Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils

What I would add, in case it hasn't yet been explained clearly enough to Karl, is that the coelacanth *does* experience a normal mutation rate. The coelacanth has experienced a normal amount of mutations (for that particular species) since the K-T event. But given its stable environment, mutations evolving it away from its current well adapted form would be filtered out (ie, individuals expressing the mutation would be less likely to have offspring to which to pass it on).I'd like to see Karl address the question of why, given that 35% of species passed through the K-T boundary unchanged, that the coelacanth couldn't do the same. I try to make a discussion no more complex than necessary, and it seems that there's really no need to examine mutation rates, natural selection arguments, K-T envirnomental changes and so forth. If many other species could do it, why not the coelacanth?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Found basically the same argument in very similar words over at CARM posted by someone with the ID "karl" back in '98, perhaps it's the same person:

​

http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/fossils_coccoliths.htm

​

--Percy

---

Very probably, Percy. We had a 'ksc' over at the Internet Infidels Evolution / Creation boards last June or so. I think he was a Karl, he had a thing for coelacanths and tuataras, and he had his fundament(alism) thouroughly kicked in the discussions. The threads there are archived: if anyone's interested, search in 'Evolution/Creation - 1Q & 2Q - 2001' for 'ksc'. He left with a number of questions unanswered. Maybe if this is the same ksc, I might get some answers this time.Cheers, Darwin's Terrier

Ah... (note to self: read the whole thread first). Yep, that was him, Karl Crawford. Typical phrases: "poor little evos" and "think out of your box", IIRC.One of our posters at the Infidels rounded up some of the questions here:

quote:

---

So, the list of questions for ksc to at least start to answer now goes like this:
Oolon Coluphid asked:
- why the ark was not a plague ship full of rotting corpses long before settling on Ararat?

​

Mendeh asked:
- give evidence for the existence of the tower of Babel and evidence that all the humans on Earth were clustered there at the time.
- give evidence that the Genesis myth isn't as 'corrupted' as all the other flood legends you talk about
- give a date for the period of the flood, and show that at that time a massive inundation was recorded by other cultures across the world, and recorded by the geography of the world (hey, you brought that one up)

​

Singledad asked:
- for scientific evidence for a world-wide flood

​

binacontenda asked:
- for a reason not to think that flood myths are simply an invention of societies living near water

​

---

​

So far, ksc has failed to address any of these questions, and has simply ignored them when he could not give an unspecific, off-the-cuff answer like:

​

"All the flood stories presented indicate that something did indeed happen. It tells us there was a literal flood. If not, why all the flood legends?
I believe other flood stories are to be expected. After the tower of babal the original story as presented in Genesis got corrupted and is bsing presented as some of the stories you have presented."
...which doesn't give any evidence or reasoning to support it.

​

or...

​

"But you seem to forget the scientific support for a world wide flood."
...and then procedes to neglect to mention any such evidence.

​

If ksc has no intention of answering these questions, he/she ought to simply say so and provide a reason for not answering, rather than just hope that this thread will go away and be forgotten.

---

There's about 60 threads there where he appeared. Several threads he started himself, then barely returned to when routed. Basically, our Karl's a troll, pure and simple. Well, neither pure nor simple, but anyway, one best not fed.TTFN, DT

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Jousting with the administrator won't get you anywhere. You can get a clue or get lost.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
Is that anyway for an administrator to moderate a forum? Perhaps I should ask the folks at if that is proper administrator conduct.

---

As someone who has seen Percy defend Fred Williams (though not his beliefs) and ban (temporarily) an "evolutionist" I have no question as to his fairness....As to the fact that "Of course, the evos run this forum " 2 points spring to mind...1)We have a fairly high turnover of creationists I will admit but thats largely because they scram for the cover of creationist moderated boards whenever they feel like they are losing (John Paul for instance)...2)Do you think that your points will magically become more telling if a creationist were moderating these boards?Percy gets a thumbs up from me....Hell he even puts up with Brad.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 05-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
Darwinsterrier,
I believe

---

... in a whole host of odd things -- fireflies as illumination on the ark, IIRC, amongst others.

quote:

---

your post in very poor taste.

---

Well you would. It’s not nice to get called on your past, erm, misadventures.

quote:

---

You fail to realize that the questions were answered

---

Please show us where?

quote:

---

and such lying by evos like yourself should not be tolerated.

