|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
With all this in perspective, I don't get the feeling it is a very good example of a transitional fossil, since it has no transitional characteristics outisde of the five-to-two clawe fingers, which a creationist would argue is a 'downhill' transition. I disagree.
Intermembral index - humerus+radius/femur+tibia x 100Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100 Limb ratios for Onychonycteris are pretty clearly between non-flying mammals and modern (or even other fossil) bat species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
Were mammals and dinosaur contemporary? Yes, of course. Earliest found of each were in the Triassic. The oldest fossil mammal is dated to around 221Mya and the oldest fossil dinosaur to around 228Mya. Important Dates and Cool Creatures in Earth History, Educational Resources for K-16 This is easily looked up information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
quote: Let's get the full quote (ellipses are bad enough, but dropping them is a real no-no) and add a bit of context.
Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution -- a single process of self-transformation. What is Science (1955) p.278 OK. Not that Huxley's assertion means that it's automatically accepted as true, but I don't really see anything which claims a change has to happen in any given amount of time. I see that change is directional and irreversible, but nothing about any absolute 'expiration date' or 'term limits' on forms which are well suited to their environments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
Your source is feeding you dishonesty.
But in the words of Colin Patterson, who was once curator of that great museum, the transitions are missing. Notably, you don't even TRY to give Patterson's words after saying you're giving his words. Here ARE some of his words:
quote: Doesn't sound like he thinks there aren't any transitionals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
So you think in the real world that an environment could exist unchanged over millions of years? Note i said in the real world. Yes. In fact there are many places in the world which have not changed very much in millions of years (as well as others which have changed). The redwood forests of the western U.S. are estimated to be 200 million years old; the Gobi desert, while expanding, is at its core at least 25-30 million years old; Antarctica, of course, has been (mostly) ice covered for millions of years. As I noted far upthread, the probability of many species maintaining similar forms for long periods isn't anything new. It was pointed out by Darwin in The Origin...
quote: There's not a lot of ambiguity about that 'each form remains for long periods unaltered'. I certainly wouldn't say it's evidence FOR Evolution. Simply that it's fully consistent with what has always been expected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5106 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
Original post (or posts, rather) along with subsequent writings seem to indicate that the original poster believed that near 'stasis' for numerous organisms constituted a major problem to the Theory of Evolution. This is certainly not the case. Though despite being shown that such retention of form in many cases was predicted all along, he has not acknowledged this.
But it seems that the real point wasn't simply that there were all these forms in the fossil record similar to modern organisms, it was that there was ONLY such evidence - that there are NO cases at all of change (or, at least, no cases of anything greater than change within 'kind'). It remains to be seen whether discussion in a more directly focused topic would be any more fruitful.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024