Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
19 online now:
Heathen, PaulK (2 members, 17 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,947 Year: 21,983/19,786 Month: 546/1,834 Week: 46/500 Day: 4/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The ancestry of some "living fossils"
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1269 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 1 of 2 (528288)
10-05-2009 3:19 PM


In the thread Living fossils expose evolution Calypsis4 presented a number of photos depicting fossil lifeforms and their modern equivalents. The point seemed to be that since no appreciable evolution occurred the ToE is compromised. Another claim made, deemed off topic, was that these living fossils (representing a 'kind') are orphaned in time with no ancestors. The claim is they appeared suddenly, and remain unchanged to this day having spawned no descendants that are not their 'kind'

I would like to discuss the origin and diversification of the specific 'kinds' Calypsis presented without introducing any others. As there were so many, I think it would be useful to discuss them in order a few at a time, moving on after a few posts. With the wide variety of expertise here I think we could get a good overview of what is or isn't known about the paleontology and molecular phylogenies of some of these. Those who disagree could present their critiques (if more can be said than "Is not!").

So the order of discussion. I really think that the bats have been beaten to death in the original thread, so is of little value repeating it here.

So to start off: Magnoliacea (family, magnolia trees), Astacidacea (infraorder, crayfish and clawed lobsters), and Lagomorpha (order, hares, rabbits, and pika).

Then Triconodonta (subclass, extinct mesozoic mammals), Mecoptera (order, scorpionflies and relatives), and ?water insects (Calypsis posted two completely unrelated orders of insect, water striders are true bugs, Hemiptera, while Chresmoda is definitely not but may be a paraplecopterid), then Nautiloids (family, shelled cephalopods)

Finally Felidae (family, cats. Pretend instead of a hyena skull it was any number of extinct felines instead), the Ginkgophyta (division, ginkgos and their extinct relatives) and finally the Odonata (order, dragonflies and relatives).

So starting with the first three. Ignore the slippery definition of 'kind' and just take it as presented, equivalent to the taxonomic ranking I gave with each. Does this 'kind' have a fossil history? Does this 'kind' have any descendants that are not the same 'kind'? Do genetics or other molecular phylogenies tell us anything? What are the creationist explanations for the evidences presented?

Biological evolution seems appropriate.

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Forgot the dragonflies


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"

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (528302)
10-05-2009 5:33 PM


Thread Copied to Biological Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the The ancestry of some "living fossils" thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019