Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
589 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ringo, Taq (4 members, 585 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
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.

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


Message 76 of 416 (527138)
09-30-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:01 AM


Topic!
The topic here is "living fossils". We can stick to that and take transitionals to other threads. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:01 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:12 AM AdminNosy has taken no action

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


Message 83 of 416 (527149)
09-30-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Topic!
Sir, respectfully; The whole point of the 'living fossil' issue is that there is no evolutionary change in any organisms into another kind of organism and there are NO transitional forms. The one cannot be separated from the other for that is the very point I am attempting to make here.

Thank yo

So the real point of your posts here is NOT that animals maintaining similar forms over a long time period is a problem for evolutionary biology? What you have been meaning to say is that they are evidence that NO forms of plants or animals change over long periods of time?

That appears to be a very different point than you started with.

It is so different in fact that a new thread would be appropriate.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:12 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:25 AM AdminNosy has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 09-30-2009 12:01 PM AdminNosy has taken no action

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


Message 89 of 416 (527158)
09-30-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 11:25 AM


Re: Topic!
Maybe it is just me but I'll persist so we can get the topic clarified.

It is possible that you are making one of two points:

1) If organisms remain the same (or similar 'enough') over geologic time that, by itself, represents a problem for biological evolution.

This is the point that at least a couple of others have assumed you were making and have pointed out to you that they believe it to be in error.

2)Some organisms staying pretty much the same over long periods of time shows that no organisms have changed in ways that you consider 'significant' (i.e.,. between "kinds")

This is the new point that you suddenly raised when you brought up transitionals.

They are not the same point.

Now which point are you trying to make? When we know that we can maintain the focus of this topic.

If you don't wish to clarify I will use my judgment and what others have understood to focus the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:25 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 12:08 PM AdminNosy has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022