Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 17 of 416 (526984)
09-29-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
First, do you honestly think that a fair comparison may be made between a fossil specimen and a living specimen based on two pictures? The people who study these things examine the real thing and publish their detailed findings in peer reviewed journals. Is it fair to reach your own conclusion on the basis of a photograph and hold that conclusion up as superior to that of experts?
So that said I'd just like you to clarify your position for us: you appear to be saying that evolution doesn't exist (except within biblically undefined "kinds") because some existing species are similar to older species. Is this correct?
One last question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you can provide an endless series of pictures that appear to show little change on casual observation. How many picture sets showing change does it take to show that evolution is possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:15 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Tanndarr has replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 197 of 416 (527299)
09-30-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Calypsis, thanks for the reply and I'm sorry I didn't welcome you to EvC the first time...welcome!
Admin has already mentioned the formatting capabilities they're a huge help in following threads.
I don't want to pile you with a bunch of long questions since I know you must feel swamped so I just have one question:
You say that biblical kinds equate to family. Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2009 6:09 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 205 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 6:18 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 286 of 416 (527614)
10-01-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


Classifications
All scientific classification systems are based on the consensus opinion of experts. Yes, that means that the decision that a particular relationship is at say the genus or family level is not based on rock-solid rules. This is not a secret nor is it a weakness to the classification systems or the scientific method. The system is a tool that helps scientists describe their subjects and there is no expectation that life must respect taxonomic lines. New knowledge may require reclassification or the creation of a whole new clade.
But the biblical system of kinds must have these uncrossable boundaries to support the whole concept of "adaptation within kinds". If such boundaries really exist then scientists should see evidence of them in their studies. To date they have not, which leaves a huge gap for creation scientists to fill.
A final note, evolution is not just change but change over time. It works with existing genetic material, modifies it and filters it gradually; over time creatures are modified more and more until someone basically just decides that the creature has evolved enough to be a new species. I believe the concept is referred to as chronospecies which basically means that say an early H. sapiens may not be able to breed with modern man...or they may, we just don't know. For that matter we may be able to breed with H. neanderthalensis (which we'll probably never know) which would indicate that they are part of our species (or visa-versa).
As organisms change, they do not bounce back and forth between different branches of the evolutionary bush. We don't expect to ever see a plant give birth to an animal, a chordate to give birth to a mollusc or a crocoduck. Creationists tend to imply that evolution requires such hopeful monsters. So a fruit fly remaining a fruit fly is pretty much what we expect...it may become a very different fruit fly given enough time but it should always maintain a significant portion of the fruit fly's distinguishing features. Dinosaur-bird evolution is a good example, there is no set of identification features that will identify therapod dinosaurs that will not include birds...birds are dinosaurs and birds.
What you show us is exactly the sort of thing we expect to see in evolution because each one of your examples (including the bat Admin (see I'm on topic)) shows differences. You can say that they are insignificant but that doesn't matter...they are different and they got to be different because of descent with modification. Or else maybe God poofed them into existence; tell me, does the bible explain why we need 350,000 different types of beetle but only one John Lennon?
Edited by Tanndarr, : Because I can't spell taxonomic right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:14 PM Tanndarr has replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 306 of 416 (527733)
10-02-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Classifications
Huh?
Could you please tell us how your post either:
1. Engages my post
or
2. Discusses the fossil bat
Enquiring minds want to know.
Seriously, I know you feel swamped here, but once you've decided to reply to my response then choosing to not engage the points made is downright rude.
There's a rock formation in Wisconsin Dells that looks just like a map of Illinois...what the hell does that have to do with this topic either?
Information as it comes from nature comes in many forms, but specificity helps us to identify the difference between natural and non-natural.
For instance:
Believe me, you don't want to bring up information around here unless you have a very good working definition and an understanding of information theory sufficient to support it. I stay out of those myself...you might as well go swimming in a lake full of piranha wearing a hamburger speedo.
The Smeagol insertion instantly causes the face scenario on Mt. Rushmore to be of a totally different ‘kind’ or (‘family’ if you please). But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted. The living fossils speak loud and clear: no evolution in biological organisms.
Back to my original point: Crayfish is a word we use to describe anything that the observer thinks is or is like a crayfish. It's quite possible someone might call something a crayfish that on closer inspection turns out to be something else, another decapod probably but maybe something totally unexpected. Words don't constrain life...which is my point.
To expand on that: our understanding of life does not constrain life in any way. We may be totally wrong and discover that everything runs on zero-point energy, who knows. But what we do know we have learned by closely observing nature and comparing our findings with each other. The bible gives no useful guidance for how to tell one kind from another and so it is scientifically impotent. Pick all the holes in evolution you like, it doesn't bring you any closer to demonstrating that the bible is true.
Darwin says living fossils are expected. The experts say living fossils are expected within the ToE. You say that they destroy the ToE...you'll need to bring a bigger dog to this fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:14 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 307 of 416 (527738)
10-02-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


