Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
248 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Taq (5 members, 243 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,027 Year: 5,139/6,534 Month: 559/794 Week: 50/135 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 46 of 416 (527095)
09-30-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 11:10 PM


Are kinds families?
Who told you that? Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level.

You're sure about that. You are sure that if two different things are in different families they are different kinds? You're not going to come back later and say that two things in different families are actually the same kind?

Edited by Mr Jack, : Appropriate subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 11:10 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 61 of 416 (527119)
09-30-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Dr. Werner made a prediction before his world-wide tour examining fossils that he would gather evidence of mammals in the era of the dinosaur which supposedly existed 65-70 million yrs ago. Were mammals and dinosaur contemporary? This is what he found:

Who is Dr. Werner? Where are the page images you are posting taken from?

(also, please could you reply to message 46)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:39 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 69 of 416 (527130)
09-30-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:39 AM


Dr. Carl Werner
Ah, I see. Thank you.

Dr. Carl Werner "received his undergraduate degree in Biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa cum laude. He received his doctorate degree in Medicine at the age of 23. He was the recipient of the Norman D. Jones Science Award and is the Executive Producer of EVOLUTION: THE GRAND EXPERIMENT video series" according to his website.

So his biological education extends only to degree level, the Dr referring to medical training not to a PhD in any science. Well, that would explain his bizarre notion that scientists don't think mammals lived alongside the dinosaurs, I guess.

What's this "Norman D. Jones Science Award" that he's so proud of, Calypsis4? The only references to it I can find are in his biography and as an (unanswered) question trying to find out what it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:39 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:01 AM Dr Jack has seen this message

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 82 of 416 (527146)
09-30-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
And you're going to claim these are the same "kind", right?

I'm going to ask you again, does being in different families make things different kinds?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:07 AM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 94 of 416 (527165)
09-30-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Slow down, Calypsis4, slow down.

There's little to no point in posting more and more "examples". Even if you have a hundred genuine examples of "living fossils", so what? As pointed out earlier in this thread the very term "living fossil" was coined by none other than Darwin himself. That there are living fossils surprises no-one. Could you explain how exactly unchanged forms would undermine evolution? Yet alone the only slightly unchanged forms you've presented.

More worrying is the weakness of your examples, and your apparent unwillingness with discussing any particular one of them. You've given us gliding lizards from different Orders, bats from different families and the skulls of hyena, apparently without noticing. Do you really understand what you're looking at in these pictures?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:02 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:52 PM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 105 of 416 (527179)
09-30-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
(Scrath, scratch) Uh, why should I have to?

Because it's your argument.

If you only argument is that there are no transitionals then it doesn't make any difference how many living fossils there are. You understand that, right? It's like claiming you can prove all cars are white by showing me an endless procession of white cars while I scratch my head and point in confusion to the bright red Nissan parked across the road.

(edit)

Or another example: consider that Model T Ford and Lamborgini you're fond of posting, I build a Model T Ford replica does it prove that car design hasn't changed? Of course not. What matters is not that you can find things that haven't changed, but things that have.

(/edit)

So, I'm assuming you don't just like pretty pictures and actually have a point related to the various living fossils you've presented. What is it? How do these examples undermine evolution?

Edited by Mr Jack, : Example added


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:52 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 108 of 416 (527182)
09-30-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
Once again: does your notion of kind correspond to the scientific category of family? That is, if two things fall into different families are they of different kinds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 1:08 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 133 of 416 (527219)
09-30-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it.

Once again: what are in statis? Are you claiming that Families don't change? Species? Genera? What? Don't just say "Kind", what is a Kind? How do we identify it? Are you sticking to your claim that a kind equates to the scientific concept of family?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:02 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:45 PM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 146 of 416 (527233)
09-30-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Harun Yahya Ha Ha
I think when he says 'AOL pictures' what he means is that he did a search for 'tiger fossil' and found that one. Not knowing anything about Biology (because, after all, that's for learned men) he didn't notice the glaring error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 3:39 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:50 PM Dr Jack has seen this message

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(3)
Message 159 of 416 (527246)
09-30-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 3:45 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
By 'kind' I am referring to that which is on the family level down.

