Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 243 of 416 (527410)
10-01-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 8:46 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
1. Magnolias; The magnolias were of the same family. Why did you bring this up? (Me: 1, you:zero)
2. Nautilus: why did you bring this up? (Me: 2, you: zero)
Because I was listing all of them. It's called being fair
3. Crayfish: You didn't tell the truth. You cannot determine that the fossil crayfish is a different kind than what was posted in the picture because it is too obscure to determine the details.
You said that kinds were families. The modern crayfish is Procambarus clarkii (mistyped as Procambrus in your source) , this is of family Cambaridae. The fossil is of Eryma leptodactylina, which is of family Erymidae. By your own words these are different kinds.
Your point about the picture is irrelevant, because the species names are given it is easy to look up the family to which they belong. In this case - as in each of the others - they are not classified in the same family. According to you this means they are different kinds.
I'm not going to go through and list the classifications for each of the others, Lithodid-Man has already done that in this thread, and I don't see much to gain from repeating it. Instead, let's concentrate on the crayfish.
They are different families, according to you, earlier in this thread that means they are different kinds. Do you now want to retreat from that statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 8:46 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 9:23 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 258 of 416 (527443)
10-01-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
But what disturbs me is that you didn't say one word about the third example on the page I posted which is listed 'unidentified species'. So the observer is left to choose which of the two examples is most like the fossil example but you were so quick to take potshots at me after such a cursory examination of what I posted that you ignored it completely!
That list comes from me, not Huntard. I ignored the unidentified species because it was an unidentified species, if I don't know what the species is, I can't lookup what family it belongs to, can I?
If you supply the species name, I'd be happy to determine whether it too comes from a different family like the majority of your other examples. You can check to, if you like, just google the name and you'll soon find a taxonomy for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 10:03 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 283 of 416 (527545)
10-01-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


She didn't even seem to notice that I am the only creationist on this thread against about 15 to 20 opponents, all of whom expect me to answer their questions! Well, I tried but I cannot keep up no matter how fast I go.
Yes, you are.
Might I make a suggestion? Don't try and go fast, instead post slowly and thoughtfully. I promise you that'll you find that a) you have less posts to answer and b) the discussion we're having will be more fruitful. Throughout this thread you've posted often; frequently bringing in new material before the old material has been dealt with, or throwing out one or two line snap responses to posts. Try, instead, picking a single post, considering what it says, and making a detailed, reasoned response to that one post and then waiting for a while before posting again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 10-01-2009 8:00 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 305 of 416 (527728)
10-02-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:33 PM


I see that again, you've failed to give any reason why we should consider your examples of "living fossils" an argument against evolution and instead try to introduce a new argument. Is it simply that you don't have an argument?
On to other matters:
It appears abruptly in the fossil record and bats (about 100 species) are still bats: they have not changed except for the variations within the kind.
The kind. According to you in many posts that corresponds to the level of family. Do you know how many different families of bat there are? (Hint: you may run of fingers, and using your toes won't help much)
And, once again, this bat is not in any of these families, but a completely different one. This is not, as you've pretended, some arbitary decision but because this "unchanged" bat has a number of features which are not found in any extant bat. Including, as it happens, features that are nicely intermediate between bats and non-volant mammals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:33 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 327 of 416 (527776)
10-02-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 3:54 PM


Pendatic rambling
There are living fossils that have hardly changed in billions of years. They are called stromatolites.
Stromatolites aren't organisms. They're made by organisms (specifically by photosynthetic prokaytotes). We don't know how much the organisms involved have changed because it's basically impossible to say anything intelligent about how different two prokaryotes are simply by looking at their morphology. Although, having said that, we do have some chemical reasons to think they were Bacteria or similar as opposed to Archaea.
Your point does, of course, stand regardless.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Clarify

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 3:54 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 328 of 416 (527777)
10-02-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:00 PM


The topic is living fossils
And, again, you fail to support your argument using living fossils. Why are you unable to form an argument that involves only living fossils? No, don't mention transitionals. Just living fossils. Why do they contradict evolution?
Let's pretend for a moment that the bat you showed us the nice pictures of was identical in every way to a living bat. So what? How is that evidence against evolution?
The existence of transitionals is a completely different question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:00 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:13 PM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 332 of 416 (527784)
10-02-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:13 PM


Re: The topic is living fossils
Look, friend, if you wish to live in la la land and pretend that living fossils do not destroy the theory of biological evolution then I can't stop you. But it does.
HOW!
I'm not asking much; just that you explain your argument. Or do you not have one? Is asserting it is so the best you've got?
Pretend I'm a thick kid in your class, explain it me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:13 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 334 of 416 (527787)
10-02-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:23 PM


