very reason they're on your list. What makes tuataras special is that they have no close living relatives. It's a sphenodontian, and the only living animal that possesses the combination of features unique to sphenodontians. These, it is true, have been around for 200 million years, but tuataras haven't. Fossil tuataras are not known from much earlier than 100,000 years. Now, you may think this is just nitpicking, but it's relevant to your claim that these animals haven't changed. We can point to a single surviving representative of a group of organisms and point out that the group has been around for hundreds of millions of years, with the implication that they have looked the same for all this time. But when you include the diversity of the group's fossil members, you will often realise that's this is clearly false. Here's one fossil sphenodontian (Pleurosaurus, to be precise, about 150 mya):
Here, for comparison, is a tuatara skeleton:
Spot the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Well Dr A, you make a statement, "we have the fossils", I assume that means more than a handful, and it means you can show the evolution of an interior scapular girdle to the rib-cage, in turtles from an exterior girdle, by showing the transitionals for all pre-turtles and how that change could occur because of the disjunct? Does this mean you have all of the transitionals for pre-Pterosaurs, pre-bats, pre-spiders, pre-seahorses, pre-Ichthyosaurs, pre-Jellyfish? How about ancestors from terrestrial quadrupeds to arboreal bipeds? Got any to show? I doubt it. As mentioned above, crabs and trilobites. Why do we find them in separate geologic layers? As to the rest, I will pick out this example: "The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)"
The Coelacanth fish? Do you think coelacanth is the name of a species of fish? Did you realize that Coelacanth is an entire order of fish comprising many, many species? Your argument is like saying that humans have been around for hundreds of millions of years because humans are mammals, and the first mammal fossils are found hundreds of millions of years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Mike has a strong tendency to hit-and-run. I don't suppose we'll get him back.
--- So, to summarize. On the C side: Faith: You fools! You're looking at evidence to find out what happened. I've told you about that.marc9000: I'm not going to discuss the topic. But I'm upset for some reason. mike the wiz: Here's some stuff creationists made up. Bye. On the E side, I was hoping one of you could find something I've done wrong, or at least something that could be done better. Can you make some suggestions? I can resize and relabel anything, add pictures, whatever. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024