Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 12:20 AM
88 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 87 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,536 Year: 3,573/19,786 Month: 568/1,087 Week: 158/212 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
25262728Next
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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:


Click to enlarge

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 yet responded

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


(2)
Message 347 of 416 (527808)
10-02-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis, i know that you think you have answered the questions you've been posed. I believe you. But nor am I merely repeating these questions ad nauseam for rhetorical effect. Please believe me on this.

The problem as I see it is that you keep saying that living fossils show stasis. We agree, more or less. They show very little change over long periods of time. This isn't in dispute (although some of your examples are).

What we are not seeing eye-to-eye over is why this is so damning to the ToE.

Nothing like this: {picture}

No! There is nothing like that! Nor does the ToE say that there should be. If we found an animal part bat, part cat, it would invalidate the ToE, not support it.

The ToE does not predict that two groups which have already diverged should be combined in a single organism. No cat-bats, no croco-ducks.

What it does predict is that ancient bats should differ from modern bats, something that has been demonstrated for you repeatedly.

How could I possibly make a stronger argument?

By explaining to us, in detail, why stasis (or comparative stasis) in one lineage should mean that we should expect all lineages to show the same degree of stasis.

Or to put it another way, 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 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 4:52 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2009 7:05 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3160 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 not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2266 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 349 of 416 (527821)
10-02-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 4:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
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.

Then please explain why modern bats occupy 2 different orders. (The Ancestor's Tail, pg 194) That would mean that Cats & Cows are the same kind, Or that humans & rats are the same kind. You are blinded by outer similarities. Adult ant lions & dragonflies resemble each other more than wolves & coyotes but are not closely related at all except that they are both insects, but in different orders not closely related.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


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

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(2)
Message 350 of 416 (527826)
10-02-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Classifications
Calypsis -
Calypsis writes:

One of the problems in classifying fossils (including living fossils) is the obscurity of some samples; i.e. the crayfish example.


and
Calypsis writes:

But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted.

Are my posts getting filtered out somehow before they get to you? I addressed your 'crayfish' in several posts now, and apparently was a waste of my time as you are going on as if your pictures settled this issue way back at the beginning of this thread.

Eryma is NOT a crayfish, it is distantly related to crayfish. The example you posted is not the only one, we have hundreds of Erymids in several families with several genera and dozens of species. We have fossils of their copulatory structures that show beyond any doubt that they are not closely related to crayfish but may be related to living reef lobsters. No amount of 'it looks like one to me' and flat out ignoring me is going to make Eryma a crayfish. This is an aside to the issue of why living fossils are not devastating to evolution, this one (and pretty much the majority you posted) simply are not living fossils anyhow.

Now back to Onychonycteris. I want to provide two scenarios which I hope you can picture that might help you see the issue we keep presenting.

The claim "it is still just a bat" is a time tested and tru creationist tactic. Yes it is a bat, and all living bats are bats as well. If a million years from now some island species of bat is a flightless ground predator (as featured in Primeval) creationists of that day will still say "it's just a bat"


Click to enlarge
And they would, in some way be correct. If ten million years later some descendant looked pretty much like a furry bunny, it would still be "just a bat" even though it may be called something else.

Likewise, if using our time machine we were presented with the fauna of 55-50 mya, we might see something we would call the 'gliding shrew'. One when scientists discovered a species that fluttered and glided, with true powered flight, those imaginary creationists would say "so, it flies. It is still gliding shrew kind"

As for the ancestors of Onychonycteris, I have high hopes they will be found. Do I believe their discovery will change your mind? Not at all. No more than the discovery in the last several decades of a nearly perfect chain of transitions between terrestrial artiodactyls and modern whales changed anything in creationist literature.

My guess is that when we find fossils of the 'gliding shrew' we will discover we have known about it (or the group it belongs to) for some time just didn't realize what it was. I am going to end this with two pictures, one of a squirrel and the other a flying squirrel to show that one needs very specific skeletal elements to identify a glider from a non-glider.


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:14 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 351 of 416 (527828)
10-02-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Bats. Just bats.
Well established only in the minds of those who believe as you do. But in this country; USA, the majority still believe in divine creation.

Gallup, 2008:
Those who believe in divine creation: 44%
Those who blieve God caused evolution: 34%
Those who believe no God but in evolution: 14%
The rest were uncommited: 8%

Now take a poll of biologists, you know, the people who have studied the evidence.

And then return to the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 3:39 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 352 of 416 (527829)
10-02-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 5:25 PM


Re: Still No Argument
The problem as I see it is that you keep saying that living fossils show stasis. We agree, more or less. They show very little change over long periods of time. This isn't in dispute (although some of your examples are).

What we are not seeing eye-to-eye over is why this is so damning to the ToE.

... [Explain] to us, in detail, why stasis (or comparative stasis) in one lineage should mean that we should expect all lineages to show the same degree of stasis.

Or to put it another way, why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?

I've been busy for the last couple of days. I dropped in on this thread to see if Calypsis had come up with an argument.

I see that he has not come up with an argument.

Well, he is a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 5:25 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 7:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 353 of 416 (527833)
10-02-2009 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Still No Argument
It is a little bit surprising. Normally creationists have really bad arguments, but at least they have arguments.

