Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 151 of 416 (527238)
09-30-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dr Jack
09-30-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
Not knowing anything about Biology (because, after all, that's for learned men) he didn't notice the glaring error.
I taught science for 26 yrs including biology.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2009 3:47 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 3:54 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 157 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:00 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 162 by Taz, posted 09-30-2009 4:09 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 4:38 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 171 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 4:39 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 152 of 416 (527239)
09-30-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
But you have yet to admit that it is not a feline skull. Will you admit that it is not a feline skull? You have a way of never admitting that anything you say or post is wrong.
Do you contest the fact that it is a skull of a hyena?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:47 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


(1)
Message 153 of 416 (527240)
09-30-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 9:22 AM


Calypsis4,
No it is not a strawman. I can literally post hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of living organisms all day for about two weeks.
Yes, it is a strawman. I repeat, the ToE does not state things "must" evolve, therefore having an organism alive today identical to a fossil one doesn't contradict the ToE.
So knock yourself out, post as many examples of non-evolution as you like, it's a strawman because the thing you argue against doesn't take the position that non-evolution can't occur. You are posting examples of things that don't contradict the ToE. Ergo, you have found nothing in the "living fossil" argument that defeats the ToE. OK?
There are no transitional forms between them and they all appear abruptly in the fossil record.
This isn't a part of your original argument, which relates to living fossils.
But for the record, how much of the earths surface that bears fossiliferous rocks of say 100-110 million years ago is available to palaeontologists, as a percentage? It's sub 1%, Calypsis. That means that anything that lived & evolved on the earth in that time has something like a 99% chance of not being found by palaeontologists purely by dint of not existing as fossils hanging around on the surface waiting for someone to walk by.
Add that to all the other reasons that things don't get fossilised for & we're lucky to have anything at all. The upshot is that gaps in the fossil record are pretty much guaranteed.
Yet we do have lots of transitional fossils, just like the ToE says we should.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 9:22 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:25 PM mark24 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 416 (527241)
09-30-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:50 PM


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

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 155 of 416 (527242)
09-30-2009 3:55 PM


Notice of Intent to Moderate
Tomorrow morning I will begin playing an active moderator role in this forum. As prelude let me make these requests:
  • When images are used to support a point, they should be accompanied be some explanatory or interpretive text.
  • When in your own mind you decide that someone is behaving like a blithering idiot, let it pass without comment.
  • Keep discussion focused on the topic and not on the participants themselves, because they are not the thread's topic. The thread's topic concerns living fossils.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 156 of 416 (527243)
09-30-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
What do you mean, 'so what?'
I mean: "What the hell does that have to do with it? You need to say more to have a point."
Do you even begin to realize how many examples of no evolutionary change in living fossils I can carry this? And I fully intend to do so.
Don't waste your time. A lack of evolutionary change in living fossils is not a problem for the Theory of Evolution.
The ToE does not necessitate that creatures constantly change. If one fits well in a particular niche, then there'd be no selective pressure to change it. Look at crocodiles, they fit great where they are and haven't changed much at all.
Concerning your chart. I've seen nice artwork like that before. Now where are the fossils?
I'm guessing in a museum somewhere. So what?
That means, what's your point here? Please provide more information. Asking where the fossils are is not a point? Do you doubt that they exist?
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.
Do you know what the Gish Gallop is? you can Google it.
How did water breathing organisms change to oxygen breathing ones?
Gradually. Look at Amphibeans. Some of them can get oxygen from both air and water. Look at the Lungfish. Its a fish that can gulp oxygen from air.
At what point did the first water breathing creature develop the ability to breathe air...before or after it left the water?
Before it left the water.
How did the first mammals feed their young before mammary glands developed?
I don't know the specifics of the evolution of mammary glands, but it doesn't really matter. Pointing out some thing that has yet to be fully explained doesn't help your cause in this thread.
Maybe you could start here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/...nal/112611667/abstract
Do you really believe that the whale evolved into a land animal and then evolved back into the sea as a marine creature?
What a simple mischaracterization of evolution. There were populations and populations of land animals of which some gradually evolved to be partially land and partially marine over long periods of time before some of them began to gradully evolve into fully marine.
You seem to have some gross misunderstandings of the way the Theory of Evolution postulates evolution happening.
How did it change its breathing apparatus without drowning itself?
Very slowly, across many populations of many generation.
Shall I go on?
Go on failing to make your point? No, please stop wasting bandwidth.
None of this even touches the necessary genetic changes that would be required of such transformations. Explain...any of them.
What you posted is a joke.
In the OP you wrote:
quote:
The most damaging thing to evolution about this is that there are no transitionals either before or after this bat. Other species have been found of course, but none reveal any change either from another organism or a change into something else.
I show you a picture of whale evolution and its just a joke. How convenient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:37 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 157 of 416 (527244)
09-30-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
Next:
Long legged fly encased in amber:
It's modern offspring:
Flies are still flies. Modern scientists have taken drosophilas through tens of thousands of generations and seen many changes but never saw a single instance of a fly becoming anything other than a fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:50 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 4:03 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 158 of 416 (527245)
09-30-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 4:00 PM


