Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
40 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, DrJones*, JoeT, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,439 Year: 18,475/19,786 Month: 895/1,705 Week: 147/518 Day: 21/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 331 of 416 (527783)
10-02-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:11 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis, I'm not interested in your rhetoric about how arrogant I am. I am only interested in hearing how living fossils are evidence against evolution.

Because they have been trained to syphon out ANYTHING that would tend to overthrow the pure prejudice that the world is millions of yrs old, that's why. That's the way I felt while I was an evolutionist. I no longer buy it and the living fossils is one big reason why I don't.

More conspiracy theory rhetoric.

I am not interested in rhetoric. I am only interested in why living fossils are evidence against evolution.

But, okay. Let's assume that all the evo scientists are wrong. Why are they wrong and how can you utilise living fossils to demonstrate that they are wrong?

For the record, T-Rex and a young earth are not the topic. Living fossils are the topic. You should know this; it's your topic. Please stick to it.

Why are living fossils evidence against evolution?

Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:11 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:23 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 389 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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 yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 333 of 416 (527786)
10-02-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Still No Argument
More conspiracy theory rhetoric.

Gosh, granny, I just can't do anything to please you.

Why are living fossils evidence against evolution?

You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 4:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 4:30 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 335 by Admin, posted 10-02-2009 4:31 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 336 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 4:33 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 339 by Theodoric, posted 10-02-2009 4:39 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 389 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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 yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 335 of 416 (527788)
10-02-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:23 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi Calypsis4,

None of the other participants understands why living fossils, for which we're using bats as an example, are evidence against evolution. I think it would help move the discussion along if you could provide more details about how a living creature very similar to an extinct creature disproves evolution.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:23 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:52 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 336 of 416 (527790)
10-02-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:23 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Gosh, granny, I just can't do anything to please you.

You could answer my questions. They are the ones you have pointedly ignored in the last two messages. That would please me very much.

You will find your answer between the topic post and this one; about 30 times. Happy reading!

Oh. Okay.

I must have missed it. Please could you point me to the specific message or messages that answer my questions? Or you could just go over it for me one more time, since I'm clearly not getting your point.

It isn't enough to just say "Living fossils destroy evolution!". You need to spell it out. Why?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 337 of 416 (527791)
10-02-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Living and dead fossils
Do you really want me to proceed with the rest of my illustrations concerning living fossils? I've got lots more, friend and massive overkill is no problem for me. There is no evolution on this planet and never has been. Those who believe it are dreaming.

You present us with a series of fossils that you claim "prove" evolution never happened because of similarities over large expanses of time.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that your point is moot; there is no "rule of evolution" that requires all species to proceed at the same pace.

And besides, focusing just on "living fossils" ignores a huge amount of related data from organisms that did actually change more than the "living fossils" did--again negating your argument.

Here is just one example--D2700, Homo georgicus:

A small section from an article at Talk Origins:

How will creationists interpret this fossil? Despite its erectus-like features, if D2700 had been found in isolation creationists would almost certainly call it non-human, given its small brain size and its similarities to H. habilis. The problem with this is that D2700 is a member of a population, and the largest skull in that group would almost certainly be classified as human by most creationists.

Because of the obvious humanness of the Turkana Boy fossil, and the fact that H. erectus brain sizes overlap the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes, creationists have nowadays almost entirely abandoned the old line (popularized by Duane Gish) that Peking Man and Java Man are apes, and now generally claim that Homo erectus fossils are a variant form of modern humans (ignoring the inconvenient fact that there are many obvious differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens).

Most creationists now place the line between human and ape fossils between Homo erectus (human) and H. habilis (ape), with some disagreement about which side of the line the habiline fossil ER 1470 should fall.

Now, however, in the Dmanisi fossils, we have a group of three closely related skulls which, in both brain size and physical characteristics, nicely straddle that line and resemble the fossils on either side of it.

The largest, D2280, resembles but is a bit smaller (780 cc) than Homo erectus fossils such as the Turkana Boy and ER 3733. The next largest, D2282, is very similar to it but considerably smaller (650 cc), below the previously smallest known erectus (750 cc), and in the middle of the H. habilis range. The last Dmanisi skull, D2700, is even smaller (600 cc) and also more primitive, containing a mixture of erectus and habilis traits.

