Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
537 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (2 members, 535 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(3)
Message 271 of 416 (527476)
10-01-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 1:11 PM


Wow. I've seen an OP that is not developed or defended by its author in any detail. I've seen questions and refutations repeated and repeatedly ignored. I've seen solid scientific evidence skipped over like crap on the sidewalk. Now we have a blanket declaration that everything here is nonsense, and having won this stunning victory, the creationist moves on to another thread.

I'm impressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 1:11 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 1:38 PM Kitsune has taken no action
 Message 277 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 2:34 PM Kitsune has taken no action
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 277 of 416 (527497)
10-01-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Kitsune
10-01-2009 1:26 PM


Me too.

My thoughts are similar to Nosy Ned's. There has been no concession of the oft repeated fact that the ToE easily accommodates species that have changed little over millions of years, which seems to derail the whole idea of this thread. Not even any attempt to rebut this in any logical or rational way. It seems to me that a defense of the title of the thread, supported with evidence, is in order if conversations are going to continue here.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 1:26 PM Kitsune has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 289 of 416 (527658)
10-02-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


quote:
My, what a brave thing to say for a person who just stepped in to the tail end of this debate.

Actually I've read every single post in this thread. What I've seen is you posting a picture, avoiding having to deal with commentary on it from anyone here (including some who do this stuff for a living), insisting you are right regardless, and then posting another picture -- in other words, doing the "Gish Gallop." When Percy stopped you, you said you were leaving the thread. Since you've decided to stay, why not start defending why you say the bat is devastating for evolution.

quote:
Never mind the fact that I have spent almost every waking moment of the last three days typing as fast as I could to answer questions.

I don't think anyone wants quick posts with little or no substance, which is usually the result of the above. Most people seem to be posting because they are asking you over and over to defend statements you've made that have no evidence to support them, or to reply to their rebuttals. We'd actually like you to take your time and do so.

quote:
My opponents expect me to treat the Linneaus classification system and my position on 'kind' as if it were the infallible scriptures of God. It isn't.

No, they are working with the ground rules that you yourself defined in Message 20:

quote:
Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level.

Now we're seeing what we usually see when asking a creationist to define what a "kind" is. When you get yourself into a pickle, i.e. when you've been informed that some of the pictures you posted show organisms that have undergone so much change that they're not in the same family, you want to shift the goalposts. The problem is, you're not going to find any legitimate type of classification that suits your purposes because you will always find some organisms that have made huge evolutionary changes and others that have not, and none of this runs counter to the ToE.

(added in edit)
By the way, don't feel obliged to reply to this post. While I've been typing, some others have made some good points (see above) and I think your time would be well spent in addressing their specific questions, as well as other outstanding ones from earlier in the thread.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by dwise1, posted 10-02-2009 2:48 AM Kitsune has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 297 of 416 (527704)
10-02-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:03 AM


quote:
I am not going to convince them even if I go ahead and post a hundred or more illustrations of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

The fact that you can even be saying this at this point, after everything that's been said to you here, is truly astounding.

You still seem to believe that posting pictures of organisms that look alike is proof that none of them have evolved (it isn't, as has been shown).

You still seem to believe that the existence of organisms that have changed little over time is somehow devastating for evolution (it isn't, as has been shown). Don't you think that the fact that a biologist has a fossil on his desk which is millions of years old, but not very different from existing present-day organisms, and freely admits such, is a bit of an indicator that he is rather unperturbed by your unsupported accusations?

If you want to leave the thread with beliefs about the ToE which are just as mistaken as they were when you came here in the first place, then go right ahead. Or you might like to stick around and try to learn something.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:03 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 302 of 416 (527721)
10-02-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:59 AM


quote:
The fact that there is so much direct, visible evidence and you turn your nose up to it is astounding.

What evidence? You have presented none in this thread. Gainsaying everybody else and making specious claims about pictures from the internet is not the same thing as presenting evidence.

Why don't you do as Percy suggested and show us how the bat is devastating to evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 308 of 416 (527746)
10-02-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


Bat evolution
Hi Calypsis,

You've picked a strange example to support your argument that evolution does not occur. Your bat is onychonycteris finneyi, a 50-million-year-old (you are correct about the age) extinct species with some key differences to modern bats. In fact it is so different from modern bats that it was classified in a separate family. That family is now extinct. So much for that particular bat-kind.

