|
Author
|
Topic: Living fossils expose evolution
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Going further with the fossils in amber that reveal no evolutionary. Again, I urge you to write in English, which is the language customarily used on these forums. As to your photographs, we agree that modern species resemble their ancestors. We are now waiting for you to make your point.
Where in the fossil record do we see phasmids evolving into non-phasmid? Please read a biology textbook until you realize how stupid that question is. You might also want to note that the past comes before the present, this is a crucial point that seems to have escaped you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:13 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Harun Yahya Ha Ha
Saying this tells me nothing. What is AOL pictures? How about providing a link so people can tell what you are talking about. Well, apparently Calypsis was just randomly browsing through pictures of skulls, and the one he happened to pick was, quite by chance, a picture originating with noted creationist Harun Yahya, who just happened to make the exact same mistake about it that Calypsis made. I don't see why you should doubt him if he says that this is a perfect coincidence ... oh, apart from the obvious reasons.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 3:30 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
What do you mean, 'so what?' Do you even begin to realize how many examples of no evolutionary change in living fossils I can carry this? You have come up with no examples of no change, this is why the fossil species you show pictures of are always different species from the modern species. Nonetheless, we concede, unreservedly, the fact that modern species resemble their ancestors. Now what is your point?
Concerning your chart. I've seen nice artwork like that before. Now where are the fossils? Furthermore, and even more importantly is how you can possibly explain the anatomical/morphological changes in creatures that supposedly evolved from the oceans to dry land. How did water breathing organisms change to oxygen breathing ones? At what point did the first water breathing creature develop the ability to breathe air...before or after it left the water? How did the first mammals feed their young before mammary glands developed? Do you really believe that the whale evolved into a land animal and then evolved back into the sea as a marine creature? How did it change its breathing apparatus without drowning itself? Shall I go on? Resisting the temptation to reply to the off-topic portions of your posts becomes harder and harder as your off-topic rantings become dumber and dumber. Nonetheless, let us not allow this thread to degenerate into the customary game of Whack-A-Mole. The point and purpose of this thread is for you to say something inconceivably stupid about "living fossils". So will you just get on and say it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:37 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
No, it wasn't a lie but you are going to have to take my word for it. Take your word for it? I'll say this as tactfully as I can --- after reading this thread, who's going to take your word for anything? Maybe that wasn't very tactful, but there is no more tactful way to put it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:40 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Are We Getting Close To Your Point?
The photos reveal that there is a 'stasis' among living organisms. That is, they don't change from one kind to another. And how do you think that the photos reveal that? Do tell. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:45 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
I taught science for 26 yrs including biology. But apparently you spent no time learning it. This, I feel, was a disservice to the children who suffered under your tutelage, and a downright swindle of your employer.
"learned men"? You mean the people who are given evidence of no evolution but pretend that it exists anyway? They are people with an emotional committment to a lie. The fossil record speaks loudly about the fact that there has been no change but they like to pretend it says something else. Nice rhetoric, shame that all the facts contradict it. You know those people who actually study the fossil record? You know, people who are not you? They don't think that it "speaks loudly about the fact that there has been no change". Whereas you, having obdurately refused to learn anything about the fossil record, prate and bluster about what it says.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:50 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
What Is Your Point?
For the millionth time. We agree that modern species resemble (though are not identical to) ancient species. This would be because modern species are descended from ancient species. What is your point?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 157 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:00 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
But you didn't answer the most pointed questions. HOW did those organisms overcome virtually impossible anatomical/morphological changes from marine organisms to land organisms? But answer this ONE single question. At what point did the first water breathing creature develop the ability to breathe oxygen...before...or after it ascended to dry land? The biological naivety ... it burns. What you call "water breathing creatures" all breathe oxygen. Fish, for example, breathe oxygen. Therefore, breathing oxygen preceded the evolution of land animals. Now, back to your rubbish about "living fossils". One day, perhaps even sometime within the next month, it would be nice if you stated whatever point you wish to make about them and tried to justify it with argument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:06 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:40 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: who said what
But the point was missed from the very first beat...post #1. I posted evidence that the bat has not evolved and that it appeared abruptly in the fossil record ... No you didn't. You posted a picture of a fossil bat having primitive traits not found in any modern bat.
... and what do my opponents do to 'overthrow' this point? They point out that you posted a picture of a fossil bat having primitive traits not found in any modern bat.
They post pictures of bats!! (oh, excuse me; 'old world bats'). I did not post a picture of an old world bat to "overthrow your point", but because you specifically asked to see a picture of an old world bat. You have now seen a picture of an old world bat. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed. You alone know what relevance this has to your "point".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:38 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Change in the fossil record
It takes so much time and effort to go through the whole ridiculous line of so-called evolution of man that I won't do it here unless I am pressed to do so. We would actually "press" you to stay on topic. If you want to talk nonsense about human evolution, feel free to embarrass yourself on another thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:53 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
You mean THIS geologic column: No. That is not what geologists mean by the geological column, as you would know if you had ever bothered to learn anything about geology.
247 million yrs of missing strata. Is that a bit of a problem for evolutionary geology? No, of course not. But if you wish to be ridiculously, droolingly, pathetically wrong about geology, you will have to start a new thread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:35 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Go back and read the definition of evolution by Sir Julian Huxley. It is disgusting to me how modern evolutionist believers play the switching game..."this organism evolved over millions of yrs with real change" to "This organism did not evolve at all". Of course, that last statement is not a quote from a real evolutionist, it's just something you made up.
Never mind the fact that although the tips of the branches of the evolutionary tree are visible but the stages in between (branches) are invisible in the fossil record! This is, of course, untrue. However, if you wish to be laughably, contemptibly, flagrantly wrong about the existence of intermediate forms, that would be a subject for another thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:42 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Note the bit in the dictionary where is says "Biology". Note how this agrees with the definition given by Biologyonline. Note how neither of these definitions support your ludicrous fantasies about living fossils.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
My mind is very tired ... That's probably the kindest way to put it, yes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:10 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Change in the fossil record
Oh, here we go. Another adherent to accidentalism that swallowed that lie. It's called 'chemical evolution', friend; and it has been since the days of Alexander Oparin in the 1930's who coined the phrase.
Strongly influenced by Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, he sought to account for the origin of life in terms of chemical and physical processes. He hypothesized that life developed, in effect, by chance, through a progression from simple to complex self-duplicating organic compounds. His proposal initially met with strong opposition but has since received experimental support and has been accepted as a legitimate hypothesis by the scientific community (see Life). Oparin's major work is The Origin of Life on Earth (1936).MSN Encarta Notice the title of his book: "The Origin of Life on Earth". Hmm, reminds me of Dean Kenyon's book trying to prove the evolution of life from non-life in "Biochemical Predestination". But alas, Kenyon converted and tossed out his own book. Don't try and sell me that bill-of-goods. If you wish to be fatuously, foolishly, footlingly wrong about the relation of the origin of life to the theory of evolution, that would be a topic for another thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:49 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