Re: Still No Argument
You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading!
Okay, I'm honestly baffled. Where do you think you gave this answer? Please give post numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:23 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 346 of 416 (527807)
10-02-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
The bat example alone is priceless. They can't answer it. There is NO evolution of the bat from one kind to another anywhere in the fossil record either before or after that first/oldest fossil. Sure their are variations among bats but they are all still bats.
As has been pointed out many times it is not true, according to your own definition of kind (=family) that the fossil bat isn't the same kind of bat as modern bats. But let's ignore that, and accept this bat hasn't changed. So what? How does that contradict anything evolution says?
Nothing like this:
Evolution does not predict that there should be.
How could I possibly make a stronger argument?
You could make an argument. Showing some pictures and claiming they show your point isn't doing that, and it's impressing no one. What you need to do is explain what exactly it is that evolution claims that is being contradicted by your examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:52 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 369 of 416 (527889)
10-03-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Lithodid-Man
10-03-2009 2:17 AM


Re: Stasis, PE, and Gould
Also, I am surprised to hear that anyone acquainted with PE find it a marginal theory or a minority view. It has held up over time and been supported repeatedly. It is not the only way species appear to change, but it is strongly supported.
I strongly disagree. There have now been several decades of study into punctuated equilibrium, and the the predominant finding is that it represents a misreading of the geological record. Where the geological record of sufficient quality to determine whether the actual pattern of evolution is gradual or punctual, the fossils do not support punctuated evolution while the apparent punctualism of less well preserved sediments is easily explicable by the nature of sediment production. Stasis (suitably defined) followed by period of rapid change does occur but it is not the major pattern of evolution.
At the time that Gould and Eldridge were writing the prevalent view was that rates of evolutionary change were much more constant than we now know to be the case, and the real variation that is found* is a highly variable, especially during period of adaptive radiation (of which the Eocene bats are an excellent example) when it proceeds very rapidly indeed. So they did help move our understanding of evolutionary change forward, although their specific ideas were wrong.
Robert L. Carroll's Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution deals with the subject in some depth, if you're interested.
* - As an interesting aside, rates of genetic change don't follow the same pattern as rates of morphological change. Different species of organisms such as King Crabs show as much genetic difference as morphologically very different species of mammal that diverged at a similar time. This, perhaps, suggests that looking merely at morphological evolution is misleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-03-2009 2:17 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 375 of 416 (528038)
10-04-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Blue Jay
10-03-2009 7:10 PM


The chart compares the ratio of arm length to leg length ("intermembral index") to the ratio of arm length to arm width ("brachial index")
The bit I've bolded is not quite correct. Brachial index is 100 x radius length/humerus length, which is the ratio of the length of the forearm to the upper arm, not a measure of "arm length to arm width".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 7:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 389 of 416 (528096)
10-04-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Still No Argument
No, they are not incorrect comparisons. Virtually all of them are of the same kind (although different species). The Mosaic 'kind' is closest to 'family' but does not necessarily have exactly the same boundaries as Linneaus. But that statement tells me that you have already got your mind made up that no matter how many organisms of the same kind are shown you (even if in the thousands?) you will maintain the fairy tale of biological evolution.
Again you produce your undefended notion that kind corresponds to family, but somehow bats are only one kind. That's absurd. Bats are an order, the second largest order of mammals, have a look at the pie chart below showing how many species belong to each order. That red slice is the bats - they're incredibly diverse - on the left you'll see that much smaller purple slice: that's order Carnivora, which includes cats, dogs, bears, weasels and racoons.
You can pretend that kind is anything like a family and still act like bats are a single kind.
This is a pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrullus). Notice how small it is, it feeds on small moths and flies.
Now look at this fella. Bit bigger, isn't he? This is Nyctalus lasiopterus, among other things they eat birds.
This pretty critter is a vampire bat (sorry, I don't know the exact species) noted for feeding on blood.
This is the fruit bat mentioned earlier in the thread, the name is a clue to what it eats.
This Hylonycteris underwoodi, as you may be able to tell from the picture it feeds on plant nectar like small birds such as the various hummingbirds
And, finally, this remarkable bat (Mystacina tuberculata) comes from New Zealand. They crawl across the leaf litter, foraging for food.
And you're telling me that these bats, along with the hundreds of other species I've not mentioned - with their various diets, different sizes, different habits, different habitats, some with echolocation, some without, one that even prefers to crawl than fly - these wildly different bats are not only one kind, but so similar to one another and to the bat without echolocation and with completely different limb proportions, and a different number of claws found in rocks 53 million years old that they're basically the same and prove nothing ever changes?
Seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 12:01 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 402 of 416 (528135)
10-04-2009 5:49 PM


Summation: Living fossils are not unchanged, and wouldn't challenge evolution anyway
Calypsis4 has shown through this thread some wonderful examples of remarkable preservation, and some beautiful fossil pictures. Among his examples of apparent living fossils all but two show change sufficient to exceed the family level between the modern form and the fossil form. Particular striking is the remarkable Eocene bat Onychonycteris finneyi that existed shortly before the adaptive radiation of bats during that period and shows numerous transitional features not found in any modern bat.
But let's not get caught up in the general inability of Calypsis4 to produce genuine examples of forms unchanged through the deep time of the fossil record, because notably absent from this thread is any argument explaining why living fossils (a term coined by Darwin himself) should present any kind of challenge to evolutionary theory.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024