Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:15 AM
29 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,816 Year: 4,853/19,786 Month: 975/873 Week: 331/376 Day: 8/116 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
28Next
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 301 of 416 (527711)
10-02-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:59 AM


Hi Calypsis,

I've given you a short 1 hour suspension so that you have time to notice that in Message 275 and Message 284 I requested that you focus on a single example, the bat from Message 1. Also, please stay on-topic. I'm also issuing short suspensions to any others who have gone off-topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2404 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 302 of 416 (527721)
10-02-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:59 AM


quote:
The fact that there is so much direct, visible evidence and you turn your nose up to it is astounding.

What evidence? You have presented none in this thread. Gainsaying everybody else and making specious claims about pictures from the internet is not the same thing as presenting evidence.

Why don't you do as Percy suggested and show us how the bat is devastating to evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Kitsune has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 303 of 416 (527722)
10-02-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Tanndarr
10-01-2009 8:04 PM


Re: Classifications
All scientific classification systems are based on the consensus opinion of experts. Yes, that means that the decision that a particular relationship is at say the genus or family level is not based on rock-solid rules. This is not a secret nor is it a weakness to the classification systems or the scientific method. The system is a tool that helps scientists describe their subjects and there is no expectation that life must respect taxonomic lines. New knowledge may require reclassification or the creation of a whole new clade.

Thanks for an thoughtful assessment of classification.

One of the problems in classifying fossils (including living fossils) is the obscurity of some samples; i.e. the crayfish example. This is not uncommon as many fossils are so badly damaged by nature and/or accidentally by the geologists who discovered them.

Information as it comes from nature comes in many forms, but specificity helps us to identify the difference between natural and non-natural.

For instance:

The degree of specificity in information can determine the difference between this:


Click to enlarge

…and this:


Click to enlarge

Since science has pretty much determined by yrs of observation that the face on Mars is merely natural but the faces on Mt. Rushmore are not. Why? Because nature has never been observed making faces like as are seen on Mt. Rushmore, at least nothing to that degree of specificity. We can easily identify what was developed on Mt. Rushmore many yrs ago because of the specificity and that those faces are comparable to human beings with well known features. But the photo of the face on Mars never did have enough specificity to be identified with any known person.

Question: If presented with a photo of this


Click to enlarge

could we identify this as legitimate? I think I can safely say most people would regard the first photo evidence as a legitimate representation of Mt. Rushmore based upon the experience of countless millions of observers. But the second photo would not/should not be so regarded because empirical investigation by the same countless millions who have seen Mt. Rushmore have never seen a face that looks like Smeagol in Lord of the Rings.

The Smeagol insertion instantly causes the face scenario on Mt. Rushmore to be of a totally different ‘kind’ or (‘family’ if you please). But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted. The living fossils speak loud and clear: no evolution in biological organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Tanndarr, posted 10-01-2009 8:04 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 1:31 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 350 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-02-2009 6:43 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 304 of 416 (527723)
10-02-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Kitsune
10-02-2009 11:54 AM


'What evidence?'

Excuse me? Oh, about 40 examples I have given on this website and another 150 I have not posted yet. The Internet is full of them but you and those of your persuasion choose to ignore it.

Why don't you do as Percy suggested and show us how the bat is devastating to evolution.

"Columbus, why don't you REALLY prove the world is round by taking us all the way next time?"

Right.

You really do want me to commit massive overkill on this subject, don't you? But truth is truth whether one chooses to believe the truth or not.

Nonetheless, concerning the bat.

The oldest fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old.


Click to enlarge

Now would you please reveal to us evidence of the transitional forms leading to this bat? If you can then it will be something no one else has ever done. ALL of the transitions are missing.

Show the readers that THIS has occurred in nature...


Click to enlarge

Now, perhaps you can give all kinds of clever arguments but you cannot reveal the evolution of the bat. It appears abruptly in the fossil record and bats (about 100 species) are still bats: they have not changed except for the variations within the kind.

