Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 196 of 416 (527298)
09-30-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Go back and read the definition of evolution by Sir Julian Huxley.
Which is out of date and out of context.
"this organism evolved over millions of yrs with real change" to "This organism did not evolve at all".
We're not saying "this organism did not evolve at all." We're merely pointing out that if an organism didn't change much from a long time ago to now, it doesn't disprove the ToE because in a static environment, evolution would predict very little change. We've also been pointing out that the pictures your supplying do, indeed, show changes, and they have been pointed out to you. The fact that you seem to think these changes "aren't enough" is a problem on your end, and is not one to the ToE. Why don't you tell us how much change you would expect a specific organism to go through and why, and we'll explain to you how much we would expect and why, and let's see which one makes more sense.
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!
We show the tips of branches, and the bases of branches. The lines in between them are a recognition by scientists that they don't have every organism that ever died. They're also loath to put an extinct organism in the direct lineage of a living or later organism because while they may know without any reaosnable doubt that an organism like what they have evolved into the later one, they don't know if it was, in fact, that very species. They may be holding a species that was a dead end, but a cousin species was what evolved. It's an admission of scientific tentativity, which again, is a hallmark fo science and not a reason to reject it.
As a "science teacher" you seem to be very uninformed on what science is, how it is carried out, and what it's conclusions mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:42 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM Perdition has replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 197 of 416 (527299)
09-30-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Calypsis, thanks for the reply and I'm sorry I didn't welcome you to EvC the first time...welcome!
Admin has already mentioned the formatting capabilities they're a huge help in following threads.
I don't want to pile you with a bunch of long questions since I know you must feel swamped so I just have one question:
You say that biblical kinds equate to family. Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 205 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:18 PM Tanndarr has not replied

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


Message 198 of 416 (527301)
09-30-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Parasomnium
09-30-2009 5:45 PM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
Not at all. Ever heard of erosion?
Oh, a time or two somewhere. I laughed when I read your answer.
Take a look at these photos, please:
And...
Do you know what those angular piles of sediment are at the foot of each plateau? That's erosion. All agree, right? Now...where is the rest of the untold billions of acres of erosion that is missing between the millions of square miles of such plateaus throughout the southwest USA?
I personally took those pictures while I was on the field and I was presented with a panoramic view of that missing sediment.
I would suggest you think this over again, very carefully.
But I am being pulled off topic again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 5:45 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 6:21 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 208 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 6:21 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 199 of 416 (527302)
09-30-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tanndarr
09-30-2009 5:58 PM


Re: Kinds
You say that biblical kinds equate to family. Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders?
Maybe he will answer my question from post #169 at the same time.
I asked about the kinds=family definition, and what implications that had for family Hominoidea (ours). I even provided a graphic of some of our close relatives in that "kind" (chimps, etc.). So far no answer.
Maybe kinds is not equal to family in the case of Hominoidea? (Or perhaps "kinds" is an unscientific and largely undefined term used to support a religious belief?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tanndarr, posted 09-30-2009 5:58 PM Tanndarr has not replied

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


Message 200 of 416 (527303)
09-30-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Perdition
09-30-2009 5:50 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Which is out of date and out of context.
No it isn't. By no means!
Quote: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny (From the FreeDictionaryonline)
Quote: "1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny." (Biologyonline)
Don't even go there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Perdition, posted 09-30-2009 5:50 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:10 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 6:12 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 204 by Perdition, posted 09-30-2009 6:17 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


Message 201 of 416 (527304)
09-30-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
My mind is very tired from being on so long.
I will be back tomorrow.
Best wishes to all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 6:13 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 202 of 416 (527305)
09-30-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:09 PM


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


(1)
Message 203 of 416 (527306)
09-30-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:10 PM


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

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


(2)
Message 204 of 416 (527307)
09-30-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny (From the FreeDictionaryonline)
Ok, now where on here does it say how much change must be seen? No where? Oh, then I guess saying that the amount of change is neither predicted nor required by evolution wasn't wrong? As you recall, that was the point I was making which led you to quote the definition you did. Thanks for finally ceding me the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