Oldest fossil bat
The oldest fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old.
...snip picture...
Now would you please reveal to us evidence of the transitional forms leading to this bat? If you can then it will be something no one else has ever done. ALL of the transitions are missing.
I can see your cards mister. You know that this is the oldest fossil bat discovered so far, meaning that we've yet to discover anything bat-like enough to call an immediate transition. You're going all-in on the wild bet that such a fossil will never be found.
Fossilization is rare...very rare. That means it doesn't happen very often and it is more rare in the case of small, fragile animals.
Tell you what...here's a deal. The first side to produce either a complete record of fossil transition or a signed, original manuscript of the bible written in the very hand of God wins. I think those are about equal demands. If you can't provide the original bible then the bible must be a lie, right? That's about the level of argument you're making.
ABE: Oh, just as an aside: Doesn't the bible say bats are birds? Shouldn't Creation scientists be providing us evidence of bird-to-bat transition?
Edited by Tanndarr, : looking for proof of biblical transitions.
Edited by Tanndarr, : Fixun mizpelz

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 310 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 2:10 PM Tanndarr has replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 316 of 416 (527760)
10-02-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
I'll come right to the point: such fossils should have been found long ago just like the others. The problem is not a lack of fossils...there are billions to choose from and still trillions to unearth. But by now the steady stream of transitions between not just the bat, but virtually every single organism and other organisms should have not only be found, but be in abundance.
Demonstrate for us, using whichever method you choose to hold open to your embarrassment and general ridicule, why exactly we should have found all the fossils by now. In particular, why should we have found all the fossil bats and bat-like creatures? The god-botherers have had more time to seek them through divination than scientists have had and the scientists have still produced more fossils in the last 100 years than 3000 plus years of knees-bent, heads-bowed, deep and serious prayer to assorted deities. So you're the one saying we shoulda-done-it-by-now. Prove it.
The fact that you didn't give any evidence in reply to my challenge speaks loudly and clearly.
Bullshit. I called your challenge nonsense and answered it with an equally nonsensical challenge to show that it is nonsense.
You're piling it awful deep ya know.
The Mosaic classification system, which pre-dated Linnaeus by 3,300 yrs places the bat with flying creatures. It was a completely different system. The concept of 'mammal' did not exist at that time.
Does that actually qualify as a system? Systems have rules and processes...in other words we can learn how systems work. You just want us to take your word for it that you know what Moses means and he knew what God meant.
As was pointed out a little later, your careful editing of what I thought was supposed to be a holy text for you places you square in the same group as all the other televangelists, faith-healers and charlatans who've lied the truth out of the Universe in order to keep the donations coming in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 2:10 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:00 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 354 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:25 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 317 of 416 (527764)
10-02-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Just remember this: Moses came first. If God calls it a 'fowl' then it is His determination that is bottom line and not Linnaeus.
Explain to us please how a bat is more like a chicken than it is like a mouse.
Are you even reading the things you're saying? If God thinks and commands that a bat is a bird then God is wrong. If he wants to fix that then he can do so at his omnipotent leisure. In the meantime it's just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:19 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:51 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 340 of 416 (527797)
10-02-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:13 PM


Changes between the fossil bat and modern bats
I wouldn't normally link to a blog but having become interested in this I found it to be the most helpful:
Hyphoid Logic: Bat Transitional Fossil
quote:
The major importance of the well-preserved fossil is that it presents evidence that flight evolved in the ancestors of bats before echolocation. Onychonycteris was capable of powered flight but lacked the specialized bones in its skull to echolocate as modern bats do.
Onychonycteris finneyi, ancestor to modern batsSome other interesting points about this ancient animal:
* Onychonycteris has claws on all five of its wing digits; modern bats have two at most.
* Onychonycteris has hind limbs that are long in proportion to its forelimbs, unlike modern bats in which the situation is reversed. This is a trait the fossil species shares with climbing animals.
* While Onychonycteris has a keeled breast bone, similar to those that allow modern bats and birds to fly rather than glide, its wings were broad and short. This combination of traits is likely evidence that this bat ancestor alternated to some degree between gliding and flapping. That in itself is a pretty good qualifier to call this a "transitional form" (or missing link, if you prefer).
* Onychonycteris's teeth are very much like those of modern bats; it was almost certainly an insectivore.
* This fossil organism already possesses a specialized spur-like bone that, in modern bats, supports a tail membrane that modern bats use to help them capture insects and which helps to support them in the air, whether flying or gliding.
For the last part I'll point out that O. finneyi has no tail membrane.
So, I know you're going to say "Yes, but it's still a bat.". Well, it's not just a bat it is a more primitive bat. Argue it if you want but this bat does not show all the features of modern bats and is (as the article says) an example of a transitional form. Okay, yah the guy who wrote it is working on being a fungus expert. Let's look a little more:
Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later (2/14/2008)
quote:
"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said lead author Nancy Simmons of AMNH. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."
AMNH = American Museum of Natural History
So it seems that your opinion is not shared by specialists, scientists or even the informed general population. There's a chance that you could be right about this Calypsis, but it's vanishingly small.
I'm going to bow out of this now. Your unwillingness to defend your position makes it impossible to have a conversation above the level of: "Nuh uh!"-"Yah-huh!". Get your idea peer reviewed and published someplace and I promise to read it. Until then, you've got nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:13 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:54 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024