Living fossils expose evolution

Since Calypsis is claiming that it's an example of an unchanged form, saying that it's not a very good example of a transitional form is rather damning it with faint praise.As to whether it's transitional --- yes, it is. It's not the sort of intermediate form that we'd find most interesting, which I suppose would be a gliding form, but it does have primitive features, such as the five claws, which are not found in any modern bats.

Hi, Calypsis.Don't even start with the insects, man: you have no idea what you're getting into.Here are some features that are used to distinguish closely-related families of insects from one another:

• 3 bristles on an exoskeletal plate instead of 2
• a vein in the wing forks closer to the first notch in the wing than the second notch
• the eyes of the male touch behind the antennae
• the tiny knob underneath the hip joint is triangle-shaped instead of round
• there are 3 pads on the foot, instead of 2 pads and a fat bristle

Incidentally, I count at least 8 differences in the venation of the forewing between the fossil and the first modern species. Would you like me to do a detailed analysis?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Calypsis.Here are two modern water striders from two different genera: Genus Limnoporus
Genus GerrisThey look very similar, don't they?
But, they are clearly different species, and cannot interbreed.And, furthermore, there is no species on this planet in which the length of the legs varies by 200%, as the pictures you presented suggests.This method of "look how similar these two things look" is extremely stupid.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Such as the family Hominidae, for example. Yes, you're right. Who could look at two such obviously similar organisms and doubt that they're related?

Hi Calypsis4,Welcome to EvC!The problem with the "living fossil" argument is that it commits a logical fallacy called a strawman. The ToE doesn't state that all organisms must evolve, so assuming the position that they must isn't arguing against evolutionary theory, but a parody of it.This is all that need be said, arguing about what is & isn't the same as this or that fossil is meaningless because nothing is demonstrated or detracted from the ToE even if they are the same.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I know it is called echolocation: "In emitting high-pitched sounds and listening to resultant echoes, the process used in radar technology, bats are able to locate prey and nearby objects. This is the process known as echolocation, the ability they similarly share with dolphins and whales." WikipediaDon't give me that condescending attitude again or your posts will be ignored.Otherwise, have a nice day.

No it is not a strawman. I can literally post hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of living organisms all day for about two weeks. There are no transitional forms between them and they all appear abruptly in the fossil record.What I am revealing is equivalent of finding no changes between this: and this... So hypothetically, if we could not find in available records the existence of a chain of vehicles between the Model-T and the Lamborghini (or any other car for that matter) then how would we prove to future school students that such a change has occurred? We couldn't. But the fact is we have both written records, photos, and human observation that this change has taken place. But that does not exist in the fossil record. Almost all species appear abruptly in the fossil record with nothing preceding them and nothing following. Evolutionists have to rely mostly on clever artwork and a healthy imagination to arrive at their conclusions.It is a very serious problem and sooner or later you and those like you will have to bite the bullet and admit the reality.

I would say the same about that statement. I am revealing the fact that there has been no evolutionary change...from one kind to another. That is very evident and will continue to be so as I progress through this subject.You can't reveal evolutionary change where there is none.No species that has legs differing by 200%. Oh, but there is. Tigers and cats. They are both feline.

I disagree. Intermembral index - humerus+radius/femur+tibia x 100
Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100Limb ratios for Onychonycteris are pretty clearly between non-flying mammals and modern (or even other fossil) bat species.

But Felix is a genus not a species. Also your entire argument hinges on gross morphological change, which is by no means the be all and end all of evolution.TTFN,WK

Congratulations. Be my guest. Now tell the readers if they are of a different family organism. You and I both know the answer to that. I already listed a few of the differences myself if you read carefully what I posted above. But the essential characteristics of 'kind'(family) are all intact. There isn't anything you can do about it.

"Also your entire argument hinges on gross morphological change, which is by no means the be all and end all of evolution."Then show the readers 'gross morphological' change between bats and whatever rodent type creature came before it. Show us 'gross morphological change' since the fossil bat posted above and modern bats. Show us 'gross morphological change' of the dog, or cow, or even bacteria.Let me show you the gravity of your problem: U Cal at Berkeley labs admit that this '3.5 billion yr old' fossil bacteria is little different than its modern offspring? Why? I'll tell you why; because evolution does not exist and never did. Bacteria can change within its kinds but it always remains bacteria. Drosophilas change within their kind but always remain drosophila. Sus Scrofa's change within their kind but always remain Sus Scrofa's. Equidae (horses) also change but never beyond the family of equidae and there is nothing in the fossil record revealing such a change. What we find is this: You might as well get used to it because this is the reality of our present world. The day will come when evolution will be the laughing stock of the whole world. No one will believe in it.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by Admin, : Place 2nd image on a white background for improved appearance.

As to whether it's transitional --- yes, it is. It's not the sort of intermediate form that we'd find most interesting, which I suppose would be a gliding form, but it does have primitive features, such as the five claws, which are not found in any modern bats. That is not really an honest assessment. I did not say any of them were 'not a very good example' of a transitional. I said there 'were not' any examples, period.The bat, being my first and best example is perhaps the easiest to illustrate in the terrible weakness that evolution has in revealing its influence on nature (which I maintain never occurred). It is easy to find fossils of bats and fossils of rodents but nowhere do we find the stages in between. I challenge anyone on this thread to find them.

I missed the bit where you pointed out the problem. Perhaps you could try again. Ah yes ... "the day will come". The legend of the day when creationists will finally be proven right has been passed down from creationist to creationist ... from generation to generation ... the day will come when you have a scrap of a scintilla of a shred of a shard of evidence on your side. As is written in the prophecy.Meanwhile, until that glorious day comes, scientists will go on thinking that creationism is crap.

Hi Calypsis,If you use [thumb] instead of [img] then you can control the width of your images. When they get wider than 600 pixels then [thumb] is preferred because you can set the width, e.g., [thumb=600]. You click on the image to display at full size. Here's a [thumb] of one of your images: --Percy