Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 211 of 416 (527320)
09-30-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:35 PM


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.
But for some reason you are utterly unable to say why.
It must be so frustrating for you ... apparently you've discovered the ultimate argument against evolution, and yet you can't actually say what it is.
Try again. Somehow, you think that the fact that modern species resemble (but are not identical to) their ancestors can in some way be used as the basis for an argument against evolution.
Now please show us the frickin' argument. Thank you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:35 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


(2)
Message 212 of 416 (527323)
09-30-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:35 PM


Calypsis,
Far from being a 'straw man' it can be more likened unto the atomic bomb on evolution.
No, it isn't an atomic bomb on evolution because evolution (are you paying attention? I only ask because I keep having to repeat myself) does not state morphological change must happen. For your argument to be true evolutionary theory must state this, but it doesn't. In other words you are attacking a position that is not a position of the ToE. This is what a straw man logical fallacy is. What you have done is a textbook example of one.
If you think it isn't the logical fallacy I've outlined then feel free to point out why I'm wrong. But we're on solid ground as to what is & isn't a strawman here at EvC, 'cos we have to point it out a lot to creationists.
Other than that, please deal in a substantial way to the charge or concede.
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 209 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:35 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 213 of 416 (527324)
09-30-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 5:27 PM


Re: Change in the fossil record
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'.
Funny. You didn't quote Oxnard. You didn't even quote someone who was interpreting Oxnard. I reject you reasoning.
You have no quotes from Oxnard so why should we believe your interpretation?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 5:27 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 214 of 416 (527326)
09-30-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Magnolias
Hi, Calypsis.
Calypsis4 writes:
Now tell the readers if [the scorpionflies] are of a different family organism... But the essential characteristics of 'kind'(family) are all intact. There isn't anything you can do about it.
Are you sure?
The fossil species is from the family Orthophlebiidae.
The modern species is from the family Panorpidae.
They are not from the same family.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 9:39 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 215 of 416 (527327)
09-30-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 6:35 PM


Non-topic sniping - don't do it
{Content hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Snip the snipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:35 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 216 of 416 (527329)
09-30-2009 9:14 PM


Moderator Comment
Hi everyone!
As I said earlier today, tomorrow morning I will begin actively moderating this thread, so I'd like to give you all a flavor of what my expectations will be. This thread now has 215 messages, and I'm sure that not much thought was put into very many of them. Threads that accumulate messages at such a rapid pace means that more typing than thinking and researching is going on.
To those of you who are putting time and thought and effort into your posts, let me assure you that it is apparent. For those of you who are not, let me assure you that this, too, is apparent.
Tomorrow morning there will be no warnings. I will merely begin removing babblers and trolls from the discussion by issuing short 24-hour suspensions. I'll also probably make specific requests to help keep discussion more focused so that issues can get more attention and be explored in more detail.
As always, I'll be using the Forum Guidelines as my guide for what constitutes constructively contributing to discussion, so some of you might want to look them over, there's only 10. The Forum Guidelines take no sides in the debate, and neither do I. I'm on the side of clarity of expression and quality of evidence.
AbE: For those of you who are certain beyond doubt that you don't fall into the "babbler and troll" category, it's your responsibility to make sure to behave in way that makes it possible for me to tell the difference. Last time I checked I still wasn't omniscient, so those of you who are bit more, uh, flamboyant in your responses and who have a tendency toward brinkmanship might want to give yourselves some leeway.
Edited by Admin, : Add "AbE" section at the end.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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


Message 217 of 416 (527333)
09-30-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
What you call "water breathing creatures" all breathe oxygen. Fish, for example, breathe oxygen. Therefore, breathing oxygen preceded the evolution of land animals.
For the other readers: I have been avoiding 'Dr. Adequate' because of his continual put-downs and condescending attitude. This nit-picking over non-essential details does not merit replies to his position nor will he get one from me.
He knew exactly what I was talking about in 'water breathing' organisms. Everyone knows that marine creatures survive on oxygen in the water. I have known that since I was in grade school. But it appears that I cannot communicate in any sort of common colloquial expression without his crticial scrutiny. Therefore he will be ignored. Such tactics only detract from the issue anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Vacate, posted 09-30-2009 11:38 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 221 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 4:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(2)
Message 218 of 416 (527337)
09-30-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:40 PM


Atomic bombs?
Calypsis4 writes:
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.
Calypsis4 writes:
I have been avoiding 'Dr. Adequate' because of his continual put-downs and condescending attitude.
Dr. Adequate writes:
apparently you've discovered the ultimate argument against evolution, and yet you can't actually say what it is.
I would very much appreciate if you would kindly respond to the question as if you have been asked in the most polite form possible.
What is the point you are trying to make? Your reply could begin like this "Living fossils are the atomic bomb on evolution because"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 AM Vacate has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 219 of 416 (527343)
10-01-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jacortina
09-30-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Interesting, and so they have a different limb ratio then modern bats.
So they have different limb ratios and five clawed fingers instead of 2-3 which are the only difference with modern bats ? You also have to determine if the difference in ratios are not due to age development of the species in question. Because if bats pass through these ratios while growing up, I would pretty much bet that it is a distinct possibility that these two bat fossils of Onychonycteris could be youngsters who became fossils during there 'crazy teen years'.
I mean, we gotta be careful with fossils like these. I could very well bury caterpillar 'fossils' at different growth stages and say that one staged gradually evolved into another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jacortina, posted 09-30-2009 9:38 AM jacortina has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2009 5:48 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 223 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 6:38 AM slevesque has replied

