Living fossils expose evolution

Hi Calypsis4 and welcome to EvC. 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. 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. 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 SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

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

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

Okay, you say the 12 million error was yours. Fair enough. It does speak volumes though; it's a pretty elementary error for someone who is busy making claims about biology. I'll take your word for that. Even if we take that for granted, why should there be a transitional? no-one is suggesting that magnolias are ancestral to any other particular organism other than magnolias.The question is, why do you think they should change? Not all organisms change at the same rate. Some change a lot, others a little. What makes you think that you can quantify the amount of change that should take place over 12 million, 100 million or 300 million years? So "kind" is equivalent to family? that's funny, because only the other day, I was told that a "kind" was most similar to a "syngameon" or close to a genus. It really is a very flexible term. If the magnolia has changed, it has clearly changed very little, I agree with that. However, you seem to be making the judgement that it has not changed, despite only having a single picture of one fossilised leaf for comparison. Do the fossils show the same variation? Or less? I don't know the answer to that question. Do you?What I really want to know is why you think that the magnolias should be expected to change more than they have. Why does the ToE predict that? Why should we be surprised if they have changed very little?Mutate or SurvivePS - If you hit the "PEEK" button in the bottom right of this message, you will see the codes I've used to create quote boxes. You'll probably want to make yourself familiar with these, as they make communication a lot smoother. You can also get tips on posting Here.

---

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

okay, Another creationist member of this forum. I've even seen a creationist insist that even micro-evolution is false, making kind effectively equal to species. Yes, they certainly are very similar. Of course, there is nothing in the image to confirm or deny whether this is actually a picture of M. magnifolia as opposed to any other magnolia. Is it magnifolia? How do you know this?Even if it is the same species, I have to ask again, why you think this observation is so important. Why do you think that the magnolia should have changed more than this? What aspect of the ToE demands this amount of change and why?I mean, your latest image gives the age of the fossil magnolia as Cretaceous. That makes it a maximum of about 150 million years old. I've got plant fossils on my desk in front of me that are twice that age, from long before there were any dinosaurs. They are clearly recognisable as ferns. They look very much like modern ferns. I see no problem with this.There is no reason why we should expect to see any particular amount of change in a particular species. Some lineages show rapid change over relatively short periods of time. Others display long periods of apparent stasis. There is no reason for this to conflict with the ToE. Perhaps you can think of one? I'm sorry, but what evidence ought we to find? What is it that you think the ToE demands?Oh and by the way, bats are not rodents. They are not descended from mice and as far as I know no-one has suggested that they are.Mutate and Survive

---

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

Calypsis, Leaving aside how "fantastic" one finds certain facts, this statement is not "convenient". It is however closer to reality than anything else you have said here.This is what the ToE says. Major changes for some lineages, almost negligible changes for others.Perhaps you would like to address the question I asked some one hundred messages ago; why do you think this contradicts the ToE?Where exactly do you think the ToE demands any particular rate of change?Mutate and Survive

---

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

Calypsis, I've read it. Where do you think he says that all organisms must evolve at any particular rate? He says that evolution leads to increase in variety. When viewed on the whole, it does. This does not mean that every single lineage must show any particular amount of change.Besides, you have already been shown that Huxley wasn't even talking about biological evolution in the quote, he was using the word in a much looser sense, to refer to cosmology and geology, etc. The Huxley quote is meaningless.Your interpretation of Huxley's words is equivalent to taking the statement "Hens lay eggs" and insisting that this means that all hens must lays eggs, or they're not hens and that each hen must also lay the same number of eggs each day.Evolution has no time plan. Some lineages have evolved rapidly, others (due to a stable environment) have changed almost imperceptibly. It is disgusting to me that hypocritical Chrsitians insist on lying about what I have said. You know full well that I did not say "This organism did not evolve at all.". That is a lie. It is also an astonishingly stupid and feeble lie, since;
a) you are lying to me about what I said and
b) my words are here on the page for anyone to go over and check.I didn't say that magnolias or anything "didn't evolve". That is your foolish position. Apart from the fact that you have been informed of transitional fossils and you have responded only with empty mockery.Now would you please explain why you think that any of your examples should show more evolutionary change than they do?Mutate and Survive

---

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

Calypsis, I'm not trying to get under your skin. I'm trying to get you to answer the questions I have been asking since page one. Y'know, the ones you have made no attempt to answer? I think that pointing out how you misrepresented my argument will be perfectly acceptable. If you deny lying, how else do you account for the blatant misrepresentation in Message 191, where you accused me of trying to "play the switching game", a clear attack on my honesty.In other words, you started it Cal. Now you go whining about being treated unfairly. Boo-hoo. What would make my day would be if you were to demonstrate to us that you actually understand the argument you are making. So some species change very little over millions of years. I could name organisms that have hardly changed for billions of years. So what? In what way does this breach the ToE? Why do you think evolution should proceed at any particular pace?Mutate and Survive

---

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

You still don't get it. You have provided plenty, even if most of them are a bit dodgy. But lets' put that to one side for a moment. Let's suppose that all the examples you have provided are living fossils. Let's also suppose that you provide us with a hundred more, or a million.So what?You have been repeatedly informed that this does not contradict the theory of evolution.You have repeatedly been asked why you think it does.The nearest you have come to explaining this is when you posted the Huxley quote, which doesn't even directly address the ToE.When are you going to explain your argument here? When are you going to specify exactly what aspect of the ToE is contradicted by living fossils? When are you going to explain why we should expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?There are living fossils that have hardly changed in billions of years. They are called stromatolites. If these organisms don't worry biologists, why should any of your examples?Mutate and Survive

