Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 96 (9204)
05-04-2002 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
05-04-2002 12:21 AM


Found basically the same argument in very similar words over at CARM posted by someone with the ID "karl" back in '98, perhaps it's the same person:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/fossils_coccoliths.htm
--Percy
[Fixed URL. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-04-2002 12:21 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 05-08-2002 10:17 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 96 (9208)
05-04-2002 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ksc
05-03-2002 10:10 PM


ksc writes:

The question is, how did these living fossils...animals and plants ...survive the many millions upon millions of years with virtually no change? Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years.
Evolution predicts that species will adapt to changes in the environment. If the environment doesn't change then neither will the species. The dramatic environmental changes of the K-T event drove many changes, among them evolution and extinction, but also migration. Species that survived the most difficult period immediately after the impact needn't "evolve or die" if a) their region returned to normal or close enough to normal before they went extinct; or b) they were able to migrate to another region more amenable to their survival.

According to the old earth uniformitarian theory the whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when a big time major world wide ecological niche changing event happened after a meteorite slammed into the earth, ...but, some how, species such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs apparently weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event.
Just as a coin coming up heads 10 times in a row has no effect on the probably of tossing heads once again, the antiquity of a species is unrelated to the effect on it of a dramatic environment change. The coelacanth, the tuatara and the rest were no more or less likely than any other species to go extinct after the asteroid strike.
And naturally they *were* affected. The period immediately after the strike was likely difficult for all species, but as the earth began to recover some species would benefit from the opening of new ecological niches, while others would suffer due to the environmental changes and to competition from new rivals. Which category each species you listed falls into is open to speculation, though in some cases fossil evidence is informative. For example, before the K-T extinction the coelacanth was common, while now it is restricted to only a small number of tiny areas in and about the Indian Ocean.
Certainly the stress of dramatic environmental change would be a primary force for evolution. The K-T event drove the dinosaurs into extinction, and mammals evolved into many of their ecological niches, including the first primates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ksc, posted 05-03-2002 10:10 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ksc, posted 05-04-2002 10:10 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 96 (9229)
05-04-2002 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ksc
05-04-2002 10:10 AM


ksc writes:

In my above post I provided three methods that should have produced change in the living fossils.
Around 65% of species went extinct after the K-T event. That means that 35% of species passed through the K-T event unchanged.
Why do you believe that species that had exhibited little to no change for millions of years prior to the K-T event were in some way prohibited from being members of the 35% of species that passed through the K-T event unchanged?
Why do you think that species of great antiquity could not avoid your "three methods" when 35% of species did precisely that?

Perhaps they were not expected to go extinct..but they should have changed.
Why? 35% of species didn't change after the K-T event. Again, why were the ancient species required to change?
The bottom line here is that roughly 35% of species survived the K-T event. There is no particular reason why gingkoes and crocodiles and so forth couldn't be members of that 35%.

According to recent evolutionary theories the first primated lived at the same time as the dinosaurs just prior to the K/T.
According to recent fossil evidence (this year), primates evolved within 10 million years after the K-T event. There is no evidence of primates prior to the K-T boundary.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ksc, posted 05-04-2002 10:10 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 96 (9250)
05-05-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ksc
05-05-2002 10:39 AM


Did your quoted sections get out of phase perhaps? There's an edit button you can click to modify your post.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 10:39 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 96 (9320)
05-07-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ksc
05-07-2002 2:53 PM


The guidelines state that one shouldn't personalize the debate, but there *are* such things as trolls on the Internet, and warnings about them are generally appreciated. Joe was warning us that you have a history of ignoring rational arguments, which is fairly trollish behavior.
But you have a fairly clean slate here, and most here probably don't already know you and so have no negative preconceptions. You could show us that Joe and Fedmahn Kassad are wrong, but so far you're simply proving them right. Instead of addressing the rebuttals you're simply repeating your original points. In fact, as I noted earlier, you're still making precisely the same points you made over at CARM four years ago.
Somewhere on my list of things to do is to update the guidelines to address the issue of debating in bad faith. It usually comes down to ignoring rebuttals while restating the original points unchanged.
--Percy
   Evc Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ksc, posted 05-07-2002 2:53 PM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 30 of 96 (9346)
05-08-2002 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ksc
05-08-2002 12:53 AM


