Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 11:49 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 391 of 416 (528099)
10-04-2009 1:25 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.

So there is no actual basis for how you would classify things. You can make any determination you want and do not feel you need to justify or show evidence.

As far as I know there is no complete "mosaic" classification of all the species of the earth. Therefore, unless you can provide a comprehensive, hierarchical listing of species then your claims of "kind" have no legitimacy. All your claims are based on personal bias and assumptions, nothing else.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
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 394 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:38 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 392 of 416 (528100)
10-04-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Kitsune
10-04-2009 12:15 PM


Re: Still No Argument
You are ignoring the information that dozens of posts in this thread have given you.

The information, dearest, is about bats. The information, friend, is about those organisms that are of the same kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 12:15 PM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 1:35 PM Calypsis4 has responded

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 393 of 416 (528101)
10-04-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Still No Argument
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is. I find this disturbing, given your alleged background. It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion.

Once more, with feeling: this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:46 PM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:52 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 394 of 416 (528102)
10-04-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Theodoric
10-04-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Still No Argument
So there is no actual basis for how you would classify things. You can make any determination you want and do not feel you need to justify or show evidence.

As far as I know there is no complete "mosaic" classification of all the species of the earth. Therefore, unless you can provide a comprehensive, hierarchical listing of species then your claims of "kind" have no legitimacy. All your claims are based on personal bias and assumptions, nothing else.

What God revealed as 'kind' in Genesis and in the law of Moses is legitimate whether you wish to regard it so or not. The legitimacy of divine revelation about what God created doesn't depend upon human approval. The boundaries of 'kind' are seen in Leviticus and Deuteronomy but in a much different way than Linneaus and others designated.

The authors of the living fossils from whom I derived the evidence revealed organisms that were closely related, at least most of them.

But since you don't believe I have legitimacy in the first place and you don't believe anything in scripture, then why waste your time communicating with me any further? Explain yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 10-04-2009 1:25 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 395 of 416 (528104)
10-04-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Kitsune
10-04-2009 1:35 PM


Re: Still No Argument
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is...It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion.

At your discretion.

Why don't you stop attacking me and be honest enough to deal with the issue? There are no transitional changes in biological organisms from one kind to another! Even if evolution did exist (it doesn't) then it would operate in violation of natural law to begin with.

I find this disturbing, given your alleged background.

Just call me an interested researcher and let it go at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 1:35 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 396 of 416 (528105)
10-04-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Kitsune
10-04-2009 1:35 PM


Re: Still No Argument
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is...It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion.

At your discretion.

Why don't you stop attacking me and be honest enough to deal with the issue? There are no transitional changes in biological organisms from one kind to another! Even if evolution did exist (it doesn't) then it would operate in violation of natural law to begin with.

I find this disturbing, given your alleged background.

Just call me an interested researcher and let it go at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 1:35 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Admin, posted 10-04-2009 2:18 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 397 of 416 (528112)
10-04-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 1:52 PM


Re: Still No Argument
Hi Calypsis4,

In looking over today's posts it looks like you're done responding to the rebuttals about bats, but I wanted to check with you to make sure. For instance, at one point you said you do not accept the echo location evidence, but you didn't provide any counter-evidence or give any rationale, and there were other points that you rejected in the same way. Is this where you want to leave it? Because if so, I'm going to ask for people to post summations, after which I'll close the thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:52 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 398 of 416 (528114)
10-04-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 1:23 PM


Bat Evolution
Hi, Calypsis.

Calypsis4 writes:

You can't show us ANY change from one organism into another.

I know of a fair number of changes that happened between my parents and myself, and a fair number that occurred between the winged and wingless fruit fly colonies in my lab, and between brussel sprouts and broccoli (which are the same species of plant), so your statement is obviously far too broad.

These patterns of trait distribution between generations mesh seemlessly with larger patterns of trait distribution between species and higher groups of organisms, leading me to suspect that they are caused by the same phenomenon.

