Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8950 total)
31 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,177 Year: 22,213/19,786 Month: 776/1,834 Week: 276/500 Day: 39/65 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 376 of 416 (528056)
10-04-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by dokukaeru
10-03-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Still No Argument
dokukaeru:

"...substantial changes"

What changes? Where?

Let me illustrate just how strong my position is by pretending to be you and using this illustration:

"Hey Calypsis4, I am going to PROVE to you that the Chevrolet evolved over the years from lower forms to higher ones. Ready?

My first example. A 57 Chevy from the distant past. An actual 1957 Chevy (in 1957):

Now here is the 'proof' that it evolved:

And then this:

And then this:

Now, Calypsis4, these are my 'living fossils'. Do you see the many differences? Don't you see that this is 'proof' that the Chevy evolved?"

Well, enough with the pretending. It would be an easy thing to prove that cars have changed through the years, including Chevy's. The first photo is an acutal 57 Chevy in 1957. The others are all rebuilt 57 Chevy's in our time. But what can be done so easily with cars cannot be done with the fossils. So if (hypothetically) what I posted above in the Chevy's is ALL I could come up with then who would I be fooling? Despite the differences they are ALL Chevy's! No one who recognizes cars is going to mistake the 57 Chevys listed above for something else.

So my opponents tell me: "Calypsis4, you're being stubborn! Can't you see that this (Onychonycteris finneyi):

...evolved into this!?"

Quite frankly, no. Interesting what the folks in Scientific American said about my bat in the topic post: "You look at it and say, 'it's a bat, no question,'" says evolutionary biologist Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History in New York." Going further, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight. Ancient bat fossils dating to around 50 million years ago looked much like existing bats, down to the enlarged cochlea necessary for echolocation."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bats-fle...

How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability? And why are the 50 million yr old fossils 'so much like existing bats'? That's because bats have not evolved. There is merely a variation within the kind and they are not going to escape that fact. No transitional form precedes the bat above and there is nothing in the fossil record since that initial bat fossil to indicate a serious change of bats into another kind of organism.

Then to answer this:

Well essentially, what you have argued for 120 some posts is, "Here is a picture of a fossil. Here is a picture of an existing species. There is not enough change so evolution is false."

It is the same argument as this, "The gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 m/sec squared. The gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is 25.9 m/sec squared. The two planets have different accelerations therefore gravity is false.

'Here is a picture of 'A' fossil? 'A' fossil? I have presented a large array of fossils that have living offspring that reveal no evolution and I can easily post a hundred more. I might. You seek to trivialize the matter by saying 'a fossil' ignoring the fact that the preponderance of the evidence is numerous and weighty. In fact you're being deluged with example after example of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

Your comparison of my evidence in living fossils to gravitational acceleration comes down to a level of specificity compared to another level of specificity. Specificity exists in both but one is more minute than the other.

I can't help it if you and your accidentalist comrades don't wish to see it. I think it is because you have been mentally conditioned to NOT see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by dokukaeru, posted 10-03-2009 11:01 AM dokukaeru has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 8:50 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 379 by dokukaeru, posted 10-04-2009 8:56 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 381 by dokukaeru, posted 10-04-2009 9:30 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 386 by Evlreala, posted 10-04-2009 12:24 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 377 of 416 (528058)
10-04-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Blue Jay
10-02-2009 9:59 PM


Re: Living and dead fossils
There are many changes that have happened over these millions of years.

But all still clearly identified as 'bats'.

"The evolutionist viewpoint is that defining things into categories is only for convenience in research and communication, not as an accurate assessment of reality."

So evolutionary theory is likened therefore, to a rubber band which stretches the truth any way the adherents wish to stretch it. So we have our very first 'bat'(Onychonycteris finneyi) appearing abruptly in the fossil record followed by all else which are ALL described as 'bats' (order chiroptera) and none have revealed a branch of the tree of life that has become another kind of organism...and somehow we are supposed to accept THAT(?) as evidence for evolution of the bat?

If however, we had seen a slow and gradual development of the bat into something like:

...or this:

then you might have a case. It was argued by another poster that the evolution doesn't 'predict' that bats would evolve into 'cat/bats'. O.K. But not only do we not find 'cat/bats' or 'man/bats' or any other kind of organismal change since Onychonycteris finneyi, the fact is that there are no 'rat/bats' or 'shrew/bats' in the fossil record preceding Onychonycteris finneyi.

Do you begin to get the picture?

No evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 9:59 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 378 of 416 (528060)
10-04-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi Calyps, it might help if you give your sources a thorough read before linking to them; as opposed to, say, scanning them and cherry-picking quotes that appear to help your case.

quote:
You look at it and say, 'it's a bat, no question

This point is emphasised in the article because all the rest of it is about why this fossil shows significant differences to modern bats. These are key differences because as has been illustrated to you in numerous different ways here, they are intermediate between moderns bats and non-volant (non-flying) mammals -- classic characteristics of a transitional species. I highly recommend Bluejay's Message 362 to Archangel because it's equally pertinent to you:

quote:
What if all scientists in the world agreed to call Onychonycteris something other than "bat"? What would your argument be then? Wouldn't you say something along the lines of, "But it is a 'bat'! See? It has (list diagnostic characters here), so it can't be anything but a bat! And, it's nothing like any other 'kind' of animal because (list diagnostic characters here)."

Why don't you just start with this? Tell us, in detail, all the exact characteristic that makes Onychonycteris a relative of bats, and of nothing else? As Jacortina showed you, our side is doing our part to support our argument that Onychonycteris is related to not only bats, but to other mammals as well.

You're right that we still have a long way to go to make it completely certain, but you're still stuck on, "it looks a lot like a modern bat," so it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize the amount of work that we've accomplished.


Also awaiting a reply is Lithodid-Man's post Message 350, which explains the problems with labelling the fossil in question as "just a bat." Note that Percy is going to make sure that this point is properly addressed, and we're all seeing bats in our sleep, before the topic moves on. That's because jumping to a new argument before the old one is settled is not an honest debate tactic.

Getting back to your link, you said,

quote:
How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability?

Because in the following sentence, the article explains,

quote:
She and her co-authors, however, report that the animal's cochlea (the part of the inner ear that detects air vibrations) is too small for it to have navigated by listening to the echoes of its high-pitched squeals, called echolocation. Also missing are two other bony features that mark echolocating bats: a large protuberance off of the middle ear bone, and a flared tip at the end of a long, skinny bone in the back of its skull.

You went on to say:

quote:
there is nothing in the fossil record since that initial bat fossil to indicate a serious change of bats into another kind of organism.

This fossil shows us the process in action. If you insist on denying this then you really need to address Lithodid-Man's post above. You also might like to keep us entertained by starting a thread about transitional fossils. That's a meatier topic than the (to all intents and purposes) non-topic we're discussing here.

Interestingly, other scientific fields can also investigate evidence for evolution, which is yet another part of this discussion that went totally ignored -- from Message 308: Molecular Biology Fills Gaps in Knowledge of Bat Evolution

quote:
The team, using DNA sequencing, analyzed data from portions of 17 nuclear genes from representatives of all bat families.
Their results support the hypothesis that the group of large fruit-eating bats from the tropics, that fly mostly during the day – known to biologists as megabats – emerged from four major lineages of smaller and more widely dispersed, mostly insect-eating, night-flying bats, known as microbats. These microbats – also known for their highly specialized echolocation – originated about 52 to 50 million years ago during a lush period of significant global warming in a region that is now North America.

What's more, it seems that a single mutation might have been responsible for a relatively rapidly evolved ability to fly:
Rogue Finger Gene Got Bats Airborne

Note that this article was published in 2004, before the information about the onychonycteris fossil was published. So where it talks about a lack of transitional fossils, the author was not yet aware of the one we've been discussing. I will repeat my earlier question to you, which went unaddressed like 99% of the other questions to you in this thread: what exactly is your deadline for the discovery of transitional fossils? Who decides when it's time to press the buzzer and say, "Time's up"?

It would be really nice to see you attempt to address any of the points made to you here; we've already seen one person leave the thread because it hasn't really risen above the "yes it is/no it isn't" level. Hint: the way to win a debate is to defend your claims. And if you don't win, you might at least win a little respect for trying. On top of that, there's the added bonus of possibly learning something.

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:01 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 379 of 416 (528061)
10-04-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Calypsis4 you have yet to lay out your argument
Hello Calypsis4 and welcome back

Quite frankly, no. Interesting what the folks in Scientific American said about my bat in the topic post

How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability?

It is quite interesting what S.A. says in that article:

She and her co-authors, however, report that the animal's cochlea (the part of the inner ear that detects air vibrations) is too small for it to have navigated by listening to the echoes of its high-pitched squeals, called echolocation. Also missing are two other bony features that mark echolocating bats: a large protuberance off of the middle ear bone, and a flared tip at the end of a long, skinny bone in the back of its skull.

