Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:54 AM
43 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,597 Year: 9,633/19,786 Month: 2,055/2,119 Week: 91/724 Day: 23/68 Hour: 2/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 16 of 416 (526983)
09-29-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:10 PM


Re: Magnolias
Okay, you say the 12 million error was yours. Fair enough. It does speak volumes though; it's a pretty elementary error for someone who is busy making claims about biology.

Evolutionists claim that all life evolved. I don't have quotes by biologists about the magnolia in particular but the fact is that there are no transitionals for magnolias from another organism.

I'll take your word for that. Even if we take that for granted, why should there be a transitional? no-one is suggesting that magnolias are ancestral to any other particular organism other than magnolias.

The question is, why do you think they should change? Not all organisms change at the same rate. Some change a lot, others a little. What makes you think that you can quantify the amount of change that should take place over 12 million, 100 million or 300 million years?

Variation within the kind (family) is scientific.

So "kind" is equivalent to family? that's funny, because only the other day, I was told that a "kind" was most similar to a "syngameon" or close to a genus. It really is a very flexible term.

But the slight differences that you pointed out between the fossil and its offspring doesn't establish a thing as far as determining any evolutionary change. I am not clear whether you think those changes do establish such evolutionary change or not after that statement.

If the magnolia has changed, it has clearly changed very little, I agree with that. However, you seem to be making the judgement that it has not changed, despite only having a single picture of one fossilised leaf for comparison. Do the fossils show the same variation? Or less? I don't know the answer to that question. Do you?

What I really want to know is why you think that the magnolias should be expected to change more than they have. Why does the ToE predict that? Why should we be surprised if they have changed very little?

Mutate or Survive

PS - If you hit the "PEEK" button in the bottom right of this message, you will see the codes I've used to create quote boxes. You'll probably want to make yourself familiar with these, as they make communication a lot smoother. You can also get tips on posting Here.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:10 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:10 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3353 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 17 of 416 (526984)
09-29-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
First, do you honestly think that a fair comparison may be made between a fossil specimen and a living specimen based on two pictures? The people who study these things examine the real thing and publish their detailed findings in peer reviewed journals. Is it fair to reach your own conclusion on the basis of a photograph and hold that conclusion up as superior to that of experts?

So that said I'd just like you to clarify your position for us: you appear to be saying that evolution doesn't exist (except within biblically undefined "kinds") because some existing species are similar to older species. Is this correct?

One last question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you can provide an endless series of pictures that appear to show little change on casual observation. How many picture sets showing change does it take to show that evolution is possible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:15 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Tanndarr has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 416 (526985)
09-29-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The preponderance of evidence against it, when honestly considered, reveals that fact clearly.

Actually, that is incorrect. The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, and has been only getting stronger since the theory was proposed in 1859.

What has remained the same are religious beliefs that deny that evidence.

We have seen any number of religious beliefs presented as science, but they have to twist, misrepresent, ignore, or outright lie about the evidence to support their position.

The "living fossils" are a good example. First, in a stable environment, a well-adapted organism doesn't need to evolve! It does just fine as it is.

Second, those "living fossils" that you cite--are they the same species for millions of years? Or are they different species or even different genera--or worse?

One might claim that cockroaches are "living fossils" for having changed little over millions of years, but the generic term "cockroach" covers some 4,000 different species. All of those species didn't evolve in 6,000 years unless there was some real super evolution going on!

It sounds like you have accepted a religious belief and are willing to deny any empirical evidence that contradicts it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:15 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3384 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 19 of 416 (526990)
09-29-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tanndarr
09-29-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
"First, do you honestly think that a fair comparison may be made between a fossil specimen and a living specimen based on two pictures? The people who study these things examine the real thing and publish their detailed findings in peer reviewed journals."

That is precisely why Dr. Werner visited so many museums and interviewed those who had opportunity to assess the evidence personally. Give me more time. This will all come out this week as I continue to post this information and the interview responses.

"So that said I'd just like you to clarify your position for us: you appear to be saying that evolution doesn't exist (except within biblically undefined "kinds") because some existing species are similar to older species. Is this correct?"

It is not undefined. Not with me and not with creationists in general. I made it clear that 'kind' is 'family'. Just look again carefully.

"One last question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you can provide an endless series of pictures that appear to show little change on casual observation. How many picture sets showing change does it take to show that evolution is possible?"

They can't. Unless that is you wish to post the so-called evolution of man which is highly suspect or the oft repeated mistake of the so-called evolution of the horse. But in the end of all consideration, besides the terrible comparisons evolutionists make and others that are downright deceptive, all the examples are Equidae (ahem...horses).

