|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Calypsis, I'm not interested in your rhetoric about how arrogant I am. I am only interested in hearing how living fossils are evidence against evolution.
Because they have been trained to syphon out ANYTHING that would tend to overthrow the pure prejudice that the world is millions of yrs old, that's why. That's the way I felt while I was an evolutionist. I no longer buy it and the living fossils is one big reason why I don't. More conspiracy theory rhetoric. I am not interested in rhetoric. I am only interested in why living fossils are evidence against evolution. But, okay. Let's assume that all the evo scientists are wrong. Why are they wrong and how can you utilise living fossils to demonstrate that they are wrong? For the record, T-Rex and a young earth are not the topic. Living fossils are the topic. You should know this; it's your topic. Please stick to it. Why are living fossils evidence against evolution? Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Look, friend, if you wish to live in la la land and pretend that living fossils do not destroy the theory of biological evolution then I can't stop you. But it does. HOW! I'm not asking much; just that you explain your argument. Or do you not have one? Is asserting it is so the best you've got? Pretend I'm a thick kid in your class, explain it me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
More conspiracy theory rhetoric. Gosh, granny, I just can't do anything to please you.
Why are living fossils evidence against evolution? You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading! Okay, I'm honestly baffled. Where do you think you gave this answer? Please give post numbers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Calypsis4,
None of the other participants understands why living fossils, for which we're using bats as an example, are evidence against evolution. I think it would help move the discussion along if you could provide more details about how a living creature very similar to an extinct creature disproves evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Gosh, granny, I just can't do anything to please you. You could answer my questions. They are the ones you have pointedly ignored in the last two messages. That would please me very much.
You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading! Oh. Okay. I must have missed it. Please could you point me to the specific message or messages that answer my questions? Or you could just go over it for me one more time, since I'm clearly not getting your point. It isn't enough to just say "Living fossils destroy evolution!". You need to spell it out. Why? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Do you really want me to proceed with the rest of my illustrations concerning living fossils? I've got lots more, friend and massive overkill is no problem for me. There is no evolution on this planet and never has been. Those who believe it are dreaming. You present us with a series of fossils that you claim "prove" evolution never happened because of similarities over large expanses of time. It has been pointed out repeatedly that your point is moot; there is no "rule of evolution" that requires all species to proceed at the same pace. And besides, focusing just on "living fossils" ignores a huge amount of related data from organisms that did actually change more than the "living fossils" did--again negating your argument. Here is just one example--D2700, Homo georgicus: A small section from an article at Talk Origins: How will creationists interpret this fossil? Despite its erectus-like features, if D2700 had been found in isolation creationists would almost certainly call it non-human, given its small brain size and its similarities to H. habilis. The problem with this is that D2700 is a member of a population, and the largest skull in that group would almost certainly be classified as human by most creationists. Here is an example where there is significant change over a period of 1.8 million years, negating the argument of the "living fossils." The Dmanisi fossils also are clear cut transitionals--as the Talk Origins article points out, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute calls them possibly apes, while Answers in Genesis calls them human. Having features in common with both earlier and later forms is the hallmark of a transitional, and creationists by calling these fossils both human and ape have clearly demonstrated this. So, with the evidence above and the evidence already presented in this thread I think your point concerning "living fossils" (which you never actually got around to making) is pretty much disposed of. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4290 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
You really, really like cute pictures, don't you? Please stop using them to distract from the discussion.
quote: As usual, you have ignored all the evidence I included in my post, the majority of which was evidence previously posted by others that you ignored. I wonder if your biology teaching included some advice along the lines of, "If the evidence doesn't square with what you believe, then ignore it"? You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I would really appreciate it if you started answering the questions that I and many others have put to you here, while staying on topic. Remember, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Ok maybe I missed it. I have been through this thread a few times and I have yet to see where you state why living fossils are evidence against evolution.
