Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 268 (141383)
09-10-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
09-10-2004 9:49 AM


Re: coelacanth
quote:
he modern Coelacanth is the Latimeria chalumnae, and its closest relative in the fossil record is the Macropoma lewesiensis. They aren't even the same genus, and so couldn't possibly be the same kind as defined by Creationists.
Actually, I think that the definition of a "kind" is all the descendents of a single interbreeding population created by God at the creation week -- at least that is the only way I can make sense of what creationists are saying when they speak of "kind". Slightly off-topic, but that is why you cannot demonstrate macroevolution to a creationist -- any descendant species of an ancestral species is the same "kind" by definition.
At any rate, remember that you are speaking with a person who claimed in another thread that all marsupials micro-evolved their pouches and other distinctive traits when they got to Australia after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 9:49 AM Percy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 77 of 268 (141384)
09-10-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by happy_atheist
09-08-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Didn't answer his point
If he didn't mean species, then I guess we have to start over with what he DID mean
Yupe. Since he is moving goalposts all over the place you have to tie him down before answering. Get clear what he means first.
Then you either point out that he is being silly or answer the question he is actually asking.
By now we understand that Robert doesn't actually know what he is asking. Since he makes up things as he goes along he can't be expected to remain consistent for even a few posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by happy_atheist, posted 09-08-2004 3:27 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 78 of 268 (141441)
09-10-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
09-08-2004 2:37 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
You are all upside down about this.
The whole premise of your request proves my point.
The operative word here is coelanath.
In order too compare the "ancient" with the modern requires the modern to be here.
Case closed.
Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2004 2:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Loudmouth, posted 09-10-2004 5:16 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 79 of 268 (141442)
09-10-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
09-08-2004 2:37 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
You are all upside down about this.
The whole premise of your request proves my point.
The operative word here is coelanath.
In order too compare the "ancient" with the modern requires the modern to be here.
Case closed.
Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2004 2:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 80 of 268 (141443)
09-10-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
09-08-2004 2:37 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
You are all upside down about this.
The whole premise of your request proves my point.
The operative word here is coelanath.
In order too compare the "ancient" with the modern requires the modern to be here.
Case closed.
Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2004 2:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 81 of 268 (141449)
09-10-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
09-10-2004 9:49 AM


