Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
44 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,441 Year: 18,477/19,786 Month: 897/1,705 Week: 149/518 Day: 23/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 1 of 416 (526955)
09-29-2009 8:25 PM


I am an ex-evolutionist who is now a 6 day creationist. Although I think that there are many excellent reasons to reject evolution, perhaps the most effective in convincing people who are not totally committed one way or the other is in the matter of living fossils; that is, those fossils which have living offspring which reveal little or no change despite the supposed millions of yrs between them.

Most of the photo illustrations I will give come from Dr. Carl Werner who in his work Living Fossils: Evolution, the Great Experiment reveals how he made a world tour of various museums and saw first hand the many fossils that still have living descendants and how he obtained candid interviews from the curators and/or heads of those museums. Many of the comments he garnished in his tour brought out statements that fly in the face of the status quo of accidentalist thought.

I have hundreds of examples but I begin with this:

The oldest fossil bat on record, dated at 50 million yrs old. (Note: I do not accept the time frame of evolutionist conclusions).

Compared with the skeleton of a modern bat:

Notice that the shape, contour, symmetry, and number of phalanges and the head are all the same. So why no evolutionary change in 50 million yrs? The most damaging thing to evolution about this is that there are no transitionals either before or after this bat. Other species have been found of course, but none reveal any change either from another organism or a change into something else.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 10:01 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 12:03 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 09-30-2009 5:02 AM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 2 of 416 (526957)
09-29-2009 8:28 PM


This species of magnolia seems to have no change in 12 million yrs.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Use new image resizing code.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 9:19 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 3 of 416 (526959)
09-29-2009 8:34 PM


Next
Next we have this:

The living crayfish appears that it could be used to make the very impress of the fossil crayfish. Again, no evolutionary change of any significance is seen here.


  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 4 of 416 (526961)
09-29-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Next
Going further:

Compare this skeleton of a modern species of rabbit to what is supposed to be its ancestor millions of yrs older:

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width again using resizable images version


  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 5 of 416 (526963)
09-29-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Next
Next:

Again, we must ask; where is the evolutionary change? Furthermore, where are the transitional forms that supposedly preceeded this organism?


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-30-2009 12:26 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 2:44 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

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


Message 6 of 416 (526965)
09-29-2009 8:43 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Living fossils expose evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 7 of 416 (526966)
09-29-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 8:28 PM


Magnolias
Hi Calypsis4 and welcome to EvC.

This species of magnolia seems to have no change in 12 million yrs.

Well first, there are two species there, as ought to be clear from the two Latin names, Magnolia magnifloria and Magnolia stellata.

Secondly, there are clear differences between the two. You're just not looking at it with a naturalists eye.

Look at the two leaves very closely. The one on the left (M. magnifolia) is narrows very gradually as it reaches the base of the leaf. It becomes narrow, whilst still having a little bit of leaf evident either side of the central stem. By contrast, the leaf on the right (M. stellata) tapers very abruptly. It does not have the same narrow, tapering leaf base that M. magnifolia has.

Look at this table, a fairly standard comparison system of the kind used by botanists.


Click to enlarge

Comparing the two leaves, M. magnifolia is clearly more like the illustrations marked "spatulate" or "oblaceolate".

M. stellata on the other hand, with its more blunt base to the leaf, looks more like "eliptical" or "ovate" leaves.

They are clearly different in this respect.

But there's more...

The image on the right has an interesting jumbled pattern about its veins, in the top right portion of the leaf. That isn't normal growth. That sparked my interest, so I looked up some images of magnolias. Here's what I found.


Click to enlarge

Now some of those leaves are distinctly pointed towards the end, a feature that the fossil leaf does not possess. Other leaves are blunter. Most taper somewhat at the base thought not as much as the fossil specimen. Clearly, the modern plant displays some variability in this respect, but it still shows differences from the ancient species.

Now I don't know exactly what criteria where used to classify this fossil, nor do I know how many specimens are known to science. What I do know is that comparing two living or fossil organisms is much more complicated than a comparison of two photographs showing a superficial similarity.

I'm also a little confused as to how old the fossil is supposed to be. You say 12 million years. The image says "Dinosaur Era", which is just a tiny bit vague. The dinosaurs were around for some 160 million years you know.

But "Dinosaur Era" could be as little as 65 million years ago, just yesterday by geological standards. I've got plant fossils on the desk right in front of me that are over 300 million years old. They're of ferns. They look pretty similar to modern species as well. The fact is that some species just don't change that much over 300 million years. There's no need. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precludes this. If a particular form is effective in the survival game, it can persist, changing little, for as long as there remains an ecosystem that can support it.

The ToE does say that organisms change, but it places no demands on how much or how fast.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 8:28 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:37 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 8 of 416 (526967)
09-29-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Granny Magda
09-29-2009 9:19 PM


Re: Magnolias
Thanks.

But I think you are missing the point. Both are magnolia's. Minor differences don't change that fact.