But that is just the point. Variation within the kind is a scientific observation and all agree on it. We even believe in natural selection. What we don't agree on is that genetic limitations inherent in the DNA will allow for a serious change of one organism into another organism. In other words, we reject this:


Click to enlarge

On top of all that, rodents do not have radar ability. How did nature instill radar in such organisms and sonar in others?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed image to thumbnail to reduce size. Use "peek" to see coding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tanndarr, posted 09-29-2009 10:32 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:46 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 1:19 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Tanndarr, posted 09-30-2009 5:58 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3384 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 20 of 416 (526992)
09-29-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Granny Magda
09-29-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Magnolias
"only the other day, I was told that a "kind" was most similar to a "syngameon" or close to a genus."

Who told you that? Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level.

"If the magnolia has changed, it has clearly changed very little, I agree with that. However, you seem to be making the judgement that it has not changed, despite only having a single picture of one fossilised leaf for comparison."

You are assuming things. I have more than one picture. This is from the U.S. Geological Survey Team:


Click to enlarge

This comparison was made forty yrs before Dr. Werner's.

Then this:

From the Maryland Geological Survey. This example could be twin sister to several of the examples I posted of the magnolia tree leaves above. Where is the evolution of the magnolia either before or after it abruptly appears in the fossil record?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed image to thumbnail to reduce size. Use "peek" to see coding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 10:31 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 11:40 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 09-29-2009 11:41 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2009 10:02 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 21 of 416 (526994)
09-29-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:15 PM


The standard posting tips blurb
... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

No need to reply to this message. Please do not reply to this message. I do not want any replies to this message.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:15 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 22 of 416 (526996)
09-29-2009 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 11:10 PM


Re: Magnolias
okay,

Who told you that? Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level.

Another creationist member of this forum. I've even seen a creationist insist that even micro-evolution is false, making kind effectively equal to species.

You are assuming things. I have more than one picture. This is from the U.S. Geological Survey Team:

Yes, they certainly are very similar. Of course, there is nothing in the image to confirm or deny whether this is actually a picture of M. magnifolia as opposed to any other magnolia. Is it magnifolia? How do you know this?

Even if it is the same species, I have to ask again, why you think this observation is so important. Why do you think that the magnolia should have changed more than this? What aspect of the ToE demands this amount of change and why?

I mean, your latest image gives the age of the fossil magnolia as Cretaceous. That makes it a maximum of about 150 million years old. I've got plant fossils on my desk in front of me that are twice that age, from long before there were any dinosaurs. They are clearly recognisable as ferns. They look very much like modern ferns. I see no problem with this.

There is no reason why we should expect to see any particular amount of change in a particular species. Some lineages show rapid change over relatively short periods of time. Others display long periods of apparent stasis. There is no reason for this to conflict with the ToE. Perhaps you can think of one?

Where is the evolution of the magnolia either before or after it abruptly appears in the fossil record?

I'm sorry, but what evidence ought we to find? What is it that you think the ToE demands?

Oh and by the way, bats are not rodents. They are not descended from mice and as far as I know no-one has suggested that they are.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:10 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3491
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 416 (526997)
09-29-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 11:10 PM


Re: Magnolias
The problem with fossils is that normally (ie, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of fossils) only the shape of the hard parts are preserved, the organism's morphology. We rarely get soft tissue or genetic material. It is in the genetic material that evolutionary change happens and that change is more directly exhibited in changes in the proteins.

Back around 1990, give or take half a decade or so, I read an article in either Science or Nature about green fossils. These "green fossils" were magnolia leaves that had been encased in mud that had preserved them. From those preserved leaves, botanists were able to extract proteins and thus were able to compare those proteins with proteins taken both from modern magnolias and from other "green fossil" magnolia leaves. The result was that they were able to construct a family tree on the basis of the evolutionary changes in those "green fossil" proteins, even though the mere morphology of the leaves exhibited practically no change.

Mere morphology just begins to tell the story. It does not tell the whole story.

BTW, you stated in the OP that you're "an ex-evolutionist". One what do you base that statement? Are you saying that you used to study and/or practice an evolutionary science? Which one?

For that matter, since my three decades of experience with "creation science" has taught me that "evolutionist" is a creationist buzzword that creationists use incessantly and yet avoid having to actually define it, what do you mean by that term, "evolutionist"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:10 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 416 (526999)
09-30-2009 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 8:25 PM


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:

Species and groups of species which are called aberrant, and which may fancifully be called living fossils, will aid us in forming a picture of the ancient forms of life.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 8:25 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(3)
Message 25 of 416 (527000)
09-30-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 8:40 PM


Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
First on Magnolias. I am not a botanist, so will just make a brief commentary here. Magnolia trees have a relatively conserved form, yet are taxonomically highly diverse. The original genus Magnolia is probably going to be divided (if not already) into several genera and probably several families even though the gross leaf morphologies are identical to the untrained eye. I will send an email request to a Magnoliacea taxonomist I know and see what the current status is. A google search suggests that M. magnifolia is a living species found in Columbia.