---

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

Calypsis, I'm not interested in your rhetoric about how arrogant I am. I am only interested in hearing how living fossils are evidence against evolution. More conspiracy theory rhetoric.I am not interested in rhetoric. I am only interested in why living fossils are evidence against evolution.But, okay. Let's assume that all the evo scientists are wrong. Why are they wrong and how can you utilise living fossils to demonstrate that they are wrong?For the record, T-Rex and a young earth are not the topic. Living fossils are the topic. You should know this; it's your topic. Please stick to it.Why are living fossils evidence against evolution?Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?Mutate and Survive

---

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

You could answer my questions. They are the ones you have pointedly ignored in the last two messages. That would please me very much. Oh. Okay.I must have missed it. Please could you point me to the specific message or messages that answer my questions? Or you could just go over it for me one more time, since I'm clearly not getting your point.It isn't enough to just say "Living fossils destroy evolution!". You need to spell it out. Why?Mutate and Survive

---

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

Calypsis, i know that you think you have answered the questions you've been posed. I believe you. But nor am I merely repeating these questions ad nauseam for rhetorical effect. Please believe me on this.The problem as I see it is that you keep saying that living fossils show stasis. We agree, more or less. They show very little change over long periods of time. This isn't in dispute (although some of your examples are).What we are not seeing eye-to-eye over is why this is so damning to the ToE. No! There is nothing like that! Nor does the ToE say that there should be. If we found an animal part bat, part cat, it would invalidate the ToE, not support it.The ToE does not predict that two groups which have already diverged should be combined in a single organism. No cat-bats, no croco-ducks.What it does predict is that ancient bats should differ from modern bats, something that has been demonstrated for you repeatedly. By explaining to us, in detail, why stasis (or comparative stasis) in one lineage should mean that we should expect all lineages to show the same degree of stasis.Or to put it another way, why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?Mutate and Survive

---

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

It is a little bit surprising. Normally creationists have really bad arguments, but at least they have arguments.BTW, with regards to the Gallop poll, Calypsis has even got that wrong. It doesn't say that 14% "believe no God but in evolution". It says "Humans developed over millions of years, but God had no part in process".You reading this Cal? Any one of those 14% could have believed in God, they just don't think he was involved in evolution.Mutate and Survive

---

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

You could have responded to my other message, but no; you had to reply to the bit that didn't matter. This is becoming a habit with you; respond to the unimportant bits, especially if they are sarcastic or mocking, whilst ignoring the meat of the argument.Sad.It's your topic Calypsis, I would love to discuss it at some point. But the topic isn't transitional forms or the lack thereof. The topic is living fossils. That's why I keep asking you how living fossils refute evolution.I'm not interested in 150 million year old ginkgo fossils. You are merely throwing out examples as a cheap distraction.You can present as many examples of living fossils as you like. It won't matter a jot unless you explain why they matter.How do living fossils disprove evolution? Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change? That's all that matters here.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Spelling.Edited by Granny Magda, : Snipped a bit. Don't want to get sidelined.

---

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

It's quite difficult writing a summation for this thread, since I'm still pretty much in the dark about what Calypsis is actually arguing for. I've asked "Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?" until I just lost the will to live, but I never got an answer. Here then are my answers to some of the arguments that I think Calypsis might possibly have been making.Living fossils disprove evolution. No they don't. Calypsis has been shown quotes from Darwin to Dawkins showing that this is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. There is nothing about living fossils in and of themselves that is in any way contradictory to the Theory of Evolution.Living fossils show stasis, so organisms do not evolve. Living fossils show relative stasis in some lineages. They do not show that all organisms are in stasis. Bluejay very clearly explained why we might expect to see stasis in some cases (environmental stasis, geographical isolation, etc.) but he was just brushed off. No attempt has been made to explain why stasis in one lineage should imply stasis in all.Living fossils prove that there are no transitional fossils. No they don't. If I sit pulling coloured balls out of a bag, it doesn't matter how many white balls (living fossils) I pull out, it won't prove that there are no red balls (transitional fossils). Sure, I could empty the bag, but for this metaphor, that would be equivalent to examining every organism that lives or has ever lived, so it's not an option. It doesn't matter how many living fossils Calypsis shows us, it still doesn't mean that there are no transitional fossils. If Calypsis wants to suggest that there are no transitional fossils, he would be better off trying to directly address the fossils that are actually cited as transitionals.Living fossils are consistent with biblical "kinds". Yes they are. However for a theory to be considered credible, it must explain all the evidence not just some of it. Living fossils may seem to fit quite nicely with "kinds" (especially if we are as lax as Calypsis has been in defining the ever-changing boundaries of a "kind", which can apparently be equivalent to a family, an order or a single species), but transitional fossils blow the "kinds" idea out of the water. This whole aspect of what-might-be-Calypsis'-argument relies upon focusing on living fossils when the fossilised elephant in the room is the existence of multiple transitional forms.Look! A dragonfly!! This thread has also been an prime example of the vacuity of the Gish Gallop. Attempts to directly address the issues have met with more pointless pictures acting as distractions from discussion. The responses have been consistently aimed at the least relevant comments. I don't really feel that there has been any discussion in this thread and I can't help but suspect that this is because Calypsis doesn't really understand the argument he is making in the first place.Mutate and Survive

---

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