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


(1)
Message 220 of 416 (527353)
10-01-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Change in the fossil record
For instance: 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.
In 1975
He was not the only well known scientist who ruled thumbs down on australopithecus. Sir Solly Zuckerman also disagreed with those who claimed a transitional form.
In 1970
Science moves on. Since Oxnard wrote that paper there's been 34 years of study and research, not to mention numerous new fossils that clarify the exact relationships of the extant and extinct taxa of chimpanzees and humans. While there is still debate over the exact path of human evolution, there is almost universal acceptance that at least some species of Australopithecus are ancenstral to Homo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:53 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


(1)
Message 221 of 416 (527354)
10-01-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:40 PM


Whales don't breath water!
He knew exactly what I was talking about in 'water breathing' organisms. Everyone knows that marine creatures survive on oxygen in the water. I have known that since I was in grade school. But it appears that I cannot communicate in any sort of common colloquial expression without his crticial scrutiny. Therefore he will be ignored. Such tactics only detract from the issue anyway.
Whales don't obtain oxygen from water! Nor do any of the other marine mammals. What do you think a whales blowhole is for? Why do you think they come to the surface to breath? It's because they breath air just as we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:03 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 222 of 416 (527363)
10-01-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by slevesque
10-01-2009 12:44 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
I would pretty much bet that it is a distinct possibility that these two bat fossils of Onychonycteris could be youngsters who became fossils during there 'crazy teen years'
Given that a bats 'crazy teen years' last a matter of months out of a life span tending to around a decade, I'm not sure it is a likely possibility.
But this is not totally implausible, however the differences in limb/bone ratios are not the only things that make Onychonycteris distinct from extant and previously know fossilised bat species. So while you might make a case that the limb/bone ratios are explained by immaturity you can't use it to explain the claws. It is also likely that other skeletal cahracteristics such as epiphyseal fusion, bone density and texture or dentition allowed Simmon's et al. to discount the fossils being juveniles.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 12:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 11:43 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


(1)
Message 223 of 416 (527369)
10-01-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by slevesque
10-01-2009 12:44 AM


Teenage bats ripping up the town
Because if bats pass through these ratios while growing up, I would pretty much bet that it is a distinct possibility that these two bat fossils of Onychonycteris could be youngsters who became fossils during there 'crazy teen years'
Firstly, don't you think it's pretty Creationist of you to suggest that proffessional palaeontologists can't tell the different between a juvenile animal and an adult?
Secondly, bats don't pass through those ratios at any post-natal point in development. In fact the both indexes are higher in juvenile bats than in adult bats so even if by some streak of incompetence both Stringer et al and the paper's reviewers were mysteriously unable to identify a juvenile your argument still wouldn't hold.
(And Wounded King's point about the duration of bat development is also a good one)
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 12:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 11:46 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 224 of 416 (527375)
10-01-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Parasomnium
09-30-2009 6:21 PM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.
It didn't take you long to stop being nice did it?
I am not 'dodging' anything. But I am the only 6 day creationist on this thread and I can't possibly answer every single poster who comes at me with questions. It is just impossible.
The progression of the fossils. Fossils are constantly being found that are 'out-of-place' according to the evolutionary geologic time scale. For instance:
This is a fossil fish found in China discovered in Cambrian rock. That era is dated 500 million yrs by evolutionists and we are told that there were no vertebrates living during that time. Actually, what has been found in China alone in the last 20 yrs is enough to upset the entire fabric of evolutionary times scales but western scientists in particular are looking the other way.
Going further;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 6:21 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2009 8:10 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 241 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 9:10 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


Message 225 of 416 (527379)
10-01-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Vacate
09-30-2009 11:38 PM


Re: Atomic bombs?
I would very much appreciate if you would kindly respond to the question as if you have been asked in the most polite form possible.
What is the point you are trying to make? Your reply could begin like this "Living fossils are the atomic bomb on evolution because"
Thank you for your respectful question. I will respectfully answer you:
Why, at this point of the debate would this be in question? It is simply a matter of revealing just how much evidence against evolutionary change in living organisms is available and that that evidence is direct, observational, and repeatable. The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change. One can easily recognize almost all of them by appearance alone. If evolution were true then why are there so many hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of the species while there is virtually nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms?
The few examples that my opponents have posted are both pitiful and highly suspect at best. None of us who converted from evolution take those examples seriously any longer because we learned in our studies the details of those discoveries and how the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory.
I hope this answers it. Have a nice day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Vacate, posted 09-30-2009 11:38 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 8:03 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 287 by Vacate, posted 10-02-2009 12:12 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024