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 Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(3)
Message 159 of 416 (527246)
09-30-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:45 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
By 'kind' I am referring to that which is on the family level down.
You are sure about that? Kind = the family level down?
Sure? Completely sure?
So... you do realise that only two of your examples of stasis have shown the same kind is both the fossil and the living form, right?
The magnolia - yup, same Genus. Cool, they're a kind.
The nautiluses - same family, same kind.
The crayfish - nope, different families, different kinds
The bats - nope, different families so different kinds
The scorpionflies - again, different families so different kinds
The 'gliding lizards' - different orders (in case you don't know, Orders are above Families in the classification system) so definetly different kinds
Ditto the brittle stars
The "possoms" - nope, different subclasses! Even further out! Different kinds
Tigers and Hyenas, unsurprisingly, are different families
The other examples you gave did not list species meaning I can't identify them. So, all in all, you've managed two kinds which still exist - one plant, one animal - and seven examples of kinds which you can find no currently extant equivalent to.
So, according to you, we find different kinds in the fossil record than we do in the modern day.
Oh dear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:45 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 160 of 416 (527248)
09-30-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by New Cat's Eye
09-30-2009 3:57 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
I show you a picture of whale evolution and its just a joke. How convenient
No, you didn't. I asked you 'where are the fossils?' You didn't produce any that I have seen so far. If you have a series of photos then give me the post #.
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?
Gradually. Look at Amphibeans. Some of them can get oxygen from both air and water. Look at the Lungfish. Its a fish that can gulp oxygen from air.
"Gradually". How long did they have to 'hold their breath'? A minute? An hour? A day? A yr? Or millions of yrs? That does not answer the question and you are avoiding the issue.
Edited by Calypsis4, : correction
Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2009 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2009 4:08 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 4:11 PM Calypsis4 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 161 of 416 (527249)
09-30-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 4:06 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
HOW did those organisms overcome virtually impossible anatomical/morphological changes from marine organisms to land organisms?
They gradually evolved over many many generations, with intermediate steps in between.
At what point did the first water breathing creature develop the ability to breathe oxygen...before...or after it ascended to dry land?
It wasn't a single point, and there are many intermediates that could exist both in and out of the water, but the ability to breathe oxygen was before it ascended to dry land.

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 166 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 162 of 416 (527250)
09-30-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
I know this is off topic, but I gotta weigh in on something.
Calypsis4 writes:
I taught science for 26 yrs including biology.
"Dr." Kent Hovind claimed to have taught math for 15 years. Have you any idea how many times I cringed when he talked about math and science? On a radio show one time, he was asked by a caller what fueled the sun, and Hovind honestly suggested it was combustion for christ sake.

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 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 163 of 416 (527252)
09-30-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 4:06 PM


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

jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 164 of 416 (527253)
09-30-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
quote:
That is so much balderdash. The definition of evolution according to Sir Julian Huxley.
Evolution can be defined as a directional, essentially irreversible process, occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution — one single process of self-transformation.

Let's get the full quote (ellipses are bad enough, but dropping them is a real no-no) and add a bit of context.
Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution -- a single process of self-transformation.
What is Science (1955) p.278
OK. Not that Huxley's assertion means that it's automatically accepted as true, but I don't really see anything which claims a change has to happen in any given amount of time. I see that change is directional and irreversible, but nothing about any absolute 'expiration date' or 'term limits' on forms which are well suited to their environments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 2:59 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 165 of 416 (527254)
09-30-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
The definition of evolution according to Sir Julian Huxley.
Who died in 1975. You don't think that, maybe, our definition has "evolved" since then as we learn new things? Science isn't static, it changes as new evidence and information comes to light. You don't even say where that quote comes from, if it comes from a popular press book, or something for the lay person, it is an ok, if simplistic definition, though not one that current, actual biologists would use.
Evolutionists are such chamelions on this issue.
It is an ongoing investigation. As such, there will be people with different ideas, who subscribe to competing "child" theories, if you will. They agree on the major framework and just quibble over the fine details, devising experiements, making predictions and testing both against the real world. As such, people are going to have differing definitions and these are going to change, relatively quickly, as new things are learned. This is one of the biggest strengths of science, not a problem as you're trying to frame it.
But as to the only point of mine you cared to respond to, evolution says that a species will adapt to better fit its environment. If it does so, and is very well adapted to an environment that doesn't change significantly, how and why would you expect the organism to change drastically? Any drastic change to a well adapted species in a static environemtn would make it less well adapted, thus resulting in that offspring not being as competitive and its genes would not be passed on very far. Once you understand how natural selection works, this is quite obvious, 10th grade type stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 2:59 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