Living fossils expose evolution

Hi Calypsis4,Welcome to EvC!The problem with the "living fossil" argument is that it commits a logical fallacy called a strawman. The ToE doesn't state that all organisms must evolve, so assuming the position that they must isn't arguing against evolutionary theory, but a parody of it.This is all that need be said, arguing about what is & isn't the same as this or that fossil is meaningless because nothing is demonstrated or detracted from the ToE even if they are the same.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

Calypsis4, Yes, it is a strawman. I repeat, the ToE does not state things "must" evolve, therefore having an organism alive today identical to a fossil one doesn't contradict the ToE.So knock yourself out, post as many examples of non-evolution as you like, it's a strawman because the thing you argue against doesn't take the position that non-evolution can't occur. You are posting examples of things that don't contradict the ToE. Ergo, you have found nothing in the "living fossil" argument that defeats the ToE. OK? This isn't a part of your original argument, which relates to living fossils.But for the record, how much of the earths surface that bears fossiliferous rocks of say 100-110 million years ago is available to palaeontologists, as a percentage? It's sub 1%, Calypsis. That means that anything that lived & evolved on the earth in that time has something like a 99% chance of not being found by palaeontologists purely by dint of not existing as fossils hanging around on the surface waiting for someone to walk by.Add that to all the other reasons that things don't get fossilised for & we're lucky to have anything at all. The upshot is that gaps in the fossil record are pretty much guaranteed.Yet we do have lots of transitional fossils, just like the ToE says we should.Mark

---

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

Calypsis, I'm not pretending, when good body plans & adaptations are hit upon stabilising selection ensures change doen't happen. But this is immaterial because the ToE simply doesn't state change must happen, therefore change not happening doesn't challenge the ToE.You have commited a logical fallacy & your argument is rendered moot. Deal with it. A science teacher? "Convert"? Did you let slip your real motivation?Go ahead, I like pretty pictures, really, I do, but that's not going to convince anyone that your logically fallacious argument is actually a valid argument.Your argument meets the standard met by the logical fallacy; straw man, it's just, well, true. All you seem to be interested in is "converting" people to your position rather than providing a logically sound argument for doing so. This suspiciously sounds like it is you who are emotionally wedded to you position, not I.Tell me, why so strident in your position that logic can be left by the wayside. Again I note you allege to be a science teacher. Sounds awfully suspiciously like religious motivation rather than scientific enquiry through a logically sound framework, you have to concede.Mark

---

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

Calypsis, He's an evolutionist so I very much doubt he said that. Secondly, where did you learn he did the "most thorough job?" Thirdly, he did this in the 1970's, before Lucy was discovered, lots more data has been found since them.

---

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

Calypsis, I enjoy it.I assume that you concede that your argument is a strawman, since you didn't comment on the substance of my argument?Mark

---

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

Calypsis, No, it isn't an atomic bomb on evolution because evolution (are you paying attention? I only ask because I keep having to repeat myself) does not state morphological change must happen. For your argument to be true evolutionary theory must state this, but it doesn't. In other words you are attacking a position that is not a position of the ToE. This is what a straw man logical fallacy is. What you have done is a textbook example of one.If you think it isn't the logical fallacy I've outlined then feel free to point out why I'm wrong. But we're on solid ground as to what is & isn't a strawman here at EvC, 'cos we have to point it out a lot to creationists.Other than that, please deal in a substantial way to the charge or concede.Mark

---

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

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

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

Calyspsis, Another post where you refuse to deal with your arguments illogic, so there's nothing brave about my statement, Calypsis. You simply can't defend your argument, so you don't. You do what every creationist does & stick your fingers in your ears & clamp your eyes shut tight, just pretending you haven't committed a logical fallacy despite being shown clearly that it meets the standard of a given fallacy & therefore is a fallacious argument.Mark

---

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

Boy you're fast - just in time! Thanks for noticing. --AdminEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.

---

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

Calypsis, 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.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

Calypsis' argument has failed because it is logically fallacious. It commits the strawman fallacy, specifically it assumes evolutionary theory states morphological change must happen, then attacks that false proposition.A logically fallacious argument is moot.Mark

---

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