In short, it's hard to imagine a more convincing series of transitional fossils.

Only one thing can be predicted for certain about the creationist response: whatever D2700 is, they'll say, it sure as heck ain't a transitional form!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html


Here is an example where there is significant change over a period of 1.8 million years, negating the argument of the "living fossils."

The Dmanisi fossils also are clear cut transitionals--as the Talk Origins article points out, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute calls them possibly apes, while Answers in Genesis calls them human. Having features in common with both earlier and later forms is the hallmark of a transitional, and creationists by calling these fossils both human and ape have clearly demonstrated this.

So, with the evidence above and the evidence already presented in this thread I think your point concerning "living fossils" (which you never actually got around to making) is pretty much disposed of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:43 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Archangel, posted 10-02-2009 8:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 338 of 416 (527795)
10-02-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:03 PM


Re: Bat evolution
You really, really like cute pictures, don't you? Please stop using them to distract from the discussion.

quote:
Question: Are they 'bats'?

Yes/no

If your answer is 'yes' then I rest my case.


As usual, you have ignored all the evidence I included in my post, the majority of which was evidence previously posted by others that you ignored. I wonder if your biology teaching included some advice along the lines of, "If the evidence doesn't square with what you believe, then ignore it"?

You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I would really appreciate it if you started answering the questions that I and many others have put to you here, while staying on topic. Remember, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:03 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6656
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 339 of 416 (527796)
10-02-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:23 PM


Evidence? Where?
Ok maybe I missed it. I have been through this thread a few times and I have yet to see where you state why living fossils are evidence against evolution.

When you are asked you just post more pictures that are refuted.

Can you, in a paragraph or so, tell us why living fossils are evidence against evolution?

It is a simple question. Can you give us a straightforward answer? Not more gish gallop.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 340 of 416 (527797)
10-02-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:13 PM


Changes between the fossil bat and modern bats
I wouldn't normally link to a blog but having become interested in this I found it to be the most helpful:

Hyphoid Logic: Bat Transitional Fossil

quote:
The major importance of the well-preserved fossil is that it presents evidence that flight evolved in the ancestors of bats before echolocation. Onychonycteris was capable of powered flight but lacked the specialized bones in its skull to echolocate as modern bats do.

Onychonycteris finneyi, ancestor to modern batsSome other interesting points about this ancient animal:

* Onychonycteris has claws on all five of its wing digits; modern bats have two at most.
* Onychonycteris has hind limbs that are long in proportion to its forelimbs, unlike modern bats in which the situation is reversed. This is a trait the fossil species shares with climbing animals.
* While Onychonycteris has a keeled breast bone, similar to those that allow modern bats and birds to fly rather than glide, its wings were broad and short. This combination of traits is likely evidence that this bat ancestor alternated to some degree between gliding and flapping. That in itself is a pretty good qualifier to call this a "transitional form" (or missing link, if you prefer).
* Onychonycteris's teeth are very much like those of modern bats; it was almost certainly an insectivore.
* This fossil organism already possesses a specialized spur-like bone that, in modern bats, supports a tail membrane that modern bats use to help them capture insects and which helps to support them in the air, whether flying or gliding.


For the last part I'll point out that O. finneyi has no tail membrane.

So, I know you're going to say "Yes, but it's still a bat.". Well, it's not just a bat it is a more primitive bat. Argue it if you want but this bat does not show all the features of modern bats and is (as the article says) an example of a transitional form. Okay, yah the guy who wrote it is working on being a fungus expert. Let's look a little more:

Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later (2/14/2008)

quote:
"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said lead author Nancy Simmons of AMNH. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."

AMNH = American Museum of Natural History

So it seems that your opinion is not shared by specialists, scientists or even the informed general population. There's a chance that you could be right about this Calypsis, but it's vanishingly small.

I'm going to bow out of this now. Your unwillingness to defend your position makes it impossible to have a conversation above the level of: "Nuh uh!"-"Yah-huh!". Get your idea peer reviewed and published someplace and I promise to read it. Until then, you've got nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:13 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:54 PM Tanndarr has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 341 of 416 (527801)
10-02-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Admin
10-02-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Still No Argument
None of the other participants understands why living fossils, for which we're using bats as an example, are evidence against evolution. I think it would help move the discussion along if you could provide more details about how a living creature very similar to an extinct creature disproves evolution.