That, good sir, is why you need to clarify it more.

As evolutionary biologists, we dedicate our entire careers to clarifying our position and gathering more evidence to support it. Why is it too much to ask of you to do the same?

-----

Calypsis4 writes:

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.

I didn't claim otherwise.

Though, I will now claim otherwise by saying that I'm reasonably confident that bats did not branch off into another different organism.

But, you can't base your argument on what I don't know: you have to base it on what you do know.

-----

Calypsis4 writes:

All you are talking about are identified by everyone as bats.

And I just got done telling Archangel why I think this is a meaningless observation. You obviously missed it, so I'll attach it here:

Bluejay writes:

Onychonycteris is related to such animals as Pipistrellus pipistrellus (the common pipistrelle bat) and Dyacopterus brooksi (the Brooks' Dyak fruit bat). The exact nature of the relationship, and of its relationship to any other organisms, is not well understood.

That is the proper statement of the evolutionist viewpoint. As a creationist, you will insist that this means Onychonycteris is a member of the "bat" kind. But, as soon as you begin arguing that our calling it a "bat" somehow supports creationism, you are only arguing semantics.

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

Source: Message 362

And, from the message you responded to:

Bluejay writes:

I said that "species" and "kinds" categories are used as means to facilitate communication and understanding among scientists, and not as a device for explaining perfect evolutionary relationships.

Source: Message 373

Will you please now explain to me (and to everyone else) why you think everybody identifying Onychonycteris as a "bat" is a meaningful observation, rather than assert, once again, that it is so.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 1:23 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 3:04 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3294 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 399 of 416 (528120)
10-04-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Blue Jay
10-04-2009 2:26 PM


Re: Bat Evolution
I know of a fair number of changes that happened between my parents and myself...

Hmm. Were you humans during that change? Are you still human?

and a fair number that occurred between the winged and wingless fruit fly colonies in my lab

Were they ever non-fruit flies either before or after the changes?

That, good sir, is why you need to clarify it more.

No, you need to clarify how the things you mentioned above go beyond mere variation within the kind to a change of one kind of organism into another. None of you have done that, still less have any of you described any kind of scenario as to how it can happen genetically by the DNA to make such changes. Such morphological changes cannot be done even by genetic engineering. All efforts lead to deformations or
hybridization.

Notice this quote from an evolutionist concerning the dragonfly fossil: "Dragonflies are living fossils, having remained unchanged for over 300 million years. The fossil at the right is from the Pennsylvanian Period and is at least 300 million years old. It has a wingspan of 6 1/2 inches and was obviously a member of the clubtail group. Modern clubtails closely resemble this fossil specimen. The first known dragonfly fossil had a wingspan of about 29 inches."

http://www.hinesdragonfly.org/new_page_2.htm

This statement was made by a researcher who was not even involved in the controversy we are now in. I have found scores of statements like this attached to living fossils. Like it or not they speak loudly and clearly of the non-evolution of biological organisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2009 2:26 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Kitsune, posted 10-04-2009 3:29 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 401 by Admin, posted 10-04-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 406 by mark24, posted 10-04-2009 7:34 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 400 of 416 (528123)
10-04-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Bat Evolution
Still continuing with the distractions Calyps?

quote:
you need to clarify how the things you mentioned above go beyond mere variation within the kind to a change of one kind of organism into another. None of you have done that, still less have any of you described any kind of scenario as to how it can happen genetically by the DNA to make such changes.

I think all of us have been tempted to talk about these things but they are off topic here. These are points for discussion in a thread about transitional forms. I hesitate to invite you again to start one though because I fear all we'd hear from you over and over is, "Aren't any." What's more, in typical creationist fashion, you want to move the goalposts regarding the definition of "kind" (i.e. by rejecting the classification system that scientists use without any elucidation).

If you have nothing new to add here, maybe you can do as Percy suggested and sum up?