Re: coelacanth
Thanks for the responce. Much of what you said we have covered however I'll deal with your last point.
I recommend my post 50 to explain how we got to where we are.
i believe a hit a nerve of embarrasment with the Toe supporters and they have retreated to saying in effect the discovery of the coelanath was a non-event if not an error to celebrate its discovery at all. It isn't a living fossil.
My sources on this subject are recent books and programs.
They clearly stand by the original interpretation that the coelanath discivered in the 1930's was a fish that had been thought to be extinct for 65etc million years. So the name living fossil.
Also in any book they will show a picture of the present one and a picture of a fossilized one and say LOOK how they are practically similiar. The same kind.
In short a coelanath. In the way same creatures are given same name.
The discovery of this fish is used by creationists with great effect to make many points about conclusions of evolution and method.
.
For the record though off thread dinosaurs are not extinct only decimated.
For example crocs and turtles and the creature in New Zealand are dinosaurs in the loose way the word was invented.
THe crocs and turtles etc survive being in the water and the one on New Zealand because of no predators to speak of.
So perhaps in some place hidden more exist. Remembering we believe in short time lapse.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 9:49 AM Percy has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 268 (141450)
09-10-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 4:19 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
quote:
Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"
And the fact remains that the living coelacanth is still different than any coelacanth species found in the fossil record. From http://home.entouch.net/dmd/livfos.htm
"Rhabdoderma, a smallish coelacanth, the size of a large minnow, is quite common in coal deposits of both Europe and North America. In the Late Triassic the extremely abundant genus Diplurus mentioned above was definitely living in freshwater lakes and rivers of North America. Also, up to this time almost all fossil coelacanths had been small fishes of less than eight to ten inches). But one species of Diplurus was much bigger (to fifteen inches)." ~ Keith Stewart Thompson, "Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth," (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), p. 87
The modern coelacanth, Latimeria, is 4.5 feet long. They are not identical. There is NO LIVING FOSSIL if by that you mean an animal exactly like the fossil form!!!!!!
There are also other differences listed on that same page.
And here is a picture of the ancient, extinct coelacanth next to the living species.
Now that you can see them side by side, can you still claim that the coelacanth has not changed in 65 million years?
Added in edit:
I found some more pictures.
Latimeria (living species):
And examples of the extinct species
A. Macropomoides orientalis, from the late Cretaceous.
B. Rhabdoderma elegans, late Carboniferous.
C. Allenypterus montanus, early Carboniferous.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-10-2004 04:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 4:19 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:19 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 83 of 268 (141452)
09-10-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Loudmouth
09-10-2004 5:16 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
Thank you for the picture. (I was hoping someone would bite)
It proves my point.
The creature is essentialy unchanged. The small changes are irrelevant effect of speciation. As in kinds of kangaroos.
I claim the gold
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Loudmouth, posted 09-10-2004 5:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Loudmouth, posted 09-10-2004 5:24 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 09-10-2004 5:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 6:03 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 87 by Rei, posted 09-10-2004 6:12 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 268 (141453)
09-10-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 5:19 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
quote:
The creature is essentialy unchanged. The small changes are irrelevant effect of speciation.
You are claiming that the coelacanth is the same one as in the fossil record, but then you claim that any small changes are irrelevant. They are anything but irrelevant. They falsify your claim that unchanged coelacanths falsify evolution. So would you now agree that coelacanths do not pose a problem for evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:19 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 2:47 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 268 (141456)
09-10-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 5:19 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
quote:
The creature is essentialy unchanged.
Okay. This proves my point. Robert Byers is insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:19 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 86 of 268 (141470)
09-10-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 5:19 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
Robert Byers writes:
The creature is essentialy unchanged. The small changes are irrelevant effect of speciation.
Speciation? You're now conceding that there's been speciation? I think you must have forgotten your original position. You claimed the Coelacanth was an embarrassment for evolution because it hadn't changed. But speciation is a significant change, and the Coelacanth has undergone speciation, just as you say.
Even if the Coelacanth hadn't changed one bit, it *still* wouldn't have been an embarrassment for evolutionists, because there is nothing in evolution that requires change. As I said earlier, the Coelacanth is not the first example of a living fossil, and I gave the example of horseshoe crabs.
If you really think the Coelacanth was an embarrassment and a blow for evolution, then I suggest you find some evolutionists who were embarrassed, and tell us the ways that evolutionary theory had to be modified in response. Because as far as anyone else knows, no one was embarrassed, and evolutionary theory didn't change at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:19 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 2:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7003 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 87 of 268 (141473)
09-10-2004 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 5:19 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
That is "unchanged" by your definition? Seriously?
Wow, what would you define as "changed"?

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:19 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lfen, posted 09-11-2004 7:10 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 91 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 3:03 PM Rei has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 88 of 268 (141521)
09-11-2004 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rei
09-10-2004 6:12 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
quote:
Wow, what would you define as "changed"?
I think you've hit on a methodology to deal with the peculiarities of Robert's thought process. I suggest we need to start large and then narrow the range down. Sort of like the "is it bigger than a breadbox" approach.
Why don't we start off and see if Robert can perceive the difference between a fish and a, I don't know, rhinoceros? If he does we can begin to narrow in. I'm interested if he can tell any distinctions between sea creatures.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rei, posted 09-10-2004 6:12 PM Rei has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 89 of 268 (141581)
09-11-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Loudmouth
09-10-2004 5:24 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
I don't understand what your saying. The pictures say it all. I don't know why you say I didn't acknowledge speciation?. I'm most liberal about its possibilities.
What I've said from the beginning is verified by the pics. You seem to be under some impression I said lack of change falsified evolution. I never said that. I only meant in the big picture way that evolution has run on and in the public mind. The explaining away of living fossils by TOE is a recent and forced thing by TOe. In any real way even if brought up now and then in the past.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Loudmouth, posted 09-10-2004 5:24 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 1:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 90 of 268 (141585)
09-11-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
09-10-2004 6:03 PM


Re: meltdown on the way?
Percy. I've been the same all this time in what I've said (like the fish thing).
THe fish has not changed. Thats the whole point of its fame. The pictures show why this is said. One will find I used the word speciation in regard to this fish constantly.
I refer all to my post 50 where I explain the origin of this issue.
The embarrassment to Toe is because the theory present and is founded upon persuading folks that great time was required for the present. So in that great time everything had to have changed because of the innumerable change in the world. And so slime to me(er everyone).
The aberation spoils this point. Yes they quickly come up with a explanation in the way everyone has an answer however it speaks for itself. I'm dealing in a big perception here which is used by TOe to themselves and the public.
They would rather have not found the fish for the sake of pushing TOe.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 6:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 4:24 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024