"Given the fact that those are missing, we feel pretty confident this was not an echolocating bat," Simmons says.

If you truly were a science teacher, how can you read that article and not pick up on what I just pointed out to you? If you read that article to your students, would you have only read the selection that you posted. Would you consider that to be intellectually honest?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:39 AM dokukaeru has responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 380 of 416 (528062)
10-04-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Kitsune
10-04-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi Calyps, it might help if you give your sources a thorough read before linking to them; as opposed to, say, scanning them and cherry-picking quotes that appear to help your case.

I did. I said it was Scientific American.

This point is emphasised in the article because all the rest of it is about why this fossil shows significant differences to modern bats

The point's been made time and time again. So why continue to beat this horse, er, bat?

What if all scientists in the world agreed to call Onychonycteris something other than "bat"? What would your argument be then?

1. They won't
2. They can't. Not honestly. That was the point of my posting Scientific American 'it's a bat, no question'. Are we playing with the rubber band again?

Also awaiting a reply is Lithodid-Man's post Message 350, which explains the problems with labelling the fossil in question as "just a bat." Note that Percy is going to make sure that this point is properly addressed, and we're all seeing bats in our sleep, before the topic moves on

I will answer them later today. 'we're all seeing bats in our sleep'? or 'until we all go batty'? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Well, it's been fun.

I appreciate your intellect and friendliness even though we disagree.

Best wishes. Later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 8:50 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 381 of 416 (528063)
10-04-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis4 writes:

dokukaeru:

"...substantial changes"

What changes? Where?

It is slightly unclear from this part as to whether you agree or disagree with my posted definition from Wiki on Biological Evolution:
Could you please say yes or no to that definition and why

Calypsis writes:

Here is a picture of 'A' fossil? 'A' fossil? I have presented a large array of fossils that have living offspring that reveal no evolution and I can easily post a hundred more. I might. You seek to trivialize the matter by saying 'a fossil' ignoring the fact that the preponderance of the evidence is numerous and weighty. In fact you're being deluged with example after example of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

You are missing the point. Yes, I have seen every picture you have posted. You could go on and list a hundred more(but you will run out and most will be incorrect comparisons as has been pointed out)Just like I could go on listing the gravitational acceleration of every celestial body. What you certainly cannot do is show a definition that requires a specific rate of change for evolution. That is where my gravity example differs because gravitational acceleration can be defined by the 2 objects masses and the inverse of the square of the distance between them. That is what i (wrongly) assumed you would say.
Instead I get this:

Calypsis4 writes:

Your comparison of my evidence in living fossils to gravitational acceleration comes down to a level of specificity compared to another level of specificity. Specificity exists in both but one is more minute than the other.

Could you explain this?

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 12:01 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 382 of 416 (528065)
10-04-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by dokukaeru
10-04-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Calypsis4 you have yet to lay out your argument
If you truly were a science teacher, how can you read that article and not pick up on what I just pointed out to you? If you read that article to your students, would you have only read the selection that you posted. Would you consider that to be intellectually honest?

Why would I not? Did you not see my previous statement:

How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability?

I read the whole article. I have it now in front of me on split screen. So you/they are suggesting that other fossil bats who lived during that period HAD echolocation and the bat in question did not? Secondly, I am not convinced that they are correct in their observations.

Interesting that the article also said, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight." Would you explain to the readers how they could know that? Since science is based upon empirical investigation then what empirical findings could they possibly gather from the fossils that would determine such a thing? Secondly, demonstrate how the DNA could develop such a system as echolocation from creatures that had no such genetic capabilities in the first place.

Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by dokukaeru, posted 10-04-2009 8:56 AM dokukaeru has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by dokukaeru, posted 10-04-2009 9:59 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 383 of 416 (528069)
10-04-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Calypsis4 you have yet to lay out your argument
Calypsis4 writes:

So you/they are suggesting that other fossil bats who lived during that period HAD echolocation and the bat in question did not?


The article says this 53 mya bat fossil has indications of NO ECHOLOCATION whereas 50 mya bat fossils have indication OF ECHOLOCATION.

Calypsis4 writes:

Secondly, I am not convinced that they are correct in their observations.


Why not? please explain. You posted the article. You quote mined it to show scientist think it is "just a bat" (your emphasis) instead of (what everyone else here realizes) bat-like but not like extant species.

