Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
660 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle (6 members, 654 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,028 Year: 5,140/6,534 Month: 560/794 Week: 51/135 Day: 3/25 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3365 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 40 of 416 (527081)
09-30-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Magnolias
No species that has legs differing by 200%. Oh, but there is.
...
Tigers and cats. They are both feline.

But Felix is a genus not a species. Also your entire argument hinges on gross morphological change, which is by no means the be all and end all of evolution.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 9:30 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 9:49 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3365 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 222 of 416 (527363)
10-01-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by slevesque
10-01-2009 12:44 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
I would pretty much bet that it is a distinct possibility that these two bat fossils of Onychonycteris could be youngsters who became fossils during there 'crazy teen years'

Given that a bats 'crazy teen years' last a matter of months out of a life span tending to around a decade, I'm not sure it is a likely possibility.

But this is not totally implausible, however the differences in limb/bone ratios are not the only things that make Onychonycteris distinct from extant and previously know fossilised bat species. So while you might make a case that the limb/bone ratios are explained by immaturity you can't use it to explain the claws. It is also likely that other skeletal cahracteristics such as epiphyseal fusion, bone density and texture or dentition allowed Simmon's et al. to discount the fossils being juveniles.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 12:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 11:43 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3365 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 230 of 416 (527388)
10-01-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 8:03 AM


Re: Whales don't breath water!
That statement is erroneous.

Can you actually identify the erroneous part of the statement? Specifically.

You are now specifically talking about non-mammalian marine organisms whereas Mr. Jack was talking about marine mammals. You originally said ...

Everyone knows that marine creatures survive on oxygen in the water.

So it appears it was your statement that was erroneous due to inexactitude.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:03 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:22 AM Wounded King 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