Living fossils expose evolution

Wow. I've seen an OP that is not developed or defended by its author in any detail. I've seen questions and refutations repeated and repeatedly ignored. I've seen solid scientific evidence skipped over like crap on the sidewalk. Now we have a blanket declaration that everything here is nonsense, and having won this stunning victory, the creationist moves on to another thread.I'm impressed.

You are joking, right? I'm not.

I see no sign of that here or elsewhere.What we see is a century and some of gathering data and finding that it overwhelmingly supports the ToE. Then we have someone suggesting some tiny, wee, small detail is an "atom bomb" refuting it all.What is being pointed out is that the specimen is exactly the kind of thing that the ToE leads us to expect and there is nothing about it that is evidence against evolutionary biolgy. It doesn't "prove" anything it is simple one of what is now millions of details which support the theories.

At least you're still here. Any chance of some proper replies? Or are you going to run away, like you keep saying?

---

"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.

Let us please keep the focus on the topic of discussion and leave our feelings about other participants and their performance out of it.Calypsis4, when you announce you're leaving a thread it's much like an open invitation for closing summary style comments like LindaLou's. There's no need to announce any particular intent, even if within your own mind you're certain you're done with this thread, because as you've discovered, staying true to an announcement of departure isn't all that easy. You can just let this thread lie fallow while you participate in other threads, or while you go do something else entirely. If and when you decide to resume participation in this thread it will still be here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Point taken, I apologize.

Me too.My thoughts are similar to Nosy Ned's. There has been no concession of the oft repeated fact that the ToE easily accommodates species that have changed little over millions of years, which seems to derail the whole idea of this thread. Not even any attempt to rebut this in any logical or rational way. It seems to me that a defense of the title of the thread, supported with evidence, is in order if conversations are going to continue here. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Calypsis -I am surprised that you seem to want to duck out of here. I have to say I am somewhat disappointed that you ignored the majority of my posts here, and those you did respond to were to the more unimportant points. In fact, your most substantive reply to me was the one where you implied that my missing a detail (which I did not) was indicative of a larger cognitive problem I must have. Personally I took offense, but let it go in the hope that you eventually actually address my points.The only real mention of my points has been when you answer someone else's post who refer to mine. And that is to dismiss them without cause. For the most part you have just ignored me and gone on claiming your original point is true. And I would argue not in the most honest fashion.For example on your original post about your crayfish you said "The living crayfish appears that it could be used to make the very impress of the fossil crayfish" Yet when reminded it is a different family (actually superfamily) you said "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" So is it so clear it could be an imprint or so obscure it could be anything?I really want you to address why your author pictured the reconstructed skeleton of a triconodont mammal next to a marsupial and claimed they were the same 'kind'. Triconodonts are a very unique, very distinct subclass of Mesozoic mammals that have been known for 150 years. No mammal before or since has their three-coned tooth pattern. You said the postcranial skeleton looks the same to you. I am going to argue you would say the same if it were a muskrat, a hyrax, or a meercat skeleton next to Gobicodon. Most mammal skeletons have the same basic shape. You are not a vertebrate taxonomist. Here I believe your Carl Werner is either pitifully ignorant or (more likely) deliberately fraudulent.So I ask you - please specifically address the points I have made. preferably without insult as I have not in any way been disrespectful to you.

---

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"

I had to relinquish the computer to my partner for the last hour or so, and so I went back to the book I'm currently reading: Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth. I was reading a chapter on examples of evolution happening "before our very eyes" when, towards the end of the chapter, I was pleasantly surprised to find him commenting, in his idiosyncratically clear prose, on, guess what, "living fossils". Could it be more appropriate? Incidentally, Lingula is an example of a living fossil whose ancestor lived a quarter of a billion years ago, so my previous remark upthread about how simple it is to find examples of little or no evolutionary change by showing young fossils alongside their living ancestors was incomplete: you can also find very old fossils.At any rate, there is no law against slow rates of evolution, and living fossils are no problem for the theory of evolution. I don't expect Calypsis4's answer any time soon, so I'll leave this as my closing remark in this thread (for now).

---

"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.

Calypsis, Giving up I see. I'll take this as a concession that you can't defend the charge that your argument is a strawman.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

My, what a brave thing to say for a person who just stepped in to the tail end of this debate. Never mind the fact that I have spent almost every waking moment of the last three days typing as fast as I could to answer questions. I'm sure she feels she made an open-minded assessment of the situation but her attitude is an excellent example of how human prejudice works. She didn't even seem to notice that I am the only creationist on this thread against about 15 to 20 opponents, all of whom expect me to answer their questions! Well, I tried but I cannot keep up no matter how fast I go. I do have other responsibilities here in the office and the phone rings often.I will answer by saying that my opponents are focused on classification and they refuse to consider the much bigger and more important issue: there is no change, or perhaps significant difference between....twin sisters (as may be the case)...cousins (as may be the case)...or even distant relatives (as may be the case). Differences between the kinds of organisms did not stop the observers from recognizing a gliding lizard from a (guess what?) gliding lizard!My opponents expect me to treat the Linneaus classification system and my position on 'kind' as if it were the infallible scriptures of God. It isn't.Let me show you something.Taxonomy (biology) - WikipediaI would ask you kindly to find this website on Wikipedia and scroll down until you see the seven different classification systems in the scientific world.Linnaeus
1735
Haeckel
1866
Chatton
1937
Copeland
1956
Whittaker
1969
Woese et al.
1977
Woese et al.
1990Now, which one should I trust in? Which one should I use? Which one is infallible (without error)? Which one is not subject to human opinion? You all know the answer to that.

Another brave statement. You would say that if I remained here for another week.

Yes, you are.Might I make a suggestion? Don't try and go fast, instead post slowly and thoughtfully. I promise you that'll you find that a) you have less posts to answer and b) the discussion we're having will be more fruitful. Throughout this thread you've posted often; frequently bringing in new material before the old material has been dealt with, or throwing out one or two line snap responses to posts. Try, instead, picking a single post, considering what it says, and making a detailed, reasoned response to that one post and then waiting for a while before posting again.

Hi Calypsis4,Since you've decided to continue participation in this thread, please note that I requested back in Message 275 that discussion focus on a single example, the bat from Message 1.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Although everyone is probably thinking it, I'll be the first to point it out. Calypsis4, everyone here is familiar with the gish gallop method of debate. Just so you know.