|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Is it possible that Peg and Keith Eaton have a love child? Capt. {Content hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Snip the snipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024