Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
98 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 96 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
Arphy
Member (Idle past 3707 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 292 of 416 (527687)
10-02-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


kinds
Hi Calypsis
Just discovered this thread and it really is moving quickly but just wanted to clear something up. Back in post 16 Magda (your reply in 20) used the word syngameon, which he got from a debate with me, which simply means "Syngameons are clusters that comprise several morphospecies, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature". ". And no i don't agree to genus=kind. Hybridization with another species (or even if hybridization occurs between a 3rd species) is an operational way in which we can test animals to see if they are in the same "kind", however, it does not follow that because two species cannot hybridize therefore they are not the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). Also we cannot test fossils for hybridization.
As you pointed out in your later posts the classification system is not infallible, and therefore i would discourage the use of family=kind.

Btw, you are doing well, and thouroughly endorse the arguments that you are making. Keep up the good work.

as an aside

lithodid writes:

T-Rex with viable blood cells? Man, wouldn't that be amazing if it ever happened? Too bad it is impossible!

You haven't heard of schweitzer's t-rex finds? But yes according to evolution it is impossible, however the fact that they do exist again says that there is a fault with evolution.

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 293 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 8:58 AM Arphy has taken no action
 Message 295 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:06 AM Arphy has taken no action

Arphy
Member (Idle past 3707 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 363 of 416 (527861)
10-02-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Perdition
10-02-2009 5:22 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.

As for why stasis is damaging to evolution. This comes from a creationist response to "Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Steven J. Gould Harvard University Press, 2002".

Have a read:

Chapter nine, ‘Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory’ is a Trojan horse for creationists. Although unintended, in this chapter Gould provides a completely updated and superbly annotated treasure trove (almost three hundred pages) for creationists to foil arguments from any scientist who claims that there is ample evidence for gradualism in the fossil record. On the lack of change in the fossil record Gould states:

‘ … the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well—[the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species … Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives’ (p. 749).

Quoting none other than George Gaylord Simpson (p. 755):

‘ … the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century … acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would “pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life”’ (p. 755) [emphasis added].

Gould provides additional creationist evidence stating:

‘The long term stasis following a geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists’ (p. 752).

‘The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants’ (p. 753).

Gould provides additional testimony for predominant stasis in numerous species, and to eliminate any possibility of confusion he hammers on with ‘…but stasis is data’, and ‘Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: “stasis is data; stasis is data” …’ (p. 759).

Gould then debunks the ‘ … exceedingly few cases that became textbook "classics” of the coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of horses etc. … (p. 760). (Interestingly, nearly all these ‘classics’ have since been disproved, thus providing another testimony for the temporary triumph of hope and expectation over evidence).’

He continues:

‘Indeed proclamations for the supposed “truth” of gradualism—asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity—emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most “textbook classics” upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the “case study” method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective
reading of the fossil record’ (p. 773).

From where do you go with this. Many evos on here don't agree with puncuated equalibrium and see it as a minority view. Again the old, if something is a minority view this = wrong. OK so there is no evidence for puncuated equalibrium other than gaps (which means what?), so now you really do have a dilemma.

You guys seem to want to have it both ways. Evolution is change over time. So when presented with evidence that things don't change over time, you say that this is evidence for evolution. WHAT THE...????

A theory that supposedly explains even contradictory observations—in this case change and no change in fossils—in reality, explains nothing at all. This type of loose thinking has become commonplace among people who speculate about evolutionary origins.
http://creation.com/evolutionary-stasis

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Took out the extra lines feeds and added blank lines in the first quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Perdition, posted 10-02-2009 5:22 PM Perdition has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jacortina, posted 10-02-2009 11:18 PM Arphy has taken no action
 Message 365 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 12:39 AM Arphy has taken no action
 Message 366 by dwise1, posted 10-03-2009 2:00 AM Arphy has taken no action
 Message 367 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-03-2009 2:17 AM Arphy has taken no action
 Message 374 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-04-2009 2:05 AM Arphy has taken no action

Arphy
Member (Idle past 3707 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 409 of 416 (528168)
10-05-2009 2:12 AM


Well I am kind of annoyed. have a look at basically every one of the summations. Most of them all have a bit about that it wasn't shown that there was a conflict between stasis and evolution. I saw that this was a major point that was not being addressed to the evos liking and so I decided to address it. Unfortunatly I was suspended for doing so (humph ). Oh and btw sorry abouut forgetting to post my source, the source for the quote was http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_48-51.pdf

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022