BTW, with regards to the Gallop poll, Calypsis has even got that wrong. It doesn't say that 14% "believe no God but in evolution". It says "Humans developed over millions of years, but God had no part in process".

You reading this Cal? Any one of those 14% could have believed in God, they just don't think he was involved in evolution.

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 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2009 7:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:42 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 354 of 416 (527835)
10-02-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Tanndarr
10-02-2009 3:27 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
Bullshit. I called your challenge nonsense and answered it with an equally nonsensical challenge to show that it is nonsense

It is my hope that you are removed from this website for that statement.

Your posts will not be read from this point on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Tanndarr, posted 10-02-2009 3:27 PM Tanndarr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2009 7:34 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 355 of 416 (527837)
10-02-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:25 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
It is my hope that you are removed from this website for that statement.

Your posts will not be read from this point on.

And as you successively refuse to respond to anyone who presents you with truths you can't deal with, you will end up talking to yourself.

Which is pretty much what you're doing already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:25 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 356 of 416 (527839)
10-02-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Granny Magda
10-02-2009 7:23 PM


Re: Still No Argument
It is a little bit surprising. Normally creationists have really bad arguments, but at least they have arguments.

You like to pretend, don't you, granny? Now let me point out that scientists can find NO transitional forms either before or after this fossil...uh, sort of like that bat thingy you saw on the topic post (hint, hint).


Click to enlarge

From the Encyclopdia of Trees by Hugh Johnson.

Here's another:


Click to enlarge

From the Smithsonian.

Now back to my easy chair. Have a nice evening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 7:23 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Granny Magda, posted 10-02-2009 7:53 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Lithodid-Man, posted 10-02-2009 8:24 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 372 by dokukaeru, posted 10-03-2009 11:01 AM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3290 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 357 of 416 (527842)
10-02-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2009 7:34 PM


Re: Oldest fossil bat
And as you successively refuse to respond to anyone who presents you with truths you can't deal with, you will end up talking to yourself.

I was blessed by your absence.

And as you continue to fail to be accurate in your statements about the truths of living fossils, a subject that you cannot deal with I will continue enjoying communicating with OTHERS.

Bye, bye.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2009 7:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 358 of 416 (527844)
10-02-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:42 PM


Re: Still No Argument
You could have responded to my other message, but no; you had to reply to the bit that didn't matter. This is becoming a habit with you; respond to the unimportant bits, especially if they are sarcastic or mocking, whilst ignoring the meat of the argument.

Sad.

It's your topic Calypsis, I would love to discuss it at some point.

Now let me point out that scientists can find NO transitional forms...

But the topic isn't transitional forms or the lack thereof. The topic is living fossils. That's why I keep asking you how living fossils refute evolution.

I'm not interested in 150 million year old ginkgo fossils. You are merely throwing out examples as a cheap distraction.

You can present as many examples of living fossils as you like. It won't matter a jot unless you explain why they matter.

How do living fossils disprove evolution? Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change? That's all that matters here.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Spelling.

Edited by Granny Magda, : Snipped a bit. Don't want to get sidelined.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:42 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(1)
Message 359 of 416 (527846)
10-02-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 7:42 PM


Ginkgos??!!!
Ginkgos? Really Calypsis? That is your answer to the single question you have been asked dozens of times by multiple poster?

What makes you think your statement "Now let me point out that scientists can find NO transitional forms either before or after this fossil" is true? You sincere desire that it be so? Because the evolution of the DIVISION Gingophyta (fyi, Division is what botanists call phyla) is quite well understood. You see, several known members of the division Pteridospermatophyta, order Peltaspermales closely resemble Gingkophytes and in fact with some of these and early Gingkophytes there is some question as to which group they should be grouped with (Meyer, 1987). You see, you can not get a better example of a transitional when the actual experts who study the taxon cannot decide which side of the 'fence' it should fall. I am looking at two references now, both of which seem to believe that the ancestors of your Gingko are very well known and rather firmly established (Royer et al., 1987; Meyer, 1987) But hey - what do those guys know? They are only paleobotanists.

Meyer (1987) Basic features of gymnosperm systematics and phylogeny as evidenced by the fossil record. Botanical Review 50(1): 1-111.

Royer DL, Hickey LJ, and Wing SL (1987) Ecologic conservatism in the "living fossil" Gingko. Paleobiology 29(1): 84-104.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 7:42 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 360 of 416 (527847)
10-02-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Coyote
10-02-2009 4:34 PM


Re: Living and dead fossils
Coyote writes:

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:


The question is, can you prove that this skull of an extinct ape which you evos call Homo Georgicus is actually and in fact a human ancestor? Or better still can you prove it lived over a million years ago as you claim it did? Absolute evidence for either claim would suffice.

But we wont get any of course. All we will get are more claims of the overwhelming evidence which exists but which we must take on faith as being real at all. And great thread calypsis, the evos will squirm and waffle but the fact is they found the fossils, many of which they originally considered solid evidence of evolution until they found they still exist unchanged these millions of years later. We must give them credit though for being able to obfuscate on any issue raised which conflicts with their religion which they cling to with the faith of a true fundamentalist.

Edited by Archangel, : add content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2009 4:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 9:59 PM Archangel has responded

RewPrev1
...
2223
24
25262728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019