Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 91 of 416 (527160)
09-30-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Then we have this:
The thing that surprised me after coming across Dr. Werners illustrations was just how extensive the evidence is. But Werner's work doesn't even represent half of what is available as far as living fossils are concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:39 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:27 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 94 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2009 12:29 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 111 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-30-2009 1:28 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 92 of 416 (527162)
09-30-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminNosy
09-30-2009 11:55 AM


Re: Topic!
"Now which point are you trying to make? When we know that we can maintain the focus of this 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.
Sorry, but I am confused about the reasons for your question. Nonetheless, I will comply as best I can. I have never seen a discussion in which each of the above mentioned subpoints were not freely discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminNosy, posted 09-30-2009 11:55 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:36 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 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 Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 94 of 416 (527165)
09-30-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Slow down, Calypsis4, slow down.
There's little to no point in posting more and more "examples". Even if you have a hundred genuine examples of "living fossils", so what? As pointed out earlier in this thread the very term "living fossil" was coined by none other than Darwin himself. That there are living fossils surprises no-one. Could you explain how exactly unchanged forms would undermine evolution? Yet alone the only slightly unchanged forms you've presented.
More worrying is the weakness of your examples, and your apparent unwillingness with discussing any particular one of them. You've given us gliding lizards from different Orders, bats from different families and the skulls of hyena, apparently without noticing. Do you really understand what you're looking at in these pictures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:02 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:52 PM Dr Jack has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 95 of 416 (527167)
09-30-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:09 AM


Re: Magnolias
Use thumb=500 then, it'll make it much bigger, like this (this is the "500" size):

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:09 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:42 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 96 of 416 (527169)
09-30-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2009 10:47 AM


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?
{ABE}Ok, I guess the Comoros do count, as they belong to Africa. Thanks!
Edited by Huntard, : Added ABE bit

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:39 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:53 PM Huntard has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 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

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 98 of 416 (527172)
09-30-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Lithodid-Man
09-30-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
"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."
Really? So why do Russian scientists place them in the same category as 'gliding lizards'?
BFP 404
Of course you will have to do a lot better than they did and fill in the huge gaps between supplying the necessary stages between the different organisms. Clever artwork isn't going to do it.
But then I suppose it depends on which evolutinary scientist one talks to, the opinions vary so widely.
And who determines what is a 'true lizard'? The point is that they are both lizards. Didn't you notice that Dr. Werner pointed out that they were different species of lizard ("Now compare the different genus names in blue". Why did you overlook that? Well, you are missing the point of the whole thread to begin with so why should we be surprised?
But you are free to post pictures of the step by step changes from gliding lizards (be they Icarosaurus or draco, take your pick) to another kind of organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-30-2009 11:20 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-30-2009 4:50 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 99 of 416 (527173)
09-30-2009 12:39 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?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2009 12:35 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:55 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 100 of 416 (527174)
09-30-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Huntard
09-30-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Magnolias
Use thumb=500 then, it'll make it much bigger, like this (this is the "500" size):
Well, I just can't please everybody.
I think the enlarger serves the purpose pretty well, but thanks, friend. I will keep it in mind.
Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 09-30-2009 12:31 PM Huntard has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 101 of 416 (527175)
09-30-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Jack
09-30-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Could you explain how exactly unchanged forms would undermine evolution?"
(Scrath, scratch) Uh, why should I have to?
I'll give the hint one more time:
This...
evolved to this?
Those changes are testable, repeatable, and observable to all. However, the changes were each made by intelligent designers.
So...! What did this:
evolve from....or evolve into?
What did this;
evolve from or evolve into?
What did this:
evolve from or what did it evolve into?
Unless clear anatomical and/or morphological changes from one kind of organism to another can be observed then we can conclude a stasis among related kinds (no evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2009 12:29 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 1:00 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2009 1:03 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 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 284 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 284 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 Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 105 of 416 (527179)
09-30-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
(Scrath, scratch) Uh, why should I have to?
Because it's your argument.
If you only argument is that there are no transitionals then it doesn't make any difference how many living fossils there are. You understand that, right? It's like claiming you can prove all cars are white by showing me an endless procession of white cars while I scratch my head and point in confusion to the bright red Nissan parked across the road.
(edit)
Or another example: consider that Model T Ford and Lamborgini you're fond of posting, I build a Model T Ford replica does it prove that car design hasn't changed? Of course not. What matters is not that you can find things that haven't changed, but things that have.
(/edit)
So, I'm assuming you don't just like pretty pictures and actually have a point related to the various living fossils you've presented. What is it? How do these examples undermine evolution?
Edited by Mr Jack, : Example added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:52 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024