---

But such lying by cretinists such as yourself is okay? Please demonstrate that my claiming you ran away from question after question is a lie.Anyone can search the relevant bit of the IIDB archive on your member number (1615) and see where you participated.Did you honestly think I wouldn’t call you on this? Here’s a few for starters: Oolon Colluphid (ksc asks me a question, I reply and some questions arise, and he's not seen again in that thread) ksc -- please reply (He does, at first. Judge for yourselves how satisfactorily.) Serious question for ksc (Not sure he took it seriously, as he ignored all the follow-ups to his one, one paragraph, reply.) ksc -- How hard would it have to rain?ksc: Rapid SpeciationPoor little evos (quite fun)

quote:

---

Of course, the evos run this forum so I really don't expect any justice from your tacticts

---

As you said in one of those threads:

quote:

---

I would like you evos to post your home address. This way I can send you all a box of tissues to cry into.

---

quote:

---

to attack the creationist rather than the science of the YECs.

---

Present some science and we will.

quote:

---

Secondly, I mentioned that the questions were answered. Perhaps not in the particular post you presentedbut if you would check the other post on said forum you would find answers. To take the time and answer each and every post would call for hours upon hours on the internet. Often the evos duplicate questions that have already been addressed.

---

Codswallop. Go check the archives.

quote:

---

Still you have the evos who don't like the answer and based upon this, they also claim the question were not answered.

---

Not like? Try rebutted the line or two you offered, then you buggered off.

quote:

---

Finally I see another evo tactic employed on this forum, especially in this thread. That is changing the subject. I understand that the only evo answer to my question is "things don't have to change" . I have presented 3 reasons as to why things according to evolutionary theory do change and for some unknown reason they don't apply to living fossils. . I consider this as a major problem for the evolutionary scientist.
Perhaps someday I'll get an answer to the question, something besides "things don't have to change".

---

:banghead:Sorry for the interruption folks. It’s just that I’ve been waiting for ksc to break cover again...TTFN, Darwinsterrier (aka Oolon Colluphid)

​

[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 05-08-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
Just for the record:

​

As of now the evos have not been able to present a reasonable answer as to why the living fossils presented have not changed from the original animal of tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. I have presented just 3 examples as why they should have changed morphologically. You can re-read this thread for examples and explanations of the 3 reasonscand also see where the evo come up short with scientific answers.

​

The best answer was...they didn't need to change or who said evolution says they have to change.

​

The evo have had ample of chance to address the issue but have chosen not to.
Instead some have decided to change the topic of the thread.

---

Nowhere in the ToE does it state that every species has to change morphologically.Why is this an inadequate answer?The theory does not say what you claim it says.(I could always be wrong. Why don't you list a source such as a Biology texbook to back up your claim?)Therefore, you are putting up a false argument to argue against.

Hi Karl,I'm administering you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. As someone noted above, there's been only one previous suspension here, and that was of an evolutionist. See you tomorrow.If you'd like to discuss your suspension via email I can be reached at admin@. Or just click on the "Contact Us" link.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
mark24: Actually, the coelacanth did evolve somewhat and it is not clear that modern versions would actually be the same species as the Cretaceous coelacanth by some definitions. Nevertheless, there is no part of evolution that says an organism must evolve. If you think differently, then produce evidence to that effect.

---

The fossil record. Sheeze, even dogs show more variation than the coelacanth.

---

Karl, I don't know who you're quoting here, but it ain't me!You actually are claiming to answer a question I never asked. Bearing in mind you are claiming to Percy to have answered my questions, & are seeking an apology from him. Can I have one too?I’ll ask my question again. How do you know coelacanths didn’t evolve?I repeat. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time, & doesn’t necessarily mean morphological change. Alleles may have been lost, gained, neutral mutations fixed & lost, even chromosome number & composition changes, all without major morphological change. Genetic drift can take alleles to fixation if they are neutral, or nearly so. If that drift affects a morphological change that affects survival negatively, then NS will act upon it. As has been pointed out to you, in the relatively stable deep sea environment, the coelacanth would have reached a morphological optimisation a long time ago. Any morphological changes will therefore affect fitness in a negative way. The only real way that these mutations will be positive (or even neutral) is if that environment changes significantly.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.