Hi, Karl!
Your last three posts contributed nothing of substance to the debate. There's nothing wrong with having some fun taking content-free potshots at the opposition, but at some point you have to begin addressing the rebuttals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 12:53 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 12:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 96 (9354)
05-08-2002 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mark24
05-08-2002 5:15 AM


What I would add, in case it hasn't yet been explained clearly enough to Karl, is that the coelacanth *does* experience a normal mutation rate. The coelacanth has experienced a normal amount of mutations (for that particular species) since the K-T event. But given its stable environment, mutations evolving it away from its current well adapted form would be filtered out (ie, individuals expressing the mutation would be less likely to have offspring to which to pass it on).
I'd like to see Karl address the question of why, given that 35% of species passed through the K-T boundary unchanged, that the coelacanth couldn't do the same. I try to make a discussion no more complex than necessary, and it seems that there's really no need to examine mutation rates, natural selection arguments, K-T envirnomental changes and so forth. If many other species could do it, why not the coelacanth?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 05-08-2002 5:15 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 12:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 37 of 96 (9361)
05-08-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ksc
05-08-2002 12:03 PM


Jousting with the administrator won't get you anywhere. You can get a clue or get lost.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 12:03 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 1:09 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 96 (9384)
05-08-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ksc
05-08-2002 3:04 PM


Hi Karl,
I'm administering you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. As someone noted above, there's been only one previous suspension here, and that was of an evolutionist. See you tomorrow.
If you'd like to discuss your suspension via email I can be reached at admin@. Or just click on the "Contact Us" link.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 3:04 PM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 96 (9411)
05-08-2002 8:55 PM


The forum guidelines request that members exhibit respect for others, refrain from personalizing the debate, and stay focused on the issues. I think we've said enough about Karl for now, especially given that he can't respond until tomorrow afternoon.
I followed the links people posted to information about Karl's participation at other boards, and there is no doubt in my mind that he's a troll. That's why I moved so quickly to give him a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. But his participation here has been very short and his offenses thus far very meager, and I'm convinced he is unable to perceive the trollish side of his behavior. He may be a troll, but I believe he is an honest troll.
I'm not so naive as to believe it likely that Karl will comport himself differently here, but I strongly believe he should be given every opportunity to do so. It is therefore my fervent wish and hope that Karl will be accorded every respect upon his return. I'm now aware of his history, I truly appreciate being informed about him, but I don't think we need any further posts about Karl's activities elsewhere, or any further criticisms of his behavior here.
When Karl returns please welcome him cordially, leaving enforcement of the forum guidelines to the moderator.
Thank you all!
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 54 of 96 (9432)
05-09-2002 3:23 PM


ksc's posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 96 (9501)
05-11-2002 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:39 AM


ksc writes:

...perhaps you should have followed the coelacanth post I presented.
I'm not sure which of your posts you're referring to, but in looking back through this thread there appears to be much that you haven't addressed regarding the pace of evolution:
Quetzal in message 7 writes:

When an ESS experiences disequilibrium, the population either adapts (by NS favoring the expression of all those suppressed alleles), moves (habitat tracking), or goes extinct (crash). In the latter two cases, we’ll see an abrupt disappearance of a species from a particular geological site.
...
The other related issue is the fact that, in an environment that doesn’t change much over very loooong periods of time, an ESS — once achieved — will favor those populations best adapted to that environment. In places like the ocean, where conditions are pretty invariant, this apparent stasis can last millions of years — basically until something relatively drastic occurs to cause change.

Percy in message 8 writes:

The bottom line here is that roughly 35% of species survived the K-T event. There is no particular reason why gingkoes and crocodiles and so forth couldn't be members of that 35%.
Quetzal in message 10 writes:

You are confusing phyletic evolution (change in the characteristics of a single lineage — which is what you are arguing against) with speciation. Simply because a single lineage does not significantly change over time, doesn’t mean it didn’t give rise to other species. Your strawman here is the dual implicit claim that orthogenesis is somehow a foundation of evolutionary theory (not for the last 100 years, at least ), and that somehow speciation requires the extinction of the parent species.
Mister Pamboli in message 26 writes:

Firstly, the living coelecanth has evolved. 250 million years ago they were small to moderate size fish (upto about 60cm long), had no indication of viviparity and about a third of species were freshwater dwellers. Later specimens can be much larger. Today the only surviving coelacanths are deep sea fish, growing up to 2m and are viviparous.
I thoroughly recommend the following paper: Yokoyama, S. and Tada, T. (2000) Adaptive evolution of the African and Indonesian coelacanths to deep-sea environments.
The bradytely (slow rate of evolution) of the coelecanth does little, if anything, to undermine the theory of evolution. A period of rapid mutation, settling into a much longer period of slow mutation is exactly what one would expect from a model of efficient adaptation to a relatively stable environment. The architectural stability of the coelecanth genome is further attested by the measured genetic drift between the two main populations African and Indonesian populations of living specimens - the species have drifted to the point where it is not known if they can interbreed, yet remain morphologically all but identical. The genome of the coelecanth appears to be architecturally stable - and again, pleiotropic constraints on mutation is exactly what one would expect of a species mutated to a stable environment.

If your answer is to claim you've already addressed these issues then I don't think this board is for you. People who feel they have the answers are usually eager to repeat them at every opportunity, and in my judgement (which is the one that counts around here), claiming you've already answered something and refusing to elaborate is a rhetorical device intended to stymie debate and discussion. Since this is a debate board, such behavior is anathema to our raison d'etre and will not be permitted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 73 of 96 (9507)
05-11-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by mark24
05-11-2002 5:30 AM


mark24 writes:

Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.?
This isn't a critical factor in this discussion, since the main point is Karl's assertion that evolution prohibits stasis, but in the name of accuracy, and as Mister Pamboli has already stated in message 26, the coelacanth *has* evolved quite a bit over the past 340 million years. A few facts:
  • To be technically accurate, the fish we're talking about is actually the Latimeria chalumnae. The complete classification:
    Kingdom: Anamilia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
    Order: Coelacanthini
    Family: Sarcopterygii
    Genus: Latimeria
    Species: chalumnae
  • Latimeria chalumnae is the only known extant species representing an order, the Coelacanthini, that was once thought to have become extinct in the Cretaceous because no fossils from more recent periods have ever been found.
  • The modern coelacanth's closest known relatives, species of the genus Macropoma such as Macropoma lewesiensis, went extinct about 70 million years ago in the Cretaceous. No fossil of Latimeria chalumnae has ever been found.
  • It isn't the species coelacanth which has survived for 340 million years, but rather the order Coelacanthini, of which Latimeria chalumnae is the only known living representative. For this reason, use of the popular term "coelacanth" is both misleading and insufficiently accurate for this debate.
These facts indicate that Karl's assertion that the coelacanth is an example of a species surviving unchanged for hundreds of millions of years is simply wrong.
It is easy to see where one could pick up this misimpression, because most popular articles about the coelacanth describe it as virtually unchanged from its Devonian relatives. For example, the picture of Macropoma lewesiensis is part of an article that says, "The skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths."
Use of the term "virtually identical" is misleading - just look at the pictures. By "virtually identical" the article only means "very similar", which is why they're classified in the same order. Had they actually been identical then they'd have been classified as the same species.
--Percy
[Edited to fix the link to the picture. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 05-11-2002 5:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 10:35 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 05-11-2002 12:21 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 81 by wj, posted 05-12-2002 9:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 90 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-27-2002 6:01 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 96 (9520)
05-11-2002 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ksc
05-11-2002 10:35 AM


ksc writes:

Notice: Untill the evos present realistic answers to the questions as to why the Coelacanth and the other living fossils have not changed I will terminate this discussion and present the topic again at a later date when an answer could possibly be presented.
I thought you were demanding an apology from me because you don't do things like this. You claimed you were falsely accused of such behavior, yet here you go again, once more violating rule 2.
Have another 24-hour suspension, Karl. See you tomorrow. Oh, by the way, don't expect prompt reinstatement on Sundays.
Once again, I am available at admin@ if there's anything you'd like to discuss.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 10:35 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 80 of 96 (9546)
05-12-2002 3:16 PM


Karl's (ksc's) posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ksc, posted 05-12-2002 9:56 PM Percy 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