When you are asked you just post more pictures that are refuted. Can you, in a paragraph or so, tell us why living fossils are evidence against evolution? It is a simple question. Can you give us a straightforward answer? Not more gish gallop. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
I wouldn't normally link to a blog but having become interested in this I found it to be the most helpful:
Hyphoid Logic: Bat Transitional Fossil quote: For the last part I'll point out that O. finneyi has no tail membrane. So, I know you're going to say "Yes, but it's still a bat.". Well, it's not just a bat it is a more primitive bat. Argue it if you want but this bat does not show all the features of modern bats and is (as the article says) an example of a transitional form. Okay, yah the guy who wrote it is working on being a fungus expert. Let's look a little more:
Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later (2/14/2008)quote: AMNH = American Museum of Natural History So it seems that your opinion is not shared by specialists, scientists or even the informed general population. There's a chance that you could be right about this Calypsis, but it's vanishingly small. I'm going to bow out of this now. Your unwillingness to defend your position makes it impossible to have a conversation above the level of: "Nuh uh!"-"Yah-huh!". Get your idea peer reviewed and published someplace and I promise to read it. Until then, you've got nothing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
None of the other participants understands why living fossils, for which we're using bats as an example, are evidence against evolution. I think it would help move the discussion along if you could provide more details about how a living creature very similar to an extinct creature disproves evolution. Sir, you left me with my mouth hanging open. How could I do any better than what I have already revealed? The bat example alone is priceless. They can't answer it. There is NO evolution of the bat from one kind to another anywhere in the fossil record either before or after that first/oldest fossil. Sure their are variations among bats but they are all still bats. Nothing like this:
But what you see above is true of all the others I posted in one way or another. How could I possibly make a stronger argument? I am trying hard to be respectful to you. But I will admit I am getting physically weary of answering the barrage of questions that are coming my way. Both my back and my head are feeling it. I will take a rest and come back to do as you suggested. Hope this will suffice. Have a nice evening.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
So, I know you're going to say "Yes, but it's still a bat." Yes, but it's still a bat. I'm really tired. Maybe more tomorrow.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Calypsis, a simple question, if you don't mind. Why are there no fossils of bats in the oldest layers of the geologic column? If all animals where created six thousand years ago, and did not evolve since, then surely we should find some bat fossils in the oldest layers. Yet they are completely devoid of them. Can you explain this, please?
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4290 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: A reminder, from Message 338:
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3228 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
Sir, you leave me with my mouth hanging open. How could you possibly have done any worse? The bat example alone is worthless. There's nothing to answer. It shows exactly what evolution predicts for more primitive bats. They are still bats...just as evolution predicts.
Seriously, you're quite a joke...though a very aggravating one. You keep claiming that "living fossils" destroy evolution. Claiming that we've been hit with an atomic bomb and a sledgehammer. When we show you an excerpt from none other than DARWIN himself, not just predicting living fossils, but actively hoping for them as they would seriously bolster his theory, you ignore it, claiming that living fossils are the death knell of evolution. When you are told that evolution predicts living fossils, that many are known, and that they are used as a proof of evolution, you ignore it at best, or call us liars and blinded by our ideology. Well, doctor, heal thyself. You seem to be the one unable to let go of an idea despite all the evidence thrown at you with the strength of a wrecking ball. Perhaps the weight of all the evidence against you has hit your head so hard you can't think logically...I can only hope this is a temporary affliction. But, for the last time: Evolution predicts gradual change (meaning not much from generation to generation) to make a species better adapted to their environment (meaning, they'll reach a point where they are all but perfectly in tune with their environment, the place they live). If the environment changes, the organisms will either die out, or they will begin to adapt to the new one. Ok, you seem to understand what evolution is saying about this...but you seem to stop short of actually thinking logically about the obviopus next step. What happens if the environment doesn't change drastically? WHY oh why oh why would the organisms change in that circumstance? They would only become LESS adapted, if they've already been adapted to it. Any change would be bad, therefore it would be weeded out.
IN AN UNCHANGING ENVIRONMENT, EVOLUTION PREDICTS, NAY DEMANDS, THAT THE ORGANISMS WILL CHANGE LITTLE. IT ALSO PREDICTS, NAY DEMANDS, THAT ANY NEW ORGANISM MOVING INTO A SIMILAR ENVIRONMENT WILL MORE THAN LIKELY END UP MORPHOLOGICALLY SIMILAR TO ORGANISMS THAT LIVED IN SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS IN THE PAST, AND THOSE THAT WILL LIVE IN SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS IN THE FUTURE!!! Ok, now that I hope I've drilled that into your head, you are in the position of refuting my post. You do this, not by flat out denying it, as that goes round and round for ever and ever amen. What you need to do is provide evidence that this is not what evolution predicts. Either lay out, in a logical fashion, why you would expect an organism to change in an unchanging environment, or concede the point, because we all know you're wrong, and the more you argue the point without giving us any reason whatsoever to change our opinion, the more foolish you look.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024