Now, why is such an intelligent person like you having such a hard time grasping this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 11:54 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 12:57 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 307 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 1:39 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 308 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 2:04 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 309 by mark24, posted 10-02-2009 2:06 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 305 of 416 (527728)
10-02-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


I see that again, you've failed to give any reason why we should consider your examples of "living fossils" an argument against evolution and instead try to introduce a new argument. Is it simply that you don't have an argument?

On to other matters:

It appears abruptly in the fossil record and bats (about 100 species) are still bats: they have not changed except for the variations within the kind.

The kind. According to you in many posts that corresponds to the level of family. Do you know how many different families of bat there are? (Hint: you may run of fingers, and using your toes won't help much)

And, once again, this bat is not in any of these families, but a completely different one. This is not, as you've pretended, some arbitary decision but because this "unchanged" bat has a number of features which are not found in any extant bat. Including, as it happens, features that are nicely intermediate between bats and non-volant mammals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 306 of 416 (527733)
10-02-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Classifications
Huh?

Could you please tell us how your post either:

1. Engages my post
or
2. Discusses the fossil bat

Enquiring minds want to know.

Seriously, I know you feel swamped here, but once you've decided to reply to my response then choosing to not engage the points made is downright rude.

There's a rock formation in Wisconsin Dells that looks just like a map of Illinois...what the hell does that have to do with this topic either?

Information as it comes from nature comes in many forms, but specificity helps us to identify the difference between natural and non-natural.

For instance:


Believe me, you don't want to bring up information around here unless you have a very good working definition and an understanding of information theory sufficient to support it. I stay out of those myself...you might as well go swimming in a lake full of piranha wearing a hamburger speedo.

The Smeagol insertion instantly causes the face scenario on Mt. Rushmore to be of a totally different ‘kind’ or (‘family’ if you please). But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted. The living fossils speak loud and clear: no evolution in biological organisms.

Back to my original point: Crayfish is a word we use to describe anything that the observer thinks is or is like a crayfish. It's quite possible someone might call something a crayfish that on closer inspection turns out to be something else, another decapod probably but maybe something totally unexpected. Words don't constrain life...which is my point.

To expand on that: our understanding of life does not constrain life in any way. We may be totally wrong and discover that everything runs on zero-point energy, who knows. But what we do know we have learned by closely observing nature and comparing our findings with each other. The bible gives no useful guidance for how to tell one kind from another and so it is scientifically impotent. Pick all the holes in evolution you like, it doesn't bring you any closer to demonstrating that the bible is true.

Darwin says living fossils are expected. The experts say living fossils are expected within the ToE. You say that they destroy the ToE...you'll need to bring a bigger dog to this fight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:14 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 307 of 416 (527738)
10-02-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


Oldest fossil bat
The oldest fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old.

...snip picture...

Now would you please reveal to us evidence of the transitional forms leading to this bat? If you can then it will be something no one else has ever done. ALL of the transitions are missing.

I can see your cards mister. You know that this is the oldest fossil bat discovered so far, meaning that we've yet to discover anything bat-like enough to call an immediate transition. You're going all-in on the wild bet that such a fossil will never be found.

Fossilization is rare...very rare. That means it doesn't happen very often and it is more rare in the case of small, fragile animals.

Tell you what...here's a deal. The first side to produce either a complete record of fossil transition or a signed, original manuscript of the bible written in the very hand of God wins. I think those are about equal demands. If you can't provide the original bible then the bible must be a lie, right? That's about the level of argument you're making.

ABE: Oh, just as an aside: Doesn't the bible say bats are birds? Shouldn't Creation scientists be providing us evidence of bird-to-bat transition?

Edited by Tanndarr, : looking for proof of biblical transitions.

Edited by Tanndarr, : Fixun mizpelz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 2:10 PM Tanndarr has responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2404 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 308 of 416 (527746)
10-02-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


Bat evolution
Hi Calypsis,

You've picked a strange example to support your argument that evolution does not occur. Your bat is onychonycteris finneyi, a 50-million-year-old (you are correct about the age) extinct species with some key differences to modern bats. In fact it is so different from modern bats that it was classified in a separate family. That family is now extinct. So much for that particular bat-kind.

