|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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
B. Rhabdoderma elegans, late Carboniferous. C. Allenypterus montanus, early Carboniferous. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-10-2004 04:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:Okay. This proves my point. Robert Byers is insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7003 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
That is "unchanged" by your definition? Seriously?
Wow, what would you define as "changed"? "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4358 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024