In Message 25, Lithodid-Man discussed this fossil and explained how it shows transitional features:

quote:
Now the bat. The picture you showed is Onychonycteris. This differs from all living bats in many fundamental ways and is, in fact, a long awaited transitional. While capable of true flight, it was what is called a 'flutter glider' which is exactly what we would expect if, as proposed, bats evolved from a gliding ancestor similar in form (but not related to) flying squirrels. The diagram you show in another post of proposed bat evolution is a terrible strawman, btw. and not supported by anyone I am aware of. The arm to leg ratio of Onychonycteris is exactly in between (but not clustered with!) volant and non volant mammals. It also could not echolocate and had well-developed claws on all 5 digits, which modern bats do not have. Very poor example of a 'living fossil'!

For more information, you can check Wikipedia.

So we have a bat ancestor that is capable of quadrapedal locomotion as well as tree climbing ability, and the flight pattern is not fully developed. The transitional nature of these characteristics is illustrated in the diagram posted by jacortina in Message 39. For your convenience I will re-post it here:


Intermembral index - humerus+radius/femur+tibia x 100
Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100

Limb ratios for Onychonycteris are pretty clearly between non-flying mammals and modern (or even other fossil) bat species.

Modern bats have evolved since the first known fossils of bat ancestors, and when older bats are found we will know more about bat evolution. Onychonycteris was found in 2003. Is there some particular reason why you believe we are unlikely to find even older transitionals in future years? What is your deadline, exactly?

In the meantime, scientists are doing what they can to uncover evidence by other means:
Molecular Biology Fills Gaps In Knowledge Of Bat Evolution

quote:
The team, using DNA sequencing, analyzed data from portions of 17 nuclear genes from representatives of all bat families.

Their results support the hypothesis that the group of large fruit-eating bats from the tropics, that fly mostly during the day – known to biologists as megabats – emerged from four major lineages of smaller and more widely dispersed, mostly insect-eating, night-flying bats, known as microbats. These microbats – also known for their highly specialized echolocation – originated about 52 to 50 million years ago during a lush period of significant global warming in a region that is now North America.


Perhaps in the light of this evidence you would like to modify your claims?

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:03 PM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 338 of 416 (527795)
10-02-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:03 PM


Re: Bat evolution
You really, really like cute pictures, don't you? Please stop using them to distract from the discussion.

quote:
Question: Are they 'bats'?

Yes/no

If your answer is 'yes' then I rest my case.


As usual, you have ignored all the evidence I included in my post, the majority of which was evidence previously posted by others that you ignored. I wonder if your biology teaching included some advice along the lines of, "If the evidence doesn't square with what you believe, then ignore it"?

You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I would really appreciate it if you started answering the questions that I and many others have put to you here, while staying on topic. Remember, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:03 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 344 of 416 (527804)
10-02-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
quote:
There is NO evolution of the bat from one kind to another anywhere in the fossil record either before or after that first/oldest fossil.


Click to enlarge

A reminder, from Message 338:

quote:
You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:52 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 378 of 416 (528060)
10-04-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi Calyps, it might help if you give your sources a thorough read before linking to them; as opposed to, say, scanning them and cherry-picking quotes that appear to help your case.

quote:
You look at it and say, 'it's a bat, no question

This point is emphasised in the article because all the rest of it is about why this fossil shows significant differences to modern bats. These are key differences because as has been illustrated to you in numerous different ways here, they are intermediate between moderns bats and non-volant (non-flying) mammals -- classic characteristics of a transitional species. I highly recommend Bluejay's Message 362 to Archangel because it's equally pertinent to you:

quote:
What if all scientists in the world agreed to call Onychonycteris something other than "bat"? What would your argument be then? Wouldn't you say something along the lines of, "But it is a 'bat'! See? It has (list diagnostic characters here), so it can't be anything but a bat! And, it's nothing like any other 'kind' of animal because (list diagnostic characters here)."

Why don't you just start with this? Tell us, in detail, all the exact characteristic that makes Onychonycteris a relative of bats, and of nothing else? As Jacortina showed you, our side is doing our part to support our argument that Onychonycteris is related to not only bats, but to other mammals as well.

You're right that we still have a long way to go to make it completely certain, but you're still stuck on, "it looks a lot like a modern bat," so it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize the amount of work that we've accomplished.


Also awaiting a reply is Lithodid-Man's post Message 350, which explains the problems with labelling the fossil in question as "just a bat." Note that Percy is going to make sure that this point is properly addressed, and we're all seeing bats in our sleep, before the topic moves on. That's because jumping to a new argument before the old one is settled is not an honest debate tactic.

Getting back to your link, you said,

quote:
How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability?

Because in the following sentence, the article explains,

quote:
She and her co-authors, however, report that the animal's cochlea (the part of the inner ear that detects air vibrations) is too small for it to have navigated by listening to the echoes of its high-pitched squeals, called echolocation. Also missing are two other bony features that mark echolocating bats: a large protuberance off of the middle ear bone, and a flared tip at the end of a long, skinny bone in the back of its skull.

