|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Calypsis4 writes: It didn't take you long to stop being nice did it? I'm only stating the facts.
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. I appreciate the position you're in and I don't mind if you take longer to answer my question. The only thing I ask is that you reply to the main issue instead of going off-topic. I'm not the one forcing you to go off-topic, you do that yourself.
[...] 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. Then you are told wrongly. A simple search reveals that vertebrates started to appear 525 million years ago. Still, this does not address the issue of the progression we find in the fossil record. In the context of this argument it's not even very important what the exact timescales are, the fact remains that in the older layers (it doesn't matter how much older) we find different, usually simpler fossils than in younger layers. Evolution has taken place, it's right there, visible for us in the rocks we dig up. These are facts, and I ask you to reconcile those facts with your contention that evolution never took place. "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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Calypsis4 writes:
Uhm, no. This is what the clasification tells us. Do you not agree with the classification? Then why did you bring up "families" as being equal to "kind"?
That is purely your opinion. 1. Magnolias; The magnolias were of the same family. Why did you bring this up? (Me: 1, you:zero)
Because you were the ones that said this was about family.
2. Nautilus: why did you bring this up? (Me: 2, you: zero)
Same reason.
3. Crayfish: You didn't tell the truth. You cannot determine that the fossil crayfish is a different kind than what was posted in the picture because it is too obscure to determine the details.
You gave the frigin names, yet now you say they are not correct? Why mention the names then?
4. bat: Nope, you are dead wrong and I posted a detailed diagram of a skeleton that one can make a point by point comparison. (Me: 3, you: zero)
They still belong to different families. Do you deny this? Why?
5. Scropionflies: different SPECIES, not different family. (Me 4, you: zero)
No, different family. Do you even know what those names mean?
6. gliding lizards: we will arm wrestle over this one. I answered this that scientists in different parts of the world classify it differently. (secondly, don't give me a condescending attitude by telling me that 'in case you don't know, Orders are above Families in the classification system'...something I taught for 26 yrs and memorized since the 7th grade.)
Yet you blatantly deny that the scorpionflies are sufferent families, when then names indicate otherwise.
7. possums: That's nuts! Then the evolutionists have classified Gobiconodon in error because the fossil and the modern skeleton are virtually identical!
I know nothing of possums, so I'll leave this one for others.
8. Brittle stars: You don't read carefully. The illustration I posted said, 'Ophiarachenella' (species undetermined). I claim this point because the fossil and the living offspring are identical. (Me: 5, you: zero).
And I claim you're wrong... Now what? Just because something is similar doesn't mean it's the same family.
9. Tigers & Hyenas: I made the point that if there was a mistake here then it was that AOL posted a hyena skull in the tiger section of its 'pictures of tigers' format. They are very similar. (Me:5, you: 1)
Yes, but different families very clearly. Now do you see that when something is very similar it isn't neccesarily the same family?
Have a nice day.
You as well. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
1. Magnolias; The magnolias were of the same family. Why did you bring this up? (Me: 1, you:zero) 2. Nautilus: why did you bring this up? (Me: 2, you: zero) Because I was listing all of them. It's called being fair
3. Crayfish: You didn't tell the truth. You cannot determine that the fossil crayfish is a different kind than what was posted in the picture because it is too obscure to determine the details. You said that kinds were families. The modern crayfish is Procambarus clarkii (mistyped as Procambrus in your source) , this is of family Cambaridae. The fossil is of Eryma leptodactylina, which is of family Erymidae. By your own words these are different kinds. Your point about the picture is irrelevant, because the species names are given it is easy to look up the family to which they belong. In this case - as in each of the others - they are not classified in the same family. According to you this means they are different kinds. I'm not going to go through and list the classifications for each of the others, Lithodid-Man has already done that in this thread, and I don't see much to gain from repeating it. Instead, let's concentrate on the crayfish. They are different families, according to you, earlier in this thread that means they are different kinds. Do you now want to retreat from that statement?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Introduction of another example hidden. Discussion should try to focus on a single example. I'll choose the example if participants do not. --Admin
Eels haven't changed either:
Nor have...
Edited by Calypsis4, : correction Edited by Admin, : Hide content. Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Hi Calypsis4,
I expect that the other participants will raise precisely the same issues with this example that they raised concerning your previous examples. Rather than restarting discussion of these issues from scratch with each new example, I suggest focusing attention on them with regard to just a single example, and then discussing the most significant issues to a conclusion. This new example you've just introduced would be fine, but any of your examples would also do. I leave it to the participants to decide which example might serve best.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
This one:
Is different families again And this one:
The bottom ones are different families also. Admin wants to focus topic, my reply was hidden to comply to that. Edited by Huntard, : No reason given. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Instead, let's concentrate on the crayfish. Why? I think my point was succinct. No further discussion on that is needed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Is different families again. Then perhaps the classification of the fossil is wrong. Don't ever think that the Linneaus classification system in the same terms as Christians regard scripture. It is not infallible. But let me ask you to show the differences between Hoplopteryx Lewisensis and Hoplostethus atlanticus. List them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Back to families and "kinds" -- the question you have ducked for 100 posts now.