Now the bat. The picture you showed is Onychonycteris. This differs from all living bats in many fundamental ways and is, in fact, a long awaited transitional. While capable of true flight, it was what is called a 'flutter glider' which is exactly what we would expect if, as proposed, bats evolved from a gliding ancestor similar in form (but not related to) flying squirrels. The diagram you show in another post of proposed bat evolution is a terrible strawman, btw. and not supported by anyone I am aware of. The arm to leg ratio of Onychonycteris is exactly in between (but not clustered with!) volant and non volant mammals. It also could not echolocate and had well-developed claws on all 5 digits, which modern bats do not have. Very poor example of a 'living fossil'!

The crayfish is probably the most interesting to me. While it does look somewhat like a crayfish, the fossil you show is Eryma. There are no members of this genus alive today, actually no members of its family or superfamily! It is as closely related to modern crayfish as are Maine lobsters (which is not close at all). Another very poor example of a 'living fossil'.

Now onto the so-called opossum.The term "similar to an opossum" must have been a reference to rough size and shape (and little else!). The fossil is Gobiconodon, which is a Triconodonta. In case you do not know, modern mammals are divided into three large clades, the monotremes, the marsupials, and the eutherian (placentals), with the latter two having diverged later. Well Triconodonta are a completely other clade of mammals that stands apart from both marsupials and eutherians. Triconodonts went extinct during the Mesozoic and left no descendants. Their tooth morphology is unique to that group and very distinctive. Phylogenetically you would have been better off showing a fossil giant wombat (rhino sized) next to an American opossum skeleton as they are far more similar than Gobiconodon is to any marsupial! Again, a very poor example of a 'living fossil'!


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 8:40 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 09-30-2009 2:24 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 416 (527001)
09-30-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
On top of all that, rodents do not have radar ability. How did nature instill radar in such organisms and sonar in others?

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 09-30-2009 1:42 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 9:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 416 (527003)
09-30-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??

Click to enlarge

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3491
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 416 (527005)
09-30-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2009 12:46 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Dude! Today I just completed the US Navy's course on Microwave Principles. Mind blowing! A frequency range where common electronics are incapable of functioning at all! That is the realm in which radar functions! Seriously, a lot of what I was reading looked much more like it belonged in Star Trek (TNG and beyond, whose techo-babble made oh-so-much-more-sense). Just the klystron schematics looked so much like the matter-anti-matter core schematics on the shows!

An organic entity that makes use of radar? Sorry, but NFW ("no way!"; exercise left to the student to figure out what the "F" is).

Now, a decade or two or three ago there was a PBS series called "Super Sense" which attempted to visualize for the audience how different extant species perceived the world through their senses which are different from our own. Such as bees and other insects being able to see ultra-violet frequencies that we cannot (seeing flowers and spiders' webs at those freqs reveals a lot that we mere humans cannot). What they presented was that mammals such as rats use echo-location to help them maneuver through pitch-darkness.

Sound, yes. Microwave radio-frequencies? Anyone who would even begin to think of suggesting such a thing is a complete and utter idiot!

Edited by dwise1, : The very final statement

Edited by dwise1, : "begin to"


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2811 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 416 (527011)
09-30-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Lithodid-Man
09-30-2009 12:26 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Old world fruit bats cannot echolocate, and athough bats do not usually have claws on all five fingers, they usually have claws on 2 or 3.

Also, it had fully developped wings and could clearly fly.

Just to clarify some facts that I felt weren't toallyl accurate/transparent in your post, might want to check your sources on all this. (I'm not an expert on bats, mine was the wikipedia page on Onychonycteris)

With all this in perspective, I don't get the feeling it is a very good example of a transitional fossil, since it has no transitional characteristics outisde of the five-to-two clawe fingers, which a creationist would argue is a 'downhill' transition.

Although I could be wrong, I would pretty much bet that Onychonycteris would be the ancestor of old world fruit bats.

EDIT: I'm not jumping into this conversation, but I just felt that I could do my part to help the poor fellow who doesn't seem to know in what an endless and long conversation he is entering. I figure that if his rebutters would at least use accurate info, it would help also.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-30-2009 12:26 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 2:58 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 39 by jacortina, posted 09-30-2009 9:38 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 62 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:38 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 868 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 30 of 416 (527017)
09-30-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Next
Hi, Calypsis.

Welcome to EvC!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Gobiconodon is only known from a few fossilized teeth and a jaw fragment. The skeleton in your picture here (pasted below) is a reconstruction based on the assumption that it is similar to a modern opossum. That is, they made it look like an opossum because they thought it looked like an opossum.


Click to enlarge

I believe this counts as a creationist lie (note that the page even acknowledges that it is a reconstruction, but retained the argument anyway: that is horrible hishonest).

Edited by Bluejay, : Additions.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 8:40 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Prev1
2
3456
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019