Living fossils expose evolution

Hi. Trivia quiz time. Who coined the phrase: "living fossil"?If you replied Charles Darwin, take a point.He coined the phrase in which book?Again, you are to be congratulated if you replied The Origin Of Species.Did he hope that they (a) would (b) would not be found?If you answered (a), you have achieved the trifecta.For he wrote: But in the magical uspy-downsy world of creationism, somehow they "expose evolution".Can you explain why you think they "expose evolution" --- or is this just something you've been taught to recite by other creationists?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh my.Do you really think that bats use radar?Perhaps if you had ever taken the slightest interest in nature, you would not be a creationist.

This appears to have been written by someone who:(a) wanted to discuss the evolution of flight;
(b) was ignorant of the existence of gliding animals.So, that would be a creationist, then.Perhaps he should have a chat with a gliding tree frog, for example, and explain to it how it's "inconceivable" that it can live.I'm sure it will be most interested.

Since Calypsis is claiming that it's an example of an unchanged form, saying that it's not a very good example of a transitional form is rather damning it with faint praise.As to whether it's transitional --- yes, it is. It's not the sort of intermediate form that we'd find most interesting, which I suppose would be a gliding form, but it does have primitive features, such as the five claws, which are not found in any modern bats.

Such as the family Hominidae, for example. Yes, you're right. Who could look at two such obviously similar organisms and doubt that they're related?

I missed the bit where you pointed out the problem. Perhaps you could try again. Ah yes ... "the day will come". The legend of the day when creationists will finally be proven right has been passed down from creationist to creationist ... from generation to generation ... the day will come when you have a scrap of a scintilla of a shred of a shard of evidence on your side. As is written in the prophecy.Meanwhile, until that glorious day comes, scientists will go on thinking that creationism is crap.

That would be why I was replying to slevesque and not to you. Really? Whatever possessed you to recite such a blatant falsehood? I found them! Turns out that they were hiding in the fossil record. Where were you looking?But this is hardly the place for you to be wrong about this subject. If you want to be wrong about intermediate forms, start a new thread about intermediate forms. This thread is for you to be wrong about "living fossils" in.

And yet in your post you distinguished between animals that use sonar and animals that use "radar". To hilarious effect. Feel free to ignore my posts. I for my part will feel free to continue to point out the errors in your posts.If you wish to give up on defending your errors from my criticism, then this admission of failure is yours and yours alone to make. It's entirely up to you.

Did you just say that tigers and domestic cats are the same species?My goodness, you did, didn't you?It's not quite up there with your "radar" blunder, but it's still pretty amusing.

But somehow everything that you could get your hands on did not include any information about the fossil record.Were you being kept in some sort of special prison where they don't give you books? As I have pointed out, this thread is reserved for you to make false statements about "living fossils". If you want me to kick your ass over the issue of intermediate forms, you must start another thread. Dear me. It seems that I am "losing credibility" with the man who identified extinct forms as living fossils, who asserted that bats use radar, who said that cats and tigers are the same species, and who pretends that there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record.Given the company that my statements would be keeping, I should be somewhat perturbed if you found any of them credible.Now, would you like to resume being wrong about "living fossils"? It's not all as funny as your other stuff, but it is on topic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wow, awesome prediction, given that every palentologist in the world could have told him that. Was his "prediction" based on him reading a book for children entitled My First Book Of Fossils, or was his research more extensive?I've got a prediction of my own. I predict that T. rex has big sharp teeth. If that turns out to be true, I guess I must be some kind of genius. Yes, according to every paleontologist in the world.And your point was?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that is your argument, it needs a little work. And some content.

And I also said:"If you wish to give up on defending your errors from my criticism, then this admission of failure is yours and yours alone to make. It's entirely up to you."Apparently, you feel that you just can't hack it debating with someone who knows what he's talking about. And for once, you are completely correct. You can't.The one thing that puzzles me is why you go on arguing. If you know you've lost, what's the point?

If creationists could magically make things true by saying them, then creationists would be right more often. And you distinguished between them.You said that some species have radar and some have sonar. If you were using "common colloquial terminology", then what distinction did you mean to draw between them? Preferring truth to falsehood may seem a little "oddball" to you. Round here, however, you'll find it's normal. It's this sort of custom that we have, where we prefer not to talk arrant crap about biology.If you want to fit in round here, you should maybe think about trying that yourself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You will probably never understand why that was so funny.But since you ask: There is, I suppose, little chance that you will say "thank you". After all, you didn't say "please".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.