In Message 25, Lithodid-Man discussed this fossil and explained how it shows transitional features:

quote:
Now the bat. The picture you showed is Onychonycteris. This differs from all living bats in many fundamental ways and is, in fact, a long awaited transitional. While capable of true flight, it was what is called a 'flutter glider' which is exactly what we would expect if, as proposed, bats evolved from a gliding ancestor similar in form (but not related to) flying squirrels. The diagram you show in another post of proposed bat evolution is a terrible strawman, btw. and not supported by anyone I am aware of. The arm to leg ratio of Onychonycteris is exactly in between (but not clustered with!) volant and non volant mammals. It also could not echolocate and had well-developed claws on all 5 digits, which modern bats do not have. Very poor example of a 'living fossil'!

For more information, you can check Wikipedia.

So we have a bat ancestor that is capable of quadrapedal locomotion as well as tree climbing ability, and the flight pattern is not fully developed. The transitional nature of these characteristics is illustrated in the diagram posted by jacortina in Message 39. For your convenience I will re-post it here:


Intermembral index - humerus+radius/femur+tibia x 100
Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100

Limb ratios for Onychonycteris are pretty clearly between non-flying mammals and modern (or even other fossil) bat species.

Modern bats have evolved since the first known fossils of bat ancestors, and when older bats are found we will know more about bat evolution. Onychonycteris was found in 2003. Is there some particular reason why you believe we are unlikely to find even older transitionals in future years? What is your deadline, exactly?

In the meantime, scientists are doing what they can to uncover evidence by other means:
Molecular Biology Fills Gaps In Knowledge Of Bat Evolution

quote:
The team, using DNA sequencing, analyzed data from portions of 17 nuclear genes from representatives of all bat families.

Their results support the hypothesis that the group of large fruit-eating bats from the tropics, that fly mostly during the day – known to biologists as megabats – emerged from four major lineages of smaller and more widely dispersed, mostly insect-eating, night-flying bats, known as microbats. These microbats – also known for their highly specialized echolocation – originated about 52 to 50 million years ago during a lush period of significant global warming in a region that is now North America.


Perhaps in the light of this evidence you would like to modify your claims?

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:03 PM Kitsune has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3299 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 309 of 416 (527747)
10-02-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


Calypsis,

Excuse me? Oh, about 40 examples I have given on this website and another 150 I have not posted yet.

But as you have learned this is a logically fallacious argument so the "evidence" is at best examples of stasis which doesn't contradict the ToE one iota, & therefore isn't evidence against evolution. What exactly don't you understand?

Now, once again I invite you to defend with something more than "no it's not" the charge that your argument commits the logical fallacy of "strawman", which renders your argument logically moot.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 310 of 416 (527748)
10-02-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Tanndarr
10-02-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
I can see your cards mister. You know that this is the oldest fossil bat discovered so far, meaning that we've yet to discover anything bat-like enough to call an immediate transition. You're going all-in on the wild bet that such a fossil will never be found.

I'll come right to the point: such fossils should have been found long ago just like the others. The problem is not a lack of fossils...there are billions to choose from and still trillions to unearth. But by now the steady stream of transitions between not just the bat, but virtually every single organism and other organisms should have not only be found, but be in abundance.

The fact that you didn't give any evidence in reply to my challenge speaks loudly and clearly.

Doesn't the bible say bats are birds?

The Mosaic classification system, which pre-dated Linnaeus by 3,300 yrs places the bat with flying creatures. It was a completely different system. The concept of 'mammal' did not exist at that time.

13"...they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Leviticus 11:13-19

The divisions of the animal kingdom that Moses laid down depended upon the key differences: scales or no scales, flying & non-flying, crawling or non-crawling, cloven hoofed or otherwise, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 1:39 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by jacortina, posted 10-02-2009 2:39 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 316 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 3:27 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 311 of 416 (527752)
10-02-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Wow. Just, wow.

Quote-mining the Bible, of all things.

Now, just what did you snip out of that Leviticus 11:13 and insert the ellipsis?

Hmm. Let's see.