Bets that we get anything other than "It's a bat!" followed by more pictures of cars?

Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 3:04 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 401 of 416 (528130)
10-04-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 3:04 PM


Summation Time; Calypsis4 Suspended 24 Hours
To everyone,

Summation time. Please only post summations, and do not respond to anyone else's summation. Keep summations dispassionate and focused on the topic, not on your opponents. In other words, tell us why your opponent's arguments failed and yours succeeded, and not about the many harms they committed against you.

Hi Calypsis4. Dragonflies? Well, this is pretty simple. See you tomorrow. You can post your summation then.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 3:04 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Kitsune, posted 10-05-2009 8:26 AM Admin has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(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.


NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 403 of 416 (528139)
10-04-2009 6:06 PM


We have been given pictures like these two cars and comments on how little they have changed:


While behind our astute observer are these cars:



jacortina
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 404 of 416 (528140)
10-04-2009 6:17 PM


Summation
Original post (or posts, rather) along with subsequent writings seem to indicate that the original poster believed that near 'stasis' for numerous organisms constituted a major problem to the Theory of Evolution. This is certainly not the case. Though despite being shown that such retention of form in many cases was predicted all along, he has not acknowledged this.

But it seems that the real point wasn't simply that there were all these forms in the fossil record similar to modern organisms, it was that there was ONLY such evidence - that there are NO cases at all of change (or, at least, no cases of anything greater than change within 'kind'). It remains to be seen whether discussion in a more directly focused topic would be any more fruitful.


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


(5)
Message 405 of 416 (528146)
10-04-2009 7:13 PM


400 Posts and Still None the Wiser
It's quite difficult writing a summation for this thread, since I'm still pretty much in the dark about what Calypsis is actually arguing for. I've asked "Why should we expect to see any particular rate of evolutionary change?" until I just lost the will to live, but I never got an answer. Here then are my answers to some of the arguments that I think Calypsis might possibly have been making.

Living fossils disprove evolution. No they don't. Calypsis has been shown quotes from Darwin to Dawkins showing that this is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. There is nothing about living fossils in and of themselves that is in any way contradictory to the Theory of Evolution.

Living fossils show stasis, so organisms do not evolve. Living fossils show relative stasis in some lineages. They do not show that all organisms are in stasis. Bluejay very clearly explained why we might expect to see stasis in some cases (environmental stasis, geographical isolation, etc.) but he was just brushed off. No attempt has been made to explain why stasis in one lineage should imply stasis in all.

Living fossils prove that there are no transitional fossils. No they don't. If I sit pulling coloured balls out of a bag, it doesn't matter how many white balls (living fossils) I pull out, it won't prove that there are no red balls (transitional fossils). Sure, I could empty the bag, but for this metaphor, that would be equivalent to examining every organism that lives or has ever lived, so it's not an option. It doesn't matter how many living fossils Calypsis shows us, it still doesn't mean that there are no transitional fossils. If Calypsis wants to suggest that there are no transitional fossils, he would be better off trying to directly address the fossils that are actually cited as transitionals.

Living fossils are consistent with biblical "kinds". Yes they are. However for a theory to be considered credible, it must explain all the evidence not just some of it. Living fossils may seem to fit quite nicely with "kinds" (especially if we are as lax as Calypsis has been in defining the ever-changing boundaries of a "kind", which can apparently be equivalent to a family, an order or a single species), but transitional fossils blow the "kinds" idea out of the water. This whole aspect of what-might-be-Calypsis'-argument relies upon focusing on living fossils when the fossilised elephant in the room is the existence of multiple transitional forms.

Look! A dragonfly!! This thread has also been an prime example of the vacuity of the Gish Gallop. Attempts to directly address the issues have met with more pointless pictures acting as distractions from discussion. The responses have been consistently aimed at the least relevant comments. I don't really feel that there has been any discussion in this thread and I can't help but suspect that this is because Calypsis doesn't really understand the argument he is making in the first place.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019