|
Author
|
Topic: Living fossils expose evolution
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 71 of 416 (527132)
09-30-2009 11:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:49 AM
|
|
Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
But for those whose minds have not been tainted with accidentalist thought: to display the fossil record of those organisms that have living offspring which reveals little change over multiplied millions of yrs and understanding that each of those organisms appeared abruptly in that same fossil record is devastating to evolution. But you do not explain why your garbage about "living fossils" should be "devastating to evolution". You just keep saying over and over that it is, as though reciting a falsehood often enough will magically make it true. If you have any reasoning, now would be an excellent time to explain it. P.S: As your other falsehoods about the fossil record are off topic, I am not going to address them here. Please concentrate on being wrong about "living fossils". Thank you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:49 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 74 of 416 (527136)
09-30-2009 11:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:58 AM
|
|
Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
As one can see: the shape, contour, symmetry, and teeth are basically the same with only minor differences. Wow, you've discovered that the skull of a tiger looks like the skull of a tiger. This will produce a revolution in biology. Or not.
Tigers did not evolve into non-tigers. Well of course not. Duh. Tigers are the modern, not the ancestral species. And your point, if you had one, would be ... ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:58 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 75 of 416 (527137)
09-30-2009 11:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:03 AM
|
|
Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Yet, on another website I was sternly challenged by evolutionists to prove that mammals and dinosaurs were contemporary. Hmm, I guess it depends on which group of accidentalists one talks to and where they were educated. Is this something that you made up, or can you link us to this fabled website whereof you speak?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:03 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 78 of 416 (527142)
09-30-2009 11:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: Dr. Carl Werner
So let the 'scientists' who believe in evolution do what I am doing. Let them post the transitions between each organism. They have done so. There are these great things called "books", you might want to look at one. However, this thread is for you to be wrong about "living fossils". If you want to make a fool of yourself over intermediate forms, please start a new thread.
Since there are seemingly no end to the number of fossils in the world then it should be no problem. Actually, the number of fossils in the world is finite. But you're right in guessing that it's no problem. Now, back to these "living fossils" that you wished to be wrong about. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:01 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 79 of 416 (527143)
09-30-2009 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:07 AM
|
|
Point?
And your point, if you had one, would be ... ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:07 AM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 93 of 416 (527164)
09-30-2009 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:02 PM
|
|
Point? Point? Point?
To save you the trouble of posting in any more pictures, let me say this. Everyone agrees that modern species resemble their ancestors. There's a reason for this. It begins with the letter "e" and rhymes with "volution". But you wish to claim that this fact, known to all biologists everywhere, somehow "exposes evolution" and is "devastating to evolution". So, perhaps you could stop posting pictures and explain why. What's your point? In order for you to put forward a creationist argument, it's not enough to present facts, you also have to be wrong about something. And not trivial little things like claiming that a hyena is a tiger or that bats use radar. You've got to be wrong about something major and important. What is it that you wish to be wrong about? Stop posting pictures for a minute and favor us with a bit of faulty reasoning.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:02 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 97 of 416 (527170)
09-30-2009 12:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:08 PM
|
|
Re: Topic!
I don't mean to be unkind but I don't understand why you even brought up the matter in the first place. The first and main point is that there is no evolutionary change. BUT...that lack of change is seen in TWO things (a) visible anatomical changes are small or unchanged and (b)there are no transitional forms that reveal that such a change has occurred. Both are subpoints to my main contention. But these are two completely separate points. In one case, creationists take something that is true (the existence of "living fossils") and lie by pretending that it contradicts evolution; in the other case creationists make up a lie ("no intermediate forms") and correctly say that their lie would contradict evolution. It would be hard for two creationist arguments to be more dissimilar. OK, they both involve lying, and they both involve the fossil record. But what else do these two forms of fraud have in common? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:08 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 102 of 416 (527176)
09-30-2009 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Huntard
09-30-2009 12:35 PM
|
|
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Uhm, dear Dr., sorry to do this but... Australia doesn't really count as "the old world". So, perhaps find another one? Please? It is you, and not I, who have blundered. It is true that the phrase "old world" does not include Australia. However, the phrase "old world fruit bat" includes all bats of the family Pteropodidae, even those who live in Australia. The Encyclopaedia Britannica definition:
Old World fruit bat
mammal (family Pteropodidae) any of more than 180 species of large-eyed fruit-eating or flower-feeding bats widely distributed from Africa to Southeast Asia and Australia. Some species are solitary, some gregarious. Most roost in the open in trees, but some inhabit caves, rocks, or buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2009 12:35 PM | | Huntard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2009 1:51 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 103 of 416 (527177)
09-30-2009 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:39 PM
|
|
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Before you laughed, you could have spent a few seconds looking up the phrase "old world fruit bat" and finding out that I was absolutely right. He who laughs last, laughs longest. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:39 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 1:08 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 104 of 416 (527178)
09-30-2009 1:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:52 PM
|
|
Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
I'll give the hint one more time: This...
evolved to this?
No. In answer to your other gibberish, I shall point out once again that you are meant to be being wrong about "living fossils". If you wish to pretend that there are no intermediate forms, start a new thread, where it will be on topic. I can see why you would be desperate to escape the topic you initiated, but so long as you're posting on this thread, you're stuck with it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:52 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
To the other readers: (pssst, whisper whisper)...the bats...are still bats! Pssst, whisper whisper ... no, actually, let's shout it from the rooftops ... by definition, evolution will never ever remove any lineage from a clade that it's in. I'll tell you another dirty little secret ... humans are still eukaryotes. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 1:08 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
And Your Point Is?
Assuming that your statements are accurate, and that's a big "if", then what you have proved is that ants look like other ants. We knew that. You also say that this observation is "damaging to evolution". You have still not explained why. As I said, you can stop posting pictures now. We concede, freely and without reservation, that species look similar to their ancestors. What we are waiting for ... what we are all agog over ... is how you are going to pretend that this is "damaging to evolution". Now, would you actually like to tell the darn lie that you've cooked up in the recesses of your brain, or are you just going to show us pictures proving that what we know to be true is true?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 1:34 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Did you intend that last paragraph to be written in the English language? It is hard to decipher your meaning, except that it is plain that you are very angry at people who know more about biology than you do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 2:59 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it. I believe that I have already pointed out that making false statements, even repeatedly, will not magically make them true. Because your words do not have the power to erase reality.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:02 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Learned men? I do that all the time. And I find out that even those who have an expertise much better than mine in certain areas can indeed know details that I may not be familiar with but if their basic premise encompassing that field is wrong to begin with then no matter how well they can excel others in describing function or homology then it is no better than natives from a 3rd world country who had never seen a jet before but concluding upon their first view of one that it is a 'great silver bird!'. Such people might, in time be able to class the birds into large red ones, small blue ones, or long and short ones. They could observe that the 'great silver birds' leave chem trails, or that some could even fly much higher than others. But unlil those natives actually come into contact with the jet and its operators their entire basis of understanding is in error. So it is with Skeptic evolutionists. They do not know the Engineer of living organisms nor do have they come to trust His word that He means what He says. Ah yes, I was forgetting. You're a creationist. So the fact that you're wrong about everything in particular doesn't stop you from being right about everything in general; the fact that you know nothing about biology doesn't stop you from knowing better about biology than the world's biologists; and the fact that you're talking nonsense doesn't stop you from being absolutely correct. This is because you have a secret arrangement with God whereby everything you say is "His word" ... an arrangement so secret that God himself is apparently unaware of it. For if you were really speaking for God, then he, being all-knowing, would surely prevent you from repeatedly making a fool of yourself. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 2:03 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