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; ..."

That says quite clearly AMONG THE FOWLS.

Really, sir (or madam). That was the rankest of dishonesty.

Edited by jacortina, : Corrected for gender assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 2:10 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:19 PM jacortina has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2705 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 312 of 416 (527754)
10-02-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Calypsis4 writes:

quote:
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution
That's like telling Columbus, "You haven't proven the world is round because you didn't complete a journey around the globe!"

Right.

Dodge. Avoiding the question by pretending its silly to ask it, if the question is silly then it should be easy to answer. Or are you willing to admit carrying this on is dishonest?

Yes, there are and I intend to utilize them.

Spectacular, not only can you be the first but you could start by concluding this thread and answering the question everyone has asked you.

"as predicted by evolution"? No, don't even go there.

I did. Don't avoid the question.

Evolutionists 100 yrs ago did not know this was going to happen.

As pointed out to you, Darwin brought it up.

But what is easy to do with cars is impossible with evolution. The evidence simply isn't there and what scant evidence they do have is highly in question.

Then start a thread, you keep bringing it up when its off topic. That is just bluster when you know that your claims can't be challenged on this thread. Defend your OP please.

Which is the real 'Zinjanthropus'?

Neither. Those are artistic renditions (as if you didn't know). Wait, is this on topic?? Atomic bombs, please and thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:56 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:08 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 313 of 416 (527755)
10-02-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Kitsune
10-02-2009 2:04 PM


Re: Bat evolution
Your bat is onychonycteris finneyi, a 50-million-year-old (you are correct about the age) extinct species with some key differences to modern bats.

Question: Are they 'bats'?

Yes/no

If your answer is 'yes' then I rest my case.

Where are the transitions between 'my' bat and different modern organisms that it evolved into?

There aren't any, dear. Unless you can demonstrate a clear anatomical/morpholigocal change of bats into another kind of organism...a la ape/like to man then you are forced to concede this point. My prediction: you won't. Those who are emotionally committed to a lie are not going to admit it no matter what.

I am talking about a change that is as startling as what is imagined between something like this:

Into something like this:


Click to enlarge

But you and I both know you cannot do this. You can't even touch it. And the problem is not just with bats, but flowers, ferns, conifers, bacteria, pigs, horses, and virtually every other organism under consideration. It takes a healthy imagination to fill in all those huge gaps.

But then, what would bats 'evolve' into? Something like this?


Click to enlarge

If you were to find something like this in the fossil record or as a 'living fossil' then it would make a difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 2:04 PM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 3:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 338 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 4:39 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 314 of 416 (527756)
10-02-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Vacate
10-02-2009 2:44 PM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Dodge. Avoiding the question by pretending its silly to ask it, if the question is silly then it should be easy to answer..."

You and your comrades in accidentalism are the ones dodging things.

Where are the transitional forms preceding the bat given in the topic post?

Furthermore: where are the transitional forms of the duckbilled platypus?

Where are the transitional forms for fireflies?

Those transitions cannot be found for them either BEFORE or AFTER they are discovered in the fossil record. The testimony of living fossils destroys biological evolution by itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Vacate, posted 10-02-2009 2:44 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 315 of 416 (527758)
10-02-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by jacortina
10-02-2009 2:39 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Wow. Just, wow.
Quote-mining the Bible, of all things.

Now, just what did you snip out of that Leviticus 11:13 and insert the ellipsis?

Hmm. Let's see.

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; ..."

That says quite clearly AMONG THE FOWLS.

Really, sir (or madam). That was the rankest of dishonesty.

No, that was not intentional. Are you so shallow that I would think that others would not look up the reference? Come on! I assumed that the one who challenged me already had done so.

But answer this question: Did the Linneaus system exist in Moses time? Secondly, why are we beholden to Linneaus over the six other classification systems...all a bit different with some including some categories that others don't?

Just remember this: Moses came first. If God calls it a 'fowl' then it is His determination that is bottom line and not Linnaeus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by jacortina, posted 10-02-2009 2:39 PM jacortina has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 3:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 3:33 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019