You are sure about that? Kind = the family level down?

Sure? Completely sure?

So... you do realise that only two of your examples of stasis have shown the same kind is both the fossil and the living form, right?

The magnolia - yup, same Genus. Cool, they're a kind.
The nautiluses - same family, same kind.
The crayfish - nope, different families, different kinds
The bats - nope, different families so different kinds
The scorpionflies - again, different families so different kinds
The 'gliding lizards' - different orders (in case you don't know, Orders are above Families in the classification system) so definetly different kinds
Ditto the brittle stars
The "possoms" - nope, different subclasses! Even further out! Different kinds
Tigers and Hyenas, unsurprisingly, are different families

The other examples you gave did not list species meaning I can't identify them. So, all in all, you've managed two kinds which still exist - one plant, one animal - and seven examples of kinds which you can find no currently extant equivalent to.

So, according to you, we find different kinds in the fossil record than we do in the modern day.

Oh dear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 3:45 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 220 of 416 (527353)
10-01-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Change in the fossil record
For instance: concerning Australopithecus, Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago did what was perhaps the most thorough job of examining australopithecus and stated clearly that the specimen was not related to anything living today. Nature, Vol. 258, pp. 389-395.

In 1975

He was not the only well known scientist who ruled thumbs down on australopithecus. Sir Solly Zuckerman also disagreed with those who claimed a transitional form.

In 1970

Science moves on. Since Oxnard wrote that paper there's been 34 years of study and research, not to mention numerous new fossils that clarify the exact relationships of the extant and extinct taxa of chimpanzees and humans. While there is still debate over the exact path of human evolution, there is almost universal acceptance that at least some species of Australopithecus are ancenstral to Homo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 4:53 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 221 of 416 (527354)
10-01-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:40 PM


Whales don't breath water!
He knew exactly what I was talking about in 'water breathing' organisms. Everyone knows that marine creatures survive on oxygen in the water. I have known that since I was in grade school. But it appears that I cannot communicate in any sort of common colloquial expression without his crticial scrutiny. Therefore he will be ignored. Such tactics only detract from the issue anyway.

Whales don't obtain oxygen from water! Nor do any of the other marine mammals. What do you think a whales blowhole is for? Why do you think they come to the surface to breath? It's because they breath air just as we do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:40 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:03 AM Dr Jack has seen this message

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 223 of 416 (527369)
10-01-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by slevesque
10-01-2009 12:44 AM


Teenage bats ripping up the town
Because if bats pass through these ratios while growing up, I would pretty much bet that it is a distinct possibility that these two bat fossils of Onychonycteris could be youngsters who became fossils during there 'crazy teen years'

Firstly, don't you think it's pretty Creationist of you to suggest that proffessional palaeontologists can't tell the different between a juvenile animal and an adult?

Secondly, bats don't pass through those ratios at any post-natal point in development. In fact the both indexes are higher in juvenile bats than in adult bats so even if by some streak of incompetence both Stringer et al and the paper's reviewers were mysteriously unable to identify a juvenile your argument still wouldn't hold.

(And Wounded King's point about the duration of bat development is also a good one)

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 12:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 11:46 AM Dr Jack has seen this message

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 226 of 416 (527380)
10-01-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 7:54 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change.

As I pointed out in message 159, and Lithodid-Man has diligently documented throughout the thread, this is not true. In fact, the majority of the examples you have given are from different families.

But, again, you haven't answered the question posed. Why, in what way, are any of these evidence against evolution? The very term you are using - living fossils - comes from Darwin himself. Why do you think that examples of limited change constitute an argument against evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:06 AM Dr Jack has seen this message

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 235 of 416 (527397)
10-01-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Whales don't breath water!
Yes, thinking that I thought that whales 'breathe' water. I did not say that nor do I believe such a thing.

Okay, my apologies. Could you explain what you meant when you said "How did it change its breathing apparatus without drowning itself?" in message 140?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:22 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:52 AM Dr Jack has seen this message

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022