|
Author
|
Topic: Living fossils expose evolution
|
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: 03-22-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 181 of 416 (527279)
09-30-2009 5:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:23 AM
|
|
Re: Microbiology
Calypsis writes: 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. Please explain "homology of organisms" as I do not think you are using the term to mean the same thing it means when I use it. Especially with the next sentence. Do you mean homologous proteins or genes? We do not need long-dead species to find those, in fact living representatives are much better. T-Rex with viable blood cells? Man, wouldn't that be amazing if it ever happened? Too bad it is impossible!
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"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:23 AM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 184 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:19 PM | | Lithodid-Man has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 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 |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2125 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Change in the fossil record
Not only so but the so called evolution of man from a common ancestor with the ape is not legitimate. My study of the issue is just one of the reasons I tossed out that ridiculous theory. You need to do the same. It sounds like you found religion and then "tossed out that ridiculous theory" rather than the other way around. See, the scientific data supports the theory, while religious belief prohibits believers from seeing that evidence.
...concerning Australopithecus, Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago did what was perhaps the most thorough job of examining australopithecus and stated clearly that the specimen was not related to anything living today. Nature, Vol. 258, pp. 389-395. He was not the only well known scientist who ruled thumbs down on australopithecus. This is a standard creationist quote mine that suggests something other than what the author was saying. Here is a different take on your statement (from something called Misquoted Scientists Respond):
quote:
Oxnard similarly never implied that Australopithecus is unrelated to any animal living today. Instead, Oxnard argued that late Pliocene and early Pleistocene Australopithecus was not directly ancestral to Homo erectus but shared a more remote common ancestor with an earlier variant of the genus Homo. He further argued that Australopithecus, while facultatively bipedal, probably engaged in climbing activities as well. His research question was functional: Was Australopithecus a habitual bipedal? His analysis was based entirely on some postcranial fragments. Oxnard readily acknowledged the shared dental and cranial features of Australopithecus and Homo (signs of their common ancestry). He explicitly argued that the postcranial resemblances of Australopithecus to orangutans imply functional similarities, not a closer relationship of Australopithecus to Pongo (the orang) than to Homo. Source
By the way: which one is the REAL Zinjanthropus man? This one (a handsome creature he is, too):
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:53 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
Re: Microbiology
Please explain "homology of organisms" as I do not think you are using the term to mean the same thing it means when I use it. And why should I have to explain to you something you already know? Nonetheless, it is a similarity often attributable to common origin or a likeness in structure between parts of different organisms.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 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 |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 186 of 416 (527288)
09-30-2009 5:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
09-30-2009 5:16 PM
|
|
Re: Change in the fossil record
See, the scientific data supports the theory, while religious belief prohibits believers from seeing that evidence. That is bunk. I didn't switch my brain off when I accepted the Lord as my Savior. In fact, my mind switched on. But the last blow to evolution did not come from the Bible or arguments of my Christian friends. It came from Isaac Asimov who, in the 'Wellsprings of Life' promoted the concept of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. And his evidence that this momentouos event occurred in nature? None. I knew after reading that book that evolutionists were living in a fairy land of make-believe.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 5:16 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 187 of 416 (527289)
09-30-2009 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
09-30-2009 5:16 PM
|
|
Re: Change in the fossil record
Oxnard similarly never implied that Australopithecus is unrelated to any animal living today. Instead, Oxnard argued that late Pliocene and early Pleistocene Australopithecus was not directly ancestral to Homo erectus but shared a more remote common ancestor with an earlier variant of the genus Homo. He further argued that Australopithecus, while facultatively bipedal, probably engaged in climbing activities as well. His research question was functional: Was Australopithecus a habitual bipedal? His analysis was based entirely on some postcranial fragments. Oxnard readily acknowledged the shared dental and cranial features of Australopithecus and Homo (signs of their common ancestry). He explicitly argued that the postcranial resemblances of Australopithecus to orangutans imply functional similarities, not a closer relationship of Australopithecus to Pongo (the orang) than to Homo Funny. You didn't quote Oxnard. You quoted someone who was interpreting Oxnard. I reject your reasoning. I only touched on the many reasons to reject the so-called 'evolution of man'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 5:16 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 213 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 7:18 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
The fossil record is buried in what is known as the geologic column. You mean THIS geologic column:
247 million yrs of missing strata. Is that a bit of a problem for evolutionary geology? But that is by no means the only one...I will bring that out also. But we are off topic so let's get back on.
|
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: 05-15-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Change in the fossil record
And his evidence that this momentouos event occurred in nature? None. I knew after reading that book that evolutionists were living in a fairy land of make-believe. So, you rejected a theory that doesn't say anything about the origin of life because you found an origin of life theory to be lacking in evidence? This is akin to rejecting Christianity because it suddenly occurs to you that blue isn't all that great a color as you had previously thought. It's a non-sequitur.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:25 PM | | Calypsis4 has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2125 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Change in the fossil record
But the last blow to evolution did not come from the Bible or arguments of my Christian friends. It came from Isaac Asimov who, in the 'Wellsprings of Life' promoted the concept of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. And his evidence that this momentouos event occurred in nature? None. I knew after reading that book that evolutionists were living in a fairy land of make-believe. In case you are not aware of the fact, "spontaneous generation of life from non-life" has nothing to do with evolution. That is an entirely different field of study, which to date is in its infancy. The theory of evolution is a mature and well-tested scientific theory, and does not rely on any particular origin. So you have shown that your decision to reject the theory of evolution actually had nothing to do with evolution!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:25 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Where exactly do you think the ToE demands any particular rate of change? 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". 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!
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 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 |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
Calypsis4 writes: 247 million yrs of missing strata. Is that a bit of a problem for evolutionary geology? Not at all. Ever heard of erosion? Anyway, we're not off-topic here, because your whole argument hinges on the fossil record. I'm telling you that the fossil record shows a progression, not stasis. Evolution is a fact, and it's laid down in the geologic column. Instead of dodging the issue, why don't you give me a real answer?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:35 PM | | Calypsis4 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 198 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:04 PM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 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 |
|
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5232 days) Posts: 428 Joined: 09-29-2009
|
|
|
Message 195 of 416 (527297)
09-30-2009 5:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
09-30-2009 5:41 PM
|
|
Re: Change in the fossil record
In case you are not aware of the fact, "spontaneous generation of life from non-life" has nothing to do with evolution. That is an entirely different field of study... 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. But we are off topic. Back to the subject now.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 5:41 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
