Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 170 of 310 (178357)
01-18-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 8:39 PM


Details please
You keep mentioning some problem with the coelacanth. Could you please explain what this problem is more detail.
The coelacanth has been discussed extensively on this forum and I've never seen anyone (from either side of the evo/creo argument) mention anything that sounds like the sort of thing you're hinting at. I've tried Googling and couldn't come up with anything that looked very likely.
The only detail I can find you've posted so far is Message 116 :
Much similar verbiage was printed about the coelacanth and it was almost universally accepted by evolutionists as having transitional features until live ones were discovered and dissected, revealing none of the previously known proto limbs .
and Message 146 :
The coelacanth is a much better example, in that complete fossilized specimens were incorrectly believed to possess features that "oops, weren't there after all!"
I have an idea what you're talking about, but there's no point in discussing it until I know for sure I'm understanding you right.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 8:39 PM xevolutionist has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 183 of 310 (178430)
01-19-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 11:56 PM


Re: Some concerns about proof
found this, as it turns out, the erroneous conclusion was that it actually walked on it's fins!
I suspected that's what you meant.
This was discussed starting at Message 4 (and the last message referencing the coelacanth was 230, but there was a lot of other stuff going on as well).
There was a long (and not terribly productive) discussion involving Robert Byers. Message 31 from Percy is perhaps the most significant bit in relation to the current thread :
Robert Byers writes:
Whether it was Darwin or his followers it is the history that it was presented as a classic case of a creature that while a fish still had deveoped leglikes that led to its walking on the land. It was presented as proof of a intermidiate creature between land and ocean.
The idea of its extinction was a part of their theory. It didn't die out but rather evolved out. That was their great point.
Loudmouth has already replied to this, but I'd like to comment on another aspect.
It is very common for the theory of evolution to be confused with reconstructions of life's evolutionary past. Reconstructing life's history from the theory of evolution can be likened to reconstructing the solar system's history from the laws of physics. For exaple, we send out space probes to analyze the composition of asteroids, and this information allows as to modify our ideas of the origins of the asteroid belt. But as we change these ideas, the laws of physics remain unchanged.
It is the same for the theory of evolution. As we gather more evidence, our ideas about life's history, for example the evolution of the first land animals, changes. But the theory of evolution remains unchanged. Darwin formulated the theory as variability within a population. natural selection, and descent with modification, and today that is still the theory.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:56 PM xevolutionist has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 217 of 310 (178748)
01-19-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by xevolutionist
01-19-2005 8:11 PM


Re: Walking on fins
If you read the whole transcript you will see that the idea the coelacanth was a transitional between fish and tetrapods only lasted 13 years (1938 to 1951). No further candidate was found until 1981 - and the main thrust of the program was about how new theories on how the transition happened came about as a result of the new fossil evidence. Doubtless as more work is done and more fossils are found/examined the ideas on how fish moved onto land will continue to change.
That's how science works.
I think the crux of this is the quote from Percy I referenced in Message 183 about the theory of evolution being confused with reconstructions of life's evolutionary past. Quoting Percy again :
As we gather more evidence, our ideas about life's history, for example the evolution of the first land animals, changes. But the theory of evolution remains unchanged. Darwin formulated the theory as variability within a population. natural selection, and descent with modification, and today that is still the theory.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by xevolutionist, posted 01-19-2005 8:11 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by xevolutionist, posted 01-21-2005 10:08 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024