Calypsis4 writes:

Interesting that the article also said, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight." Would you explain to the readers how they could know that? Since science is based upon empirical investigation then what empirical findings could they possibly gather from the fossils that would determine such a thing?


Key word has been highlighted. It was a proposition, in other words- a hypothesis. Maybe they had some evidence...probably not.

I really appreciate you answering my post
Could you please tell me whether you agree or disagree with Wiki's definition of Biological Evolution
After all, we still dont know if you are talking about the same thing we are talking about.
Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 9:39 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 384 of 416 (528081)
10-04-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by dokukaeru
10-04-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Still No Argument
"Could you please say yes or no to that definition and why."

The definition represents one of the many changes in defintions that evolutionists have made because of the criticism for their theory. But it doesn't help them because no matter how long or slow the changes are we don't find changes from one organism to another. I've clearly illustrated the extent of change that would have to be observed but that has not transpired and the living fossils demonstrate that very clearly. You don't see it because you don't wish to see it.

Yes, I have seen every picture you have posted. You could go on and list a hundred more(but you will run out and most will be incorrect comparisons as has been pointed out)

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.

The science I have given you is objective. You just arbitrarily choose to deny it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by dokukaeru, posted 10-04-2009 9:30 AM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 12:15 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 387 by cavediver, posted 10-04-2009 12:51 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 388 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-04-2009 1:14 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 389 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 1:16 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 385 of 416 (528083)
10-04-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Still No Argument
quote:
But it doesn't help them because no matter how long or slow the changes are we don't find changes from one organism to another.

You are ignoring the information that dozens of posts in this thread have given you.

quote:
Virtually all of them are of the same kind (although different species). The Mosaic 'kind' is closest to 'family'

Onychonycteris, the fossil bat, is a member of an extinct family.

quote:
does not necessarily have exactly the same boundaries as Linneaus.

Please explain how your personal classification system is superior to that of Linnaeus. You have been repeatedly asked to outline your criteria and have not acknowledged the numerous requests for you to do so. Why is onychonycteris "just a bat"? A list of specific morphological criteria for "bat" would be fine.

There is a long list of questions to you on this thread, which you have repeatedly ignored. Please answer them in your next posts.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Kitsune has responded

Evlreala
Member (Idle past 1417 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 386 of 416 (528085)
10-04-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 7:51 AM


Re: Still No Argument
Calypsis4 writes:

Let me illustrate just how strong my position is by pretending to be you and using this illustration:

"Hey Calypsis4, I am going to PROVE to you that the Chevrolet evolved over the years from lower forms to higher ones. Ready?

My first example. A 57 Chevy from the distant past. An actual 1957 Chevy (in 1957):

Now here is the 'proof' that it evolved:
: picture :
And then this:
: picture :
And then this:
: picture :
Now, Calypsis4, these are my 'living fossils'. Do you see the many differences? Don't you see that this is 'proof' that the Chevy evolved?"

For the sake of intellectual honesty, would you please stop using cars (or any inanimate object) for your strawman argument?

Cars do not reproduce, have genetic material to randomly mutate, or do anything in responce to their enviroment or ability to survive. Thus, cars cannot evolve.

Regardless, I believe I got your point.

I think theres a misunderstanding going on here. Are you under the assumption that according to evolutionary biology, once a species evolves, it nessessarily must be noticably morpho-logically different from its parent species? Or that once a species has evolved, it can no longer be catogorized with its predesesing species line?

(Example: ape -> man-like-ape -> man;
..Therefore man is not an ape?)

Im interested to hear your views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 7:51 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 387 of 416 (528090)
10-04-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 12:01 PM


Re: Still No Argument
I've clearly illustrated the extent of change that would have to be observed

No, you have clearly illustrated the extent of change that *you think* should be seen... and given us all a huge laugh in the process. What is clearly illustrated is your complete lack of understanding of science, nevermind evolution. X-Men is not a good guide to understanding how evolution progresses.


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

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2852 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 not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 447 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


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 yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3555 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 390 of 416 (528098)
10-04-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Blue Jay
10-03-2009 12:39 AM


Re: Still No Argument
it's just that creationists don't want to acknowledge that they don't get to dictate which changes should occur under the evolutionary model (only evolution itself is afforded that luxury).

Dictate what? You can't show us ANY change from one organism into another. The truth is you don't know what the fossil bat evolved from and you have no clue if bats branched off into another different organism. All you are talking about are identified by everyone as bats.

So why do I have to make things clearer than that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 12:39 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2009 2:26 PM Calypsis4 has 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