Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
358 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo, Taq (4 members, 354 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,027 Year: 5,139/6,534 Month: 559/794 Week: 50/135 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Member (Idle past 3781 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Message 368 of 416 (527881)
10-03-2009 3:01 AM

Could this help?
Just a small observation. It occurs to me that Calypsis's assertions might make more sense if it were granted that:

1) We only use the Mosaic system of classification to determine kinds. Thus, if it flys, we'lll say that it's of the same "kind." Case closed. Modern classification systems just get in the way.

2) We accept a YEC timeline so that all fossils would then be considered to be contemperaneous with each other and with modern species. Agreed, this flys in the face of all available evidence. However, at least it's a way to recast lineages as just "variations within a kind." Maybe this is why the idea of living fossils is supposed to be the "atom bomb" that destroys evolution. If you can pretend that all species have remained unchanged over time, well then, of course evolution doesn't make sense.

While neither of these suppositions has any support in any available, credible evidence, maybe they're at least a way of making sense of what Calypsis is trying to say.

Member (Idle past 3781 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009

Message 388 of 416 (528095)
10-04-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 12:01 PM

Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis4 writes:

The Mosaic 'kind' is closest to 'family' but does not necessarily have exactly the same boundaries as Linneaus.

Perhaps some clarification. Are you using a "Mosaic" system of classification to determine what a "kind" is? Are you using the inclusion of bats in the list of unclean fowls at Leviticus 11 as the determinant of which "kind" bats belong to? If so, are bats then the same "kind" of animal as storks, herons and owls? And perhaps the answer of this question is obvious, but why do you think that a "Mosaic" system is superior to any modern system of classification?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 12:01 PM Calypsis4 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