|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tomorrow morning I will begin playing an active moderator role in this forum. As prelude let me make these requests:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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: I show you a picture of whale evolution and its just a joke. How convenient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
I know this is off topic, but I gotta weigh in on something.
Calypsis4 writes:
"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.
I taught science for 26 yrs including biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024