Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
95 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 93 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
jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 39 of 416 (527079)
09-30-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
09-30-2009 2:24 AM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
With all this in perspective, I don't get the feeling it is a very good example of a transitional fossil, since it has no transitional characteristics outisde of the five-to-two clawe fingers, which a creationist would argue is a 'downhill' transition.

I disagree.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 09-30-2009 2:24 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 12:44 AM jacortina has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 68 of 416 (527129)
09-30-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Living fossils expose evolution??
Were mammals and dinosaur contemporary?

Yes, of course. Earliest found of each were in the Triassic. The oldest fossil mammal is dated to around 221Mya and the oldest fossil dinosaur to around 228Mya.

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/timeline_short.htm

This is easily looked up information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 10:16 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 11:03 AM jacortina has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 164 of 416 (527253)
09-30-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Calypsis4
09-30-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Magnolias, Bat, Crayfish, and Opposum
quote:
That is so much balderdash. The definition of evolution according to Sir Julian Huxley.
Evolution can be defined as a directional, essentially irreversible process, occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution – one single process of self-transformation.

Let's get the full quote (ellipses are bad enough, but dropping them is a real no-no) and add a bit of context.

Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution -- a single process of self-transformation.

What is Science (1955) p.278

OK. Not that Huxley's assertion means that it's automatically accepted as true, but I don't really see anything which claims a change has to happen in any given amount of time. I see that change is directional and irreversible, but nothing about any absolute 'expiration date' or 'term limits' on forms which are well suited to their environments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Calypsis4, posted 09-30-2009 2:59 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(2)
Message 259 of 416 (527444)
10-01-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 11:20 AM


Re: The fossil record: the geologic column
You keep acting as if the Theory of Evolution DEMANDS major change over time.

This is simply not true.

quote:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes
on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made
somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more
probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then
again undergoes modification." (pp. 152)

Darwin, C. 1872. "Chapter 4 - Natural Selection" The Origin of Species,
Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.


From the time it was put forth, it was thought NOT to go on continuously and to feature long periods without alteration to any given form.

Is this getting through, yet?

Your examples of fossilized organisms which have similar modern forms in no way conflicts with, let alone refutes, the Theory of Evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 11:20 AM Calypsis4 has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 311 of 416 (527752)
10-02-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Wow. Just, wow.

Quote-mining the Bible, of all things.

Now, just what did you snip out of that Leviticus 11:13 and insert the ellipsis?

Hmm. Let's see.

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; ..."

That says quite clearly AMONG THE FOWLS.

Really, sir (or madam). That was the rankest of dishonesty.

Edited by jacortina, : Corrected for gender assumption.


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 315 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:19 PM jacortina has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 348 of 416 (527809)
10-02-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Your source is feeding you dishonesty.

But in the words of Colin Patterson, who was once curator of that great museum, the transitions are missing.

Notably, you don't even TRY to give Patterson's words after saying you're giving his words.

Here ARE some of his words:

quote:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." pp 131-133

Patterson, Dr. C. 1978. "Evolution". Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.


Doesn't sound like he thinks there aren't any transitionals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:00 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(2)
Message 364 of 416 (527864)
10-02-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Arphy
10-02-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Still No Argument
So you think in the real world that an environment could exist unchanged over millions of years? Note i said in the real world.

Yes. In fact there are many places in the world which have not changed very much in millions of years (as well as others which have changed). The redwood forests of the western U.S. are estimated to be 200 million years old; the Gobi desert, while expanding, is at its core at least 25-30 million years old; Antarctica, of course, has been (mostly) ice covered for millions of years.

As I noted far upthread, the probability of many species maintaining similar forms for long periods isn't anything new. It was pointed out by Darwin in The Origin...

quote:
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes
on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made
somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more
probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then
again undergoes modification." (pp. 152)

Darwin, C. 1872. "Chapter 4 - Natural Selection" The Origin of Species,
Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.


There's not a lot of ambiguity about that 'each form remains for long periods unaltered'.

I certainly wouldn't say it's evidence FOR Evolution. Simply that it's fully consistent with what has always been expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has taken no action

jacortina
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 404 of 416 (528140)
10-04-2009 6:17 PM


Summation
Original post (or posts, rather) along with subsequent writings seem to indicate that the original poster believed that near 'stasis' for numerous organisms constituted a major problem to the Theory of Evolution. This is certainly not the case. Though despite being shown that such retention of form in many cases was predicted all along, he has not acknowledged this.

But it seems that the real point wasn't simply that there were all these forms in the fossil record similar to modern organisms, it was that there was ONLY such evidence - that there are NO cases at all of change (or, at least, no cases of anything greater than change within 'kind'). It remains to be seen whether discussion in a more directly focused topic would be any more fruitful.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022