You went on to say:

quote:
there is nothing in the fossil record since that initial bat fossil to indicate a serious change of bats into another kind of organism.

This fossil shows us the process in action. If you insist on denying this then you really need to address Lithodid-Man's post above. You also might like to keep us entertained by starting a thread about transitional fossils. That's a meatier topic than the (to all intents and purposes) non-topic we're discussing here.

Interestingly, other scientific fields can also investigate evidence for evolution, which is yet another part of this discussion that went totally ignored -- from Message 308: Molecular Biology Fills Gaps in Knowledge of Bat Evolution

quote:
The team, using DNA sequencing, analyzed data from portions of 17 nuclear genes from representatives of all bat families.
Their results support the hypothesis that the group of large fruit-eating bats from the tropics, that fly mostly during the day – known to biologists as megabats – emerged from four major lineages of smaller and more widely dispersed, mostly insect-eating, night-flying bats, known as microbats. These microbats – also known for their highly specialized echolocation – originated about 52 to 50 million years ago during a lush period of significant global warming in a region that is now North America.

What's more, it seems that a single mutation might have been responsible for a relatively rapidly evolved ability to fly:
Rogue Finger Gene Got Bats Airborne

Note that this article was published in 2004, before the information about the onychonycteris fossil was published. So where it talks about a lack of transitional fossils, the author was not yet aware of the one we've been discussing. I will repeat my earlier question to you, which went unaddressed like 99% of the other questions to you in this thread: what exactly is your deadline for the discovery of transitional fossils? Who decides when it's time to press the buzzer and say, "Time's up"?

It would be really nice to see you attempt to address any of the points made to you here; we've already seen one person leave the thread because it hasn't really risen above the "yes it is/no it isn't" level. Hint: the way to win a debate is to defend your claims. And if you don't win, you might at least win a little respect for trying. On top of that, there's the added bonus of possibly learning something.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:01 AM Kitsune has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 385 of 416 (528083)
10-04-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Still No Argument
quote:
But it doesn't help them because no matter how long or slow the changes are we don't find changes from one organism to another.

You are ignoring the information that dozens of posts in this thread have given you.

quote:
Virtually all of them are of the same kind (although different species). The Mosaic 'kind' is closest to 'family'

Onychonycteris, the fossil bat, is a member of an extinct family.

quote:
does not necessarily have exactly the same boundaries as Linneaus.

Please explain how your personal classification system is superior to that of Linnaeus. You have been repeatedly asked to outline your criteria and have not acknowledged the numerous requests for you to do so. Why is onychonycteris "just a bat"? A list of specific morphological criteria for "bat" would be fine.

There is a long list of questions to you on this thread, which you have repeatedly ignored. Please answer them in your next posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 12:01 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 393 of 416 (528101)
10-04-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Still No Argument
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is. I find this disturbing, given your alleged background. It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion.

Once more, with feeling: this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:46 PM Kitsune has taken no action
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:52 PM Kitsune has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 400 of 416 (528123)
10-04-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Bat Evolution
Still continuing with the distractions Calyps?

quote:
you need to clarify how the things you mentioned above go beyond mere variation within the kind to a change of one kind of organism into another. None of you have done that, still less have any of you described any kind of scenario as to how it can happen genetically by the DNA to make such changes.

I think all of us have been tempted to talk about these things but they are off topic here. These are points for discussion in a thread about transitional forms. I hesitate to invite you again to start one though because I fear all we'd hear from you over and over is, "Aren't any." What's more, in typical creationist fashion, you want to move the goalposts regarding the definition of "kind" (i.e. by rejecting the classification system that scientists use without any elucidation).

If you have nothing new to add here, maybe you can do as Percy suggested and sum up?

Bets that we get anything other than "It's a bat!" followed by more pictures of cars?

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 3:04 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 412 of 416 (528218)
10-05-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Admin
10-04-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Summation Time; Calypsis4 Suspended 24 Hours
I don't think I can improve on what others here have already said. This thread is a good example of cognitive dissonance in action, and as such, it's been interesting to watch the degrees to which Calyps has taken denial. This is someone who is not ready to take on board any facts that challenge his a priori beliefs.

I think we've been handicapped in a way by not being able to discuss transitional forms in any depth here, because this is a topic in itself. I wonder if anyone would like to start such a thread, or resurrect an old one (my guess is there must be several in the archives).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Admin, posted 10-04-2009 5:22 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Admin, posted 10-05-2009 8:32 AM Kitsune 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