Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 256 of 416 (527440)
10-01-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 8:18 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:18 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 11:20 AM caffeine has replied

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


Message 257 of 416 (527441)
10-01-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by caffeine
10-01-2009 11:13 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2009 11:13 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jacortina, posted 10-01-2009 11:32 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 260 by mark24, posted 10-01-2009 11:41 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 266 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2009 12:34 PM Calypsis4 has replied

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


(1)
Message 258 of 416 (527443)
10-01-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 10:03 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(2)
Message 259 of 416 (527444)
10-01-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 11:20 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
You keep acting as if the Theory of Evolution DEMANDS major change over time.
This is simply not true.
quote:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes
on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made
somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more
probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then
again undergoes modification." (pp. 152)
Darwin, C. 1872. "Chapter 4 - Natural Selection" The Origin of Species,
Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 11:20 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


(1)
Message 260 of 416 (527446)
10-01-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 11:20 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 11:20 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 261 of 416 (527447)
10-01-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Wounded King
10-01-2009 5:48 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Wounded King, posted 10-01-2009 5:48 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


(1)
Message 262 of 416 (527449)
10-01-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dr Jack
10-01-2009 6:38 AM


Re: Teenage bats ripping up the town
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 6:38 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2009 12:24 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 273 by NosyNed, posted 10-01-2009 1:42 PM slevesque has not replied

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


(2)
Message 263 of 416 (527450)
10-01-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 10:08 AM


Re: Kinds
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 10:08 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 264 of 416 (527455)
10-01-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by slevesque
10-01-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Teenage bats ripping up the town
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 11:46 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 1:02 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 268 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 1:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 265 of 416 (527457)
10-01-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by caffeine
10-01-2009 8:10 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2009 8:10 AM caffeine has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 266 of 416 (527459)
10-01-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 11:20 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 11:20 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 1:11 PM caffeine has not replied

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


(1)
Message 267 of 416 (527465)
10-01-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Theodoric
10-01-2009 12:24 PM


Re: Teenage bats ripping up the town
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2009 12:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 268 of 416 (527469)
10-01-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Theodoric
10-01-2009 12:24 PM


Re: Teenage bats ripping up the town
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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2009 12:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by mark24, posted 10-01-2009 3:42 PM Calypsis4 has replied

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


Message 269 of 416 (527470)
10-01-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by caffeine
10-01-2009 12:34 PM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2009 12:34 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 1:26 PM Calypsis4 has replied

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


(1)
Message 270 of 416 (527471)
10-01-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Granny Magda
09-30-2009 6:44 PM


Re: Why Does Any of This Matter?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Granny Magda, posted 09-30-2009 6:44 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