Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Thanks for the heads up. I think that several of us have seen karl coming for some time now, though I have to admit that he's kept a low profile for at least a few days. I'm sure we'll see the old KC any time now.

---

I thought everyone here knew ksc was karl? I tend to ignore him since he is only slightly more coherent than Mcfall. At least McFall is funny.Cheersjoe Meert

Hi Fedmahn. Thanks for the heads up. I was already getting that impression - note the failure to respond substantively to any of my points in my first two posts. OTOH, this tactic tends to backfire on boards with a lot of lurkers. After all, I never expected to convince ksc of anything. As long as it can be shown conclusively that the particular creationist either doesn't have a clue or how his/her arguments fail to hold water - both of which have been accomplished pretty much in this case, IMO - then the lurkers get an education. The creationist of course simply becomes petulant and ultimately retires from the field, often retreating to another board to claim victory.Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I had never heard of karl - although you aren't the only one to mention him. I'm about done on this thread anyway.

Regarding debaters who don't really debate, the forum guidelines discourages non-responsive rhetoric. IOW, after a few warnings to please engage in real debate and give real responses, negative consequences will be earned.We have 'lost' a few belligerant/nonresponsive people in this way, and I, for one, am grateful for the rules.It's nice to not have to bang one's head against a brick wall all the time.

Actually, it turns out there was one point that I neglected. Concerning coordinated stasis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
.....perhaps I should ask you for some rferences. Hmmmm

---

Just to show I'm not making it up, see for example C. Brett and G. Baird 1995, "Coordinated Stasis and Evolutionary Ecology of Silurian to Middle Devonian Faunas in the Appalachian Basin", excerpted from ppg. 285-315, R. Ansley and D.H Erwin (eds) 1995, "Speciation in the Fossil Record".Not that ksc will actually look up the reference, but others with access to a good library might find the entire article interesting, not to mention the other articles in Ansley/Erwin's book.

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

The guidelines state that one shouldn't personalize the debate, but there *are* such things as trolls on the Internet, and warnings about them are generally appreciated. Joe was warning us that you have a history of ignoring rational arguments, which is fairly trollish behavior.But you have a fairly clean slate here, and most here probably don't already know you and so have no negative preconceptions. You could show us that Joe and Fedmahn Kassad are wrong, but so far you're simply proving them right. Instead of addressing the rebuttals you're simply repeating your original points. In fact, as I noted earlier, you're still making precisely the same points you made over at CARM four years ago.Somewhere on my list of things to do is to update the guidelines to address the issue of debating in bad faith. It usually comes down to ignoring rebuttals while restating the original points unchanged.--Percy
   Evc Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
I really enjoyed reading the evo responce. For all you out there this is it in a nut shell

​

"No one says animals have to evolve."

---

So, refute the statement, Karl.

quote:

---

Funny though, even the evo logic dictates that they do. In my post I presented an example of evolution they tell us occurred, (wolf to whale) in a time frame according to evo time frames much shorter than the coelacanth ghas supposedly been around. Image all the mutations that they say would have occcured in all of those millions upon millions of years and the coelacanth is still the same......What's wrong with their pcture? They want the cake and eat it too.

---

Actually, the coelacanth did evolve somewhat and it is not clear that modern versions would actually be the same species as the Cretaceous coelacanth by some definitions. Nevertheless, there is no part of evolution that says an organism must evolve. If you think differently, then produce evidence to that effect.Right now, all we have is your assertion that scientists have overlooked the evidence provided by coelacanths and sharks to say that an organisms MUST evolve at a certain rate. Sounds kind of silly.

And it would probably be even more enjoyable for us if you could respond substantively to anything anyone has posted in rebuttal to your bald assertions. Care to refute ESS, the stabilizing influence of CAS, or the hypothesis of coordinated stasis as an explanation, or even simple normalizing selection? Care to address the issue of phyletic evolution vs speciation? Care to address the refutation of your claim that orthogenesis is a foundational principle of ToE? Or anything else we've written...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
I really enjoyed reading the evo responce. For all you out there this is it in a nut shell "No one says animals have to evolve." Funny though, even the evo logic dictates that they do. In my post I presented an example of evolution they tell us occurred, (wolf to whale) in a time frame according to evo time frames much shorter than the coelacanth ghas supposedly been around. Image all the mutations that they say would have occcured in all of those millions upon millions of years and the coelacanth is still the same......What's wrong with their pcture? They want the cake and eat it too.

---

I've been busy for the past few days, so have only just caught up on this particular thread.Firstly, the living coelecanth has evolved. 250 million years ago they were small to moderate size fish (upto about 60cm long), had no indication of viviparity and about a third of species were freshwater dwellers. Later specimens can be much larger. Today the only surviving coelacanths are deep sea fish, growing up to 2m and are viviparous.I thoroughly recommend the following paper: Yokoyama, S. and Tada, T. (2000) Adaptive evolution of the African and Indonesian coelacanths to deep-sea environments.The bradytely (slow rate of evolution) of the coelecanth does little, if anything, to undermine the theory of evolution. A period of rapid mutation, settling into a much longer period of slow mutation is exactly what one would expect from a model of efficient adaptation to a relatively stable environment. The architectural stability of the coelecanth genome is further attested by the measured genetic drift between the two main populations African and Indonesian populations of living specimens - the species have drifted to the point where it is not known if they can interbreed, yet remain morphologically all but identical. The genome of the coelecanth appears to be architecturally stable - and again, pleiotropic constraints on mutation is exactly what one would expect of a species mutated to a stable environment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
I really enjoyed reading the evo responce. For all you out there this is it in a nut shell

​

"No one says animals have to evolve."

​

Funny though, even the evo logic dictates that they do.

---

No, it doesn't.And what evolutionary biology book says it does? Nevertheless, as I have shown, & Quetzal, Edge, Mister Pamboli has alluded, evolution does not necessarily equate to physical/morphological change. So, what is your evidence that the ceolocanth hasn't evolved?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:

In my post I presented an example of evolution they tell us occurred, (wolf to whale)

---

No evolutionist told you wolves evolved into whales, artiodactyls, yes, wolves, no. Straw man.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-07-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Message deleted by ksc

​

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

Hi, Karl!Your last three posts contributed nothing of substance to the debate. There's nothing wrong with having some fun taking content-free potshots at the opposition, but at some point you have to begin addressing the rebuttals.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
mark24: Actually, the coelacanth did evolve somewhat and it is not clear that modern versions would actually be the same
species as the Cretaceous coelacanth by some definitions. Nevertheless, there is no part of evolution that says an
organism must evolve. If you think differently, then produce evidence to that effect.

---

The fossil record. Sheeze, even dogs show more variation than the coelacanth.

---

Not really, as Mister Pamboli points out, earlier species of coelocanths were much smaller than the 2m specimens today. But even if this weren't true, so what? You still haven't shown me that coelocanths haven't evolved. For the third time, don't equate evolution with purely morphological change. Can you show me that coelocanths didn't evolve?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.