|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
The statement from Wikipedia represents a big shift in evolutionary explanations which for decades was that there were no vertebrates in the Cambrian period. I have personally read and listened to many public debates on this point alone and evolutionists took the position that there were no vertebrates in the Cambrian. It's a misrepresentation to pretend a major shift in evolutionary explanations was required to account for vertebrates in the Cambrian. In these debates you may have listened to or watched on vertebrates in the Cambrian, I'd lay good money those on the other side of the debate were also 'evolutionists'. It used to be a matter of controversy whether vetebrates existed this early as no fossils of Cambrian vertebrates were discovered until the 90s. As more are found, whose vertebrate affinities are harder to deny, the debate becomes more settled. None of this changes the fact that your example of a modern animal (a fish) in the Cambrian is actually an unusual extinct animal unlike anything existing today. It's the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
It used to be a matter of controversy whether vetebrates existed this early as no fossils of Cambrian vertebrates were discovered until the 90s. That is exactly my position. You confirmed what I said earlier. Thank you.
As more are found, whose vertebrate affinities are harder to deny, the debate becomes more settled. The same will be true in the matter of 'living fossils'. So many will be found that belief in evolution will seem ludicrous. I am finished on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
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! That list comes from me, not Huntard. I ignored the unidentified species because it was an unidentified species, if I don't know what the species is, I can't lookup what family it belongs to, can I? If you supply the species name, I'd be happy to determine whether it too comes from a different family like the majority of your other examples. You can check to, if you like, just google the name and you'll soon find a taxonomy for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5105 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
You keep acting as if the Theory of Evolution DEMANDS major change over time.
This is simply not true.
quote: From the time it was put forth, it was thought NOT to go on continuously and to feature long periods without alteration to any given form. Is this getting through, yet? Your examples of fossilized organisms which have similar modern forms in no way conflicts with, let alone refutes, the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined:
|
Calypsis,
Please can you address the charge of your argument being a strawman with something more than "no it isn't", or concede the point, please. Thanks, Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
I agree that finding a juvenile bat would be a rare finding. But it doesn't mean, and I think you will agree with me, that it cannot happen. And in fact, I would expect that we do find juvenile bat fossils amongst the hundreds (thousands?) of bat fossils we have.
Of course, I am not implying that this is the case with these particular fossils. I just found that some, claiming to be ''Skeptics'' were jumping rather quickly on 'transitional fossil!' claiming, when in fact other possibilities had not been adressed. And of course, as I said in my first message, the fact that it has 5 clawed fingers only 'proves' evolution if I already presuppose evolution took place. I can easily imagine an initial population of bats with five claws becoming 'three-clawed' with time. But this is not the kind of examples needed to prove ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
See previous post. I wasn't trying to imply anything, just thinking that conclusions were being drawn rather quickly
Something like: abnormal limb ratio+5claws instead of 2 = Transitional fossil = Evolution is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I have answered it REPEATEDLY.
And your answer undermines much of your argument. In many posts you argue that Family relationships are all within the loose definition you prefer for "kinds." Yet when it is pointed out that at the family level (Hominoidea) "kinds" include the extant apes as well as modern humans you have nothing to say. This undermines your entire argument in this thread. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Something like: abnormal limb ratio+5claws instead of 2 = Transitional fossil = Evolution is true. Do you truly believe that the TOE relies on one piece of evidence? It relies on millions of pieces. Your not accepting one piece of evidence does not defeat the TOE, or even influence it in any way. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1292 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
The vertebrate shown was Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa. You can read about it's discovery in 1999 here along with another cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys ercaicunensis. This also has a slightly better resolution picture of the fossil. You can at least see some of the features.
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That is exactly my position. You confirmed what I said earlier. Thank you. That wasn't the position you presented. You wrote that "(the fish)is dated 500 million yrs by evolutionists and we are told that there were no vertebrates living during that time." This to me, particularly the use of present tense, implies that the absence of vertebrates in the Cambrian is an important, universally accepted part of evolutionary theory - and that their discovery poses a problem for it. If you're agreeing that the presence of vertebrates in the Cambrian was a disputed issue only because we had few or no fossils, and that this matter is being settled by the discovery of such fossils, why on earth did you bother to post this in the first place? It has nothing to do with your point. You also, I notice, don't address the question of how a primitive vertebrate, very different from anything living today, falls in to the category of a living fossil. If you're leaving this thread, though, could I point out a new thread I started to address another of your complaints - that of how marine fish could evolve into air-breathers without suffocating - it's here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
This isn't what I was trying to say, of course, if we were to have to examine all the facts of evolution one by one, we would pretty much have to look at thousands of fossils, and research papers, etc. etc.
What I was saying was that people were jumping very quickly to conclusion on THIS particular piece of evidence, and were rather quickly putting it into the 'this evidence proves evolution'. as your signature says, facts don't lie or have an agenda, facts are facts. And saying a particular fact isn't supportive of the ToE does not 'defeat' ToE in any ways, it simply means that the said fact does nothing to prove it. That's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Do you truly believe that the TOE relies on one piece of evidence? You still don't get it. You don't have any evidence. The only thing evolution has going for it is a wrongful interpretation based on tortured reasoning. It's a myth. Now we're moving on to something else. Edited by Calypsis4, : correction..'an' to 'a'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
That wasn't the position you presented. You wrote that "(the fish)is dated 500 million yrs by evolutionists and we are told that there were no vertebrates living during that time. No, no, no; the statement I made was that there was a consensus of opinion for decades that vertebrates would not be found in the Cambrian. But those holding that position were forced to change it during the mid-1990's because of discoveries that revealed otherwise. Again, I am moving on to another topic. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Calypsis,
I am not letting you get under my skin. I'm not trying to get under your skin. I'm trying to get you to answer the questions I have been asking since page one. Y'know, the ones you have made no attempt to answer?
I will let the moderator decided if the personal attack is within the rules of this board. I think that pointing out how you misrepresented my argument will be perfectly acceptable. If you deny lying, how else do you account for the blatant misrepresentation in Message 191, where you accused me of trying to "play the switching game", a clear attack on my honesty. In other words, you started it Cal. Now you go whining about being treated unfairly. Boo-hoo.
Nonetheless, have a nice day. What would make my day would be if you were to demonstrate to us that you actually understand the argument you are making. So some species change very little over millions of years. I could name organisms that have hardly changed for billions of years. So what? In what way does this breach the ToE? Why do you think evolution should proceed at any particular pace? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024