|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
ksc Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
Thanks for the information. I understand that kscs position is that the ceolacanth has remained unchanged for 340 m.y. The point I'm picking up upon is that just because species are morphologically similar, doesn't mean they are genetically similar. So, assuming common descent, a 1m long cretaceous ceolacanth may have a very similar bone structure to Latimeria chalumnae, doesn't mean that it is genetically the same. Namely, that evolution has acted upon & changed the genome, whilst retaining the same morphology via stabilising selection. Karl has asserted that todays coelacanth is virtually unchanged, & that evolution hasn't acted upon it. Until he can show this to be true, he really doesn't have an argument. The best he could attempt is to try to demonstrate that there is no such thing as stabilising selection. Note that he hasn't answered...... 1/ Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.? 2/ Can you show, in a genetic context, that the coelacanth didn’t evolve? If he can show that stabilising selection can’t work over 340 m.y. (& I understand that modern coelacanths aren’t the same species as their fossil ancestors, also that is the basic body plan that has been preserved), then he has a point. If he can show that evolution in it’s broadest sense hasn’t occurred (loosely, SINES, LINES, pseudogenes, retreoviruses etc.), then he has a point. Until then, he can’t claim victory because the very assumption that he bases his arguments upon can’t be shown to be true. ie The coelacanth hasn't evolved, & that there isn't a mechanism that prevents change. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Does not Karl's focusing in on a few select "living fossils" seem to imply that he does recognise that there is (abundant?) evidence of the evolutionary paths leading to the other species?
Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ksc writes: I thought you were demanding an apology from me because you don't do things like this. You claimed you were falsely accused of such behavior, yet here you go again, once more violating rule 2. Have another 24-hour suspension, Karl. See you tomorrow. Oh, by the way, don't expect prompt reinstatement on Sundays. Once again, I am available at admin@ if there's anything you'd like to discuss. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Karl's (ksc's) posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: Percy, you are being too modest, the point IS critical to Karl's argument. Karl seems to be claiming that the extant species of coelacanth has remained unchanged for 340 million years. Whereas the fact is that sufficient changes have accumulated over the last 70 million years that the extant species now resides within a different Genus! How many other "living fossils" which Karl has cited are in the same situation? Where is the evidence that the extant SPECIES have remained unchanged over lengthy periods of time? If Karl cannot nominate such unchanged species then his original assertion becomes moot. Karl, I believe the ball is your court to provide the evidence to support your assertion of unchange species over hundreds of millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
[ksc's board hack deleted. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Bye, Karl! See you in a week.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hey, Karl... could you apply that ban to the rest of us, too? Thanks, in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Karl (ksc) is apparently aware of some UBB security holes and hacked this thread so that this page wouldn't display. I've deleted his hack.
Karl, you may be aware that there is a difference between a suspension of posting privileges and a ban. One more incident like this and you'll be permanently banned. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Karl is banned right now, so we may never know how he responds. My guess is that he would ignore this information and simply keep asserting that the coelacanth hasn't changed in 340 million years.
If Karl *did* accept this information and modify his assertion to be that there's been insufficient change then I think Mark already has the right response. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Percy,
I would think that a ban and a message to Karl's service provider would be in order. This was a malicious attempt by Karl to run away from an argument. In the past, he simply disappears. Apparently, he now feels he must disappear with malice. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
FYI, some years ago the second coelacanth species had been discovered, healthy and in abundant numbers, on the fish market of the city of Manado. It's called Latimeria manadoensis. The local fishermen there appears to have regularly caught the second living fossil fish without knowing its importance. Luckily a scientist who's on honeymoon there spotted the fish and described it as a new species of Latimeria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Andya. Welcome. Here's a link to more information on Latimeria menadoensis. The article is interesting because it mentions the Latimeria habitat preferences are identical between the two species, but they are genetically distinct. As though more info were needed that ksc was talking out his, err, fundament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I've been looking back at all the messages, to compile a database, and to explore for messages to possibly be thinned out.
I've just gotten down to this one, and I thought I'd give it a bump, as being of historical interest. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: You mean my first post sparks some historical interest? Oh, thank you! [gets bricked]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024