I am well aware of the different species among magnolia's. What I maintain is that neither magnolias (nor any other species) can change into another kind of organism.

You attempted to detail some minute differences between the fossil and its living offspring. But let me reveal to the readers just how insignificant such an argument is:

All of these magnolias, being from the same tree exhibit quite a few differences. Notice that despite the differences, the shape, contour, symmetry, and pinnate characteristics is all intact in each. Need I say more?

Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 9:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:42 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 10:00 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 9 of 416 (526969)
09-29-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 9:37 PM


Re: Magnolias
Moving on to other examples of the 'non-evolution of the species':

What is perhaps 3 different species of Scorpionfly but the modern offspring has changed very little from the supposedly much older ancestor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:37 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:48 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 2:58 AM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 10 of 416 (526971)
09-29-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 9:42 PM


Re: Magnolias
Next:


Click to enlarge

Again, similar characteristics between what appears to be two closely related species but the essentials are all there. Could the shorter legged species indicate an evolutionary change...or perhaps a degenerative one?

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:42 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:55 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2009 3:09 AM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 11 of 416 (526973)
09-29-2009 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 9:48 PM


Re: Magnolias
Next:

Question for evolutionists: How did nature 'know' that the chambered nautilus would 'need' the siphuncle for survival? What aspect in blind natural forces instilled this knowledge into the DNA code in the first place?

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:48 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 12 of 416 (526976)
09-29-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 9:37 PM


Re: Magnolias
Firstly, I have added a little to the above message by edit. Please take a look. How do you explain the discrepancies in the dates presented? The difference between 12 million years and "dinosaur Era" is quite large after all. Either the leaf is 12 million years old or it is of the "Dinosaur Era", not both.

I am well aware of the different species among magnolia's. What I maintain is that neither magnolias (nor any other species) can change into another kind of organism.

Exactly who claimed that the magnolia had changed into anything other than a magnolia? I didn't.

All of these magnolias, being from the same tree exhibit quite a few differences. Notice that despite the differences, the shape, contour, symmetry, and pinnate characteristics is all intact in each. Need I say more?

Yeah, I think you need.

Your claim was that the tree showed "no change in 12 million yrs". Now you are saying that it shows that much change in an individual. So does the tree change or not?

Further, just how much do you know about this fossil to make any judgement about whether it has changed or not? How many specimens exist? What characteristics were used to make the classification? If you don't have that kind of information, then you can't make meaningful comparisons in the first place.

Why exactly do you think the magnolia should have diverged further than it has? Why should we expect such a change? I can assure you, the ToE doesn't demand any particular amount of change over any fixed time scale.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 9:37 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:10 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 416 (526977)
09-29-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 8:25 PM


Living fossils expose evolution??
Living fossils expose evolution, eh?

Don't you mean "Living fossils disprove evolution?"

What about the dead fossils? What about genetics? What about the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study? Don't those count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore those?

And I'm sure others will explain your mistake on the "living fossils" argument.

(By the way, the term "Living fossils" is more a newspaper/magazine term than a scientific one. Are you going to consider newspapers and magazines as evidence, rather than what is published in scientific journals, to disprove evolutionary theory? Where will this end? Jack Chick comics as evidence against the theory of evolution?)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 8:25 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:15 PM Coyote has responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 14 of 416 (526979)
09-29-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Granny Magda
09-29-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Magnolias
My fault. The 12 million yr date was mine. I did that from memory but I was in error on that point.

2. Evolutionists claim that all life evolved. I don't have quotes by biologists about the magnolia in particular but the fact is that there are no transitionals for magnolias from another organism.

3. "Your claim was that the tree showed 'no change in 12 million yrs'. Now you are saying that it shows that much change in an individual. So does the tree change or not?"

I am scratching my head and wondering how you missed the inference. Variation within the kind (family) is scientific. We see them in virtually every organism. But the slight differences that you pointed out between the fossil and its offspring doesn't establish a thing as far as determining any evolutionary change. I am not clear whether you think those changes do establish such evolutionary change or not after that statement.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. Have a nice evening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 10:00 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 10:31 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 3:25 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 15 of 416 (526981)
09-29-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coyote
09-29-2009 10:01 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
"Living fossils expose evolution, eh?
Don't you mean 'Living fossils disprove evolution?'

Take your pick.

"What about the dead fossils? What about genetics? What about the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study? Don't those count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore those?"

I will cover those points in time on another thread. I can't cover it all at once.

"And I'm sure others will explain your mistake on the 'living fossils' argument."

They can try but they won't. There is too much evidence and it is too strong for even the best qualified evolutionist to handle. Evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The preponderance of evidence against it, when honestly considered, reveals that fact clearly. It is the big part of the reason I was converted in the first place. I am far from being alone in the matter.

Have a nice evening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 10:01 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tanndarr, posted 09-29-2009 10:32 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 10:33 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-29-2009 11:28 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019