|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic here is "living fossils". We can stick to that and take transitionals to other threads. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Then we have this:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And your point, if you had one, would be ... ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
The topic here is "living fossils". We can stick to that and take transitionals to other threads. Thank you. Sir, respectfully; The whole point of the 'living fossil' issue is that there is no evolutionary change in any organisms into another kind of organism and there are NO transitional forms. The one cannot be separated from the other for that is the very point I am attempting to make here. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined:
|
This is too funny! Your fossil "tiger" is a hyena. I cannot find the ref, but is one of those Miocene (iirc) mammal fossils that are so beautifully preserved. Look at the molars and the skull vault. Harun Yayha is a really bad source of info. You do know that hyena's and tiger's are different families, right?
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
And you're going to claim these are the same "kind", right?
I'm going to ask you again, does being in different families make things different kinds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Sir, respectfully; The whole point of the 'living fossil' issue is that there is no evolutionary change in any organisms into another kind of organism and there are NO transitional forms. The one cannot be separated from the other for that is the very point I am attempting to make here. Thank yo So the real point of your posts here is NOT that animals maintaining similar forms over a long time period is a problem for evolutionary biology? What you have been meaning to say is that they are evidence that NO forms of plants or animals change over long periods of time? That appears to be a very different point than you started with. It is so different in fact that a new thread would be appropriate. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined:
|
I wish I didn't have to go to work, I could do this all day!
Icarosaurus is a diapsid in the extinct order Eolacertilia. The modern flying lizard, Draco, is in the order Squamata which includes true lizards, worm lizards, and snakes. So while a similar gliding mechanism is used, these are very different 'kinds' of animals. 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
If you have ever worked with bacteria, protists, and the like you will know that external appearance is probably the worst possible way to distinguish genera, families, sometimes even phyla Appearance, function, homology, etc. are all factors. But the homology of organisms that have been dead for eons of time is very difficult unless we happen to come across a T-Rex with soft tissue and viable blood cells. But the point of the bacterial fossil I posted from the lab of U Cal Berkeley above was made by U Cal Berekely; there is little difference. Bacterium are known to change within genetic limits but never become anything else but bacterium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So the real point of your posts here is NOT that animals maintaining similar forms over a long time period is a problem for evolutionary biology? What you have been meaning to say is that they are evidence that NO forms of plants or animals change over long periods of time? That appears to be a very different point than you started with. Pardon the expression but it appears that we are not on the same page. I don't know how to make my point clearer than I did above. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5234 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
This is too funny! Your fossil "tiger" is a hyena. I cannot find the ref, but is one of those Miocene (iirc) mammal fossils that are so beautifully preserved. Look at the molars and the skull vault. Harun Yayha is a really bad source of info. You do know that hyena's and tiger's are different families, right? Yes, but I do have the reference. It was from AOL pictures of tiger fossils, p. 3. not hyenas. If there was a mistake it was AOL and not I. I have not used 'Harun Yayha'. Edited by AdminNosy, : To use "standard" quoting technique. Please use Peek to see how this was done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Then why is there a "HY" watermark on your fossil "tiger" skull ? (And why would AOL have a multi-page collection of pictures of tiger fossils ? I want to see the link).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Maybe it is just me but I'll persist so we can get the topic clarified.
It is possible that you are making one of two points: 1) If organisms remain the same (or similar 'enough') over geologic time that, by itself, represents a problem for biological evolution. This is the point that at least a couple of others have assumed you were making and have pointed out to you that they believe it to be in error. 2)Some organisms staying pretty much the same over long periods of time shows that no organisms have changed in ways that you consider 'significant' (i.e.,. between "kinds") This is the new point that you suddenly raised when you brought up transitionals. They are not the same point. Now which point are you trying to make? When we know that we can maintain the focus of this topic. If you don't wish to clarify I will use my judgment and what others have understood to focus the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Maybe Calypsis believes that a living fossil is an existing species that is unchanged from some long-ago ancestral species, but I'm not sure. There does seem to be something amiss in the way he's looking at things, because he's making triumphal observations that he seems to think are evidence against evolution, but no one else can figure out how. His misimpression that paleontologists haven't known for over a century that mammals coexisted with dinosaurs is also a bit weird.
Until we get a better idea of the nature of his misunderstandings it might not be possible to give him any feedback that would help him stay on-topic. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024