Sir, you left me with my mouth hanging open. How could I do any better than what I have already revealed? 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.

Nothing like this:


Click to enlarge

But what you see above is true of all the others I posted in one way or another. How could I possibly make a stronger argument?

I am trying hard to be respectful to you. But I will admit I am getting physically weary of answering the barrage of questions that are coming my way. Both my back and my head are feeling it. I will take a rest and come back to do as you suggested.

Hope this will suffice. Have a nice evening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Admin, posted 10-02-2009 4:31 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Parasomnium, posted 10-02-2009 5:02 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 344 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 5:11 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 345 by Perdition, posted 10-02-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 346 by Dr Jack, posted 10-02-2009 5:24 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 347 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 5:25 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 349 by bluescat48, posted 10-02-2009 5:53 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3497 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 342 of 416 (527802)
10-02-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Tanndarr
10-02-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Changes between the fossil bat and modern bats
So, I know you're going to say "Yes, but it's still a bat."

Yes, but it's still a bat.

I'm really tired. Maybe more tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 4:40 PM Tanndarr has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 980 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 343 of 416 (527803)
10-02-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Where are the first bats?
Calypsis, a simple question, if you don't mind. Why are there no fossils of bats in the oldest layers of the geologic column? If all animals where created six thousand years ago, and did not evolve since, then surely we should find some bat fossils in the oldest layers. Yet they are completely devoid of them. Can you explain this, please?

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

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

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 344 of 416 (527804)
10-02-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
quote:
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.


Click to enlarge

A reminder, from Message 338:

quote:
You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place.

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

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 345 of 416 (527806)
10-02-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Sir, you leave me with my mouth hanging open. How could you possibly have done any worse? The bat example alone is worthless. There's nothing to answer. It shows exactly what evolution predicts for more primitive bats. They are still bats...just as evolution predicts.

Seriously, you're quite a joke...though a very aggravating one. You keep claiming that "living fossils" destroy evolution. Claiming that we've been hit with an atomic bomb and a sledgehammer. When we show you an excerpt from none other than DARWIN himself, not just predicting living fossils, but actively hoping for them as they would seriously bolster his theory, you ignore it, claiming that living fossils are the death knell of evolution.

When you are told that evolution predicts living fossils, that many are known, and that they are used as a proof of evolution, you ignore it at best, or call us liars and blinded by our ideology. Well, doctor, heal thyself. You seem to be the one unable to let go of an idea despite all the evidence thrown at you with the strength of a wrecking ball. Perhaps the weight of all the evidence against you has hit your head so hard you can't think logically...I can only hope this is a temporary affliction.

But, for the last time:

Evolution predicts gradual change (meaning not much from generation to generation) to make a species better adapted to their environment (meaning, they'll reach a point where they are all but perfectly in tune with their environment, the place they live). If the environment changes, the organisms will either die out, or they will begin to adapt to the new one. Ok, you seem to understand what evolution is saying about this...but you seem to stop short of actually thinking logically about the obviopus next step. What happens if the environment doesn't change drastically? WHY oh why oh why would the organisms change in that circumstance? They would only become LESS adapted, if they've already been adapted to it. Any change would be bad, therefore it would be weeded out.

IN AN UNCHANGING ENVIRONMENT, EVOLUTION PREDICTS, NAY DEMANDS, THAT THE ORGANISMS WILL CHANGE LITTLE. IT ALSO PREDICTS, NAY DEMANDS, THAT ANY NEW ORGANISM MOVING INTO A SIMILAR ENVIRONMENT WILL MORE THAN LIKELY END UP MORPHOLOGICALLY SIMILAR TO ORGANISMS THAT LIVED IN SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS IN THE PAST, AND THOSE THAT WILL LIVE IN SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTS IN THE FUTURE!!!

Ok, now that I hope I've drilled that into your head, you are in the position of refuting my post. You do this, not by flat out denying it, as that goes round and round for ever and ever amen. What you need to do is provide evidence that this is not what evolution predicts. Either lay out, in a logical fashion, why you would expect an organism to change in an unchanging environment, or concede the point, because we all know you're wrong, and the more you argue the point without giving us any reason whatsoever to change our opinion, the more foolish you look.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 10:21 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019