Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
101 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 98 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
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 372 of 416 (527934)
10-03-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:42 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Hello Calypsis4 and welcome to EVC

I think we may be able to clear up some confusion if we can agree to a definition of biological evolution. I know you posted the Huxley quote about evolution, and several members disagree with it. How about this definition from
Wiki on Biological Evolution:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

Notice that this definition (and any that would be acceptable) does not mention rates of change. Evolution does not require any specific rate of change. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. This is what everyone here wants you to explain.

Now let us compare this to Gravity:

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency which lends weight to objects with mass

Notice again how that definition does not mention anything about rates of acceleration of objects towards each other.

What does this have to do with this thread?

Well essentially, what you have argued for 120 some posts is, "Here is a picture of a fossil. Here is a picture of an existing species. There is not enough change so evolution is false."

It is the same argument as this, "The gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 m/sec squared. The gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is 25.9 m/sec squared. The two planets have different accelerations therefore gravity is false."

If this is not your argument please, for the clarity of everyone here lay out your argument why living fossils disproves evolution.

Thanks,
Joe

Edited by dokukaeru, : removed incomplete thought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:42 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM dokukaeru has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 379 of 416 (528061)
10-04-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Calypsis4 you have yet to lay out your argument
Hello Calypsis4 and welcome back

Quite frankly, no. Interesting what the folks in Scientific American said about my bat in the topic post

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

It is quite interesting what S.A. says in that article:

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.

"Given the fact that those are missing, we feel pretty confident this was not an echolocating bat," Simmons says.

If you truly were a science teacher, how can you read that article and not pick up on what I just pointed out to you? If you read that article to your students, would you have only read the selection that you posted. Would you consider that to be intellectually honest?


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 382 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:39 AM dokukaeru has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 381 of 416 (528063)
10-04-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis4 writes:

dokukaeru:

"...substantial changes"

What changes? Where?

It is slightly unclear from this part as to whether you agree or disagree with my posted definition from Wiki on Biological Evolution:
Could you please say yes or no to that definition and why

Calypsis writes:

Here is a picture of 'A' fossil? 'A' fossil? I have presented a large array of fossils that have living offspring that reveal no evolution and I can easily post a hundred more. I might. You seek to trivialize the matter by saying 'a fossil' ignoring the fact that the preponderance of the evidence is numerous and weighty. In fact you're being deluged with example after example of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

You are missing the point. Yes, I have seen every picture you have posted. You could go on and list a hundred more(but you will run out and most will be incorrect comparisons as has been pointed out)Just like I could go on listing the gravitational acceleration of every celestial body. What you certainly cannot do is show a definition that requires a specific rate of change for evolution. That is where my gravity example differs because gravitational acceleration can be defined by the 2 objects masses and the inverse of the square of the distance between them. That is what i (wrongly) assumed you would say.
Instead I get this:

Calypsis4 writes:

Your comparison of my evidence in living fossils to gravitational acceleration comes down to a level of specificity compared to another level of specificity. Specificity exists in both but one is more minute than the other.

Could you explain this?

Thanks,
Joe


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 384 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 12:01 PM dokukaeru has taken no action

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 383 of 416 (528069)
10-04-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Calypsis4 you have yet to lay out your argument
Calypsis4 writes:

So you/they are suggesting that other fossil bats who lived during that period HAD echolocation and the bat in question did not?


The article says this 53 mya bat fossil has indications of NO ECHOLOCATION whereas 50 mya bat fossils have indication OF ECHOLOCATION.

Calypsis4 writes:

Secondly, I am not convinced that they are correct in their observations.


Why not? please explain. You posted the article. You quote mined it to show scientist think it is "just a bat" (your emphasis) instead of (what everyone else here realizes) bat-like but not like extant species.

Calypsis4 writes:

Interesting that the article also said, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight." Would you explain to the readers how they could know that? Since science is based upon empirical investigation then what empirical findings could they possibly gather from the fossils that would determine such a thing?


Key word has been highlighted. It was a proposition, in other words- a hypothesis. Maybe they had some evidence...probably not.

I really appreciate you answering my post
Could you please tell me whether you agree or disagree with Wiki's definition of Biological Evolution
After all, we still dont know if you are talking about the same thing we are talking about.
Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:39 AM Calypsis4 has taken no action

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 411 of 416 (528212)
10-05-2009 8:02 AM


Could not even agree on what evolution is.
I share the opinions and frustrations expressed by other members (save Arphy)

We couldn't even get a definition of evolution. Instead, we must infer the definition from a vague Huxley quote and pictures of cat-bats and man-bats....but surprisingly none of man-bear-pig.

I also want to draw attention to Message 379 that possibly shows the sad state of our science education system here in the U.S.

Thanks,
Joe


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022