Your claims rest a great deal on the differences between species, genus, and family. Since you are working with the biblical definition of "kinds" rather than scientific classification, what is a kind? You seem to be tending to kind=family. If that is the case, what do you say about the human family (Hominoidea), which includes apes?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Do you not agree with the classification? Sometimes, no I don't. With reason. One must remember that classification is based purely upon human opinion and human opinion is not infallible.
You gave the frigin names Don't call them 'frigin' names. Attitude.
They still belong to different families. The family name of the bat posted in the OP was not given. Again, it is virtually identical with the skeleton diagram posted below it. But you wish to focus on a non-essential. The point is: where is the evolutionary change in bats...period? Both are bats...do you deny that? Why are there no stages of bats leading up to and away from the bat kind in 50 million yrs? All we find in the fossil record are bats; no in between stages are found anywhere.
No, different family. Do you even know what those names mean? Hide example. Calypsis, please stop introducing new examples. Please choose a single example and maintain focus on the issues surrounding that example until some meaningful discussion can take place. In other words, please stop changing horses in mid ride. --Admin Let me show you someting. Observe carefully:
Compared to the scorpion fly ('panorpa communis') I posted earlier:
It is exactly the same; 'panorpa communis' yet it is clearly different! Variations within the kind is what we creationists maintain and here is a classic example. But what disturbs me is that you didn't say one word about the third example on the page I posted which is listed 'unidentified species'. So the observer is left to choose which of the two examples is most like the fossil example but you were so quick to take potshots at me after such a cursory examination of what I posted that you ignored it completely! Have a nice day. Edited by Admin, : Hide yet another example. Edited by Admin, : Add comment about hidden portion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Coyote: Here we go again; wasting time on 'kind'.
the question you have ducked for 100 posts now. If you say that again I will merely put you on ignore. I have answered it REPEATEDLY. I am not going to do it again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Dear Mr. Administrator:
I will move on to another topic.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Calypsis4 writes: I will move on to another topic. That's fine. In case you decide to return to this topic, let me choose a specific one of your examples of lack of evolutionary change that discussion can focus upon. I choose your bat example from Message 1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Calypsis4 writes: I will move on to another topic. I'm still awaiting a reply to the issue I raised about the progression found in the fossil record, and now you run away. Not very classy. Please come back and give me a proper reply, or admit you're wrong, I don't care. But don't run away. "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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined:
|
On crayfish...
Calypsis writes: Why? I think my point was succinct. No further discussion on that is needed. Please forgive the detailed explanation here, but I think it is important. Unfortunately for the layman, there are no good explanations of crustacean (or most inverts, really) higher level taxonomy. This group lends itself to the kind of 'common term' lumping despite the enormous and profound variation present. In my opinion this is an argument why the higher-level Linnaean system is inadequate as I would argue the differences between orders of crusties and orders of say mammals are incomparable. This is probably due to species bias (we recognize differences more in things that look like us). Anyway, that is another topic... Decapod crustaceans (those with 5 pairs of walking legs and three pairs of legs forming mouthparts) are divided into several Infraorders. The infraorder Brachyura, for example, are the 'true crabs' and include forms like the blue crab, the Dungenness crab, and the snow crab (but not the king crabs). Infraorder Palinura contains the spiny lobsters, slipper lobsters etc. and the infraorder Caridea contains the true shrimp (but not the Gulf and tiger prawns). The infraorder in question here, the Astacidea, contains the freshwater crayfishes and the clawed lobsters. The overall body shape in this group is fairly conserved, with most having an elongate body, well-developed tail, and claws on the first three walking legs (this is important!). This group is further subdivided into superfamilies.-Superfamily Astacoidea which includes the living Laurasian freshwater crayfish and some extinct marine forms. -Superfamily Parastacoidea are the Gondwana freshwatercrayfish (similarities to northern crayfish convergence rather than phylogenetic). -Superfamily Nephropoidea are the clawed lobsters(including the American lobster). -Superfamily Glypheoidea are a bizarre group known mainlyfrom fossils and a single living species. -Superfamily Enoplometopoidea includes the reef lobstersand many extinct forms. -Superfamily Erymoidea which is an extinct groupcontaining several families. The last two superfamilies are the ones of interest here. Your fossil, Eryma, is a very widespread and well known group of species. They have some features in common with the Enoplometopoidea but none of the other supefamilies. The most important one is the presence of a unique structure on the pleopod (swimmerette) called an appendix masculina. Both Erymoids and Enoplometopoids have this which strongly suggests a relationship. The reef lobsters posses claws only on the first pair of walking legs and subchelae on the next two. The position and presence of chelae is taxonomically important in the decapods. Erymoids differ by having chelae on the first three walking legs. The purpose of this was to demonstrate that despite superficial appearance, Procambarus is not closely related to your fossil Erymid. Not the same family, not even superfamily. It is not some arbitrary classification ("it is old so it must be a different name"), it is based on cladistic analysis that while not perfect, have proven to be exceptionally accurate when dealing with decapoda (i.e. the method meshes beautifully with genetic analysis). Current classification scheme based on: Amati L, Feldmann RM and Zonneveld J (2004) A new family of Triassic lobsters (Decapoda: Astacidea) from British Columbia and its phylogenetic context. Journal of Paleontology 78(1): 150-168. 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"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024