Message 205 of 416 (527308)
09-30-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tanndarr
09-30-2009 5:58 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
"Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders?"
Thanks for the friendly attitude.
Answer: That's close. Understand that the Linneaus classification system, though I utilize it often and think it is good, is still merely a matter of human opinion. So I am not married to classification as something infallible.
Some organisms are so 'way out there' and unlike anything else that it is hard to properly classify them at all.
Gotta run. Thanks. Bye now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tanndarr, posted 09-30-2009 5:58 PM Tanndarr has not replied

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


(1)
Message 206 of 416 (527309)
09-30-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 5:49 PM


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

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


(1)
Message 207 of 416 (527310)
09-30-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:04 PM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
Oh, a time or two somewhere. I laughed when I read your answer.
Take a look at these photos, please:
And...
Do you know what those angular piles of sediment are at the foot of each plateau? That's erosion. All agree, right? Now...where is the rest of the untold billions of acres of erosion that is missing between the millions of square miles of such plateaus throughout the southwest USA?
I personally took those pictures while I was on the field and I was presented with a panoramic view of that missing sediment.
I would suggest you think this over again, very carefully.
If you wish to be witlessly, aimlessly, pointlessly wrong about geology, that would be a topic for another thread.
Could you please stick to being wrong about "living fossils". I quite realize why you'd wish to run away from the subject, but it is the subject of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:04 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 208 of 416 (527311)
09-30-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:04 PM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
Calypsis4 writes:
But I am being pulled off topic again.
No one is "pulling" you off-topic. I specifically asked you to address the issue of the progression of fossils in the geologic column. Yet you chose to dodge it once more yourself.
To repeat: evolution is a fact, and it's laid down in the geologic column. Kindly respond to this, as the fossil record is very much to the point in this thread.

"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 198 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:04 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:41 AM Parasomnium has replied

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


(1)
Message 209 of 416 (527315)
09-30-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by mark24
09-30-2009 5:03 PM


I assume that you concede that your argument is a strawman, since you didn't comment on the substance of my argument?
One more thing before I step out of the office and head home:
Your statement reveals the depth of naivete you are afflicted with. Far from being a 'straw man' it can be more likened unto the atomic bomb on evolution. Minds that are clouded with accidentalist thought can't see that. They don't wish to see it.
Nonetheless, I wish you well. Bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by mark24, posted 09-30-2009 5:03 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 6:53 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 212 by mark24, posted 09-30-2009 7:12 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 215 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-30-2009 8:59 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 210 of 416 (527318)
09-30-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
Calypsis,
Go back and read the definition of evolution by Sir Julian Huxley.
I've read it. Where do you think he says that all organisms must evolve at any particular rate?
Julian Huxley writes:
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.
He says that evolution leads to increase in variety. When viewed on the whole, it does. This does not mean that every single lineage must show any particular amount of change.
Besides, you have already been shown that Huxley wasn't even talking about biological evolution in the quote, he was using the word in a much looser sense, to refer to cosmology and geology, etc. The Huxley quote is meaningless.
Your interpretation of Huxley's words is equivalent to taking the statement "Hens lay eggs" and insisting that this means that all hens must lays eggs, or they're not hens and that each hen must also lay the same number of eggs each day.
Evolution has no time plan. Some lineages have evolved rapidly, others (due to a stable environment) have changed almost imperceptibly.
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".
It is disgusting to me that hypocritical Chrsitians insist on lying about what I have said. You know full well that I did not say "This organism did not evolve at all.". That is a lie. It is also an astonishingly stupid and feeble lie, since;
a) you are lying to me about what I said and
b) my words are here on the page for anyone to go over and check.
I didn't say that magnolias or anything "didn't evolve". That is your foolish position.
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!
Apart from the fact that you have been informed of transitional fossils and you have responded only with empty mockery.
Now would you please explain why you think that any of your examples should show more evolutionary change than they do?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:42 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:10 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 270 by Granny Magda, posted 10-01-2009 1:13 PM Granny Magda 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