Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
35 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,396 Year: 20,432/19,786 Month: 829/2,023 Week: 337/392 Day: 27/41 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
ksc
Unregistered


Message 1 of 96 (9201)
05-03-2002 10:10 PM


Message deleted by ksc

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-04-2002 12:21 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-04-2002 1:12 AM You have responded
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 05-04-2002 10:32 AM You have responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 2 of 96 (9202)
05-04-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ksc
05-03-2002 10:10 PM


Before we continue with this topic, would you please supply a source reference for the material?

Moose

Note by edit - Message 3 duplicated this one, so I deleted it.

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ksc, posted 05-03-2002 10:10 PM ksc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-04-2002 12:42 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18971
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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:

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 yet responded

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18971
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 responded

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

  
ksc
Unregistered


Message 6 of 96 (9214)
05-04-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
05-04-2002 1:12 AM


Message deleted by ksc

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-04-2002 1:12 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-04-2002 8:15 PM You have not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4186 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 96 (9216)
05-04-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ksc
05-03-2002 10:10 PM


Oooh. “Shred the creationist”. My favorite game.
quote:
Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
Living fossils such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs do an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. 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.

I love it when a creationist tries to tell evolutionary biologists or paleontologists what the evidence indicates. Nothing like setting up a straw man to knock down. Wonder where the author got the idea that species only can’t persist relatively unchanged “…but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years.” ? Why not? Every evolutionary biology text written in the last 20 years talks about stasis and punctuated equilibrium. Most include examples even more startling than these few provided here. Trilobites persisted for around 200 million years. Unless you’re a specialist, the 6 orders of trilobites look pretty much the same. Ditto nautiloids. Fairy shrimp (Triops spp.) have been pretty much unchanged since the Silurian. Skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) have been evolutionarily stable for about 8 million years. The list goes on. At the opposite extreme, of course, you have lineages that speciate very rapidly, like the cichlids of Lake Victoria in East Africa ( 400+ species appearing in less than 12,000 years.) We even have species that are “trapped” at the moment of speciation – c.f. the fascinating natural history of Darwin’s 14th finch, Pinaroloxias inornata, which because of a near-total lack of competition has adapted to every conceivable bird-niche on the island. There are finches that eat snails and small arthropods, seed eaters, nectarivores, fructivores, etc. However, they remain freely interbreeding, and no morphological changes have taken place (beak size, for instance, is intermediate between finch and warbler). Each individual juvenile of this species “picks” an adult to emulate – even the adults of a different species. It follows the behavior patterns of the particular adult for a few weeks, or even for its entire life. Why haven’t these myriad behavior patterns developed into distinct, non-interbreeding new species? The island is too small – there is insufficient room for these birds to bud into non-interbreeding populations.

To make a long story shorter, rates of evolution are highly variable. Some lineages seem to speciate very rapidly, others remain relatively unchanged for literally millions of years.

quote:
Some evolutionist will argue that these species found a special “ecological niche” and despite the mutations that would have occurred naturally were somehow not exposed to the pressures presented by normal evolutionary change.

You won’t find a single working ecologist or evolutionist who holds to this explanation for evolutionary stasis. Another creationist attempt to impute their own ignorance to scientists.

Let’s take a look at evolutionary stasis. There are really two related issues here. In the first place, if I might be forgiven an anthropomorphism, natural selection tends to be “conservative” (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). Once a population or species becomes adapted to its environment, natural selection will tend to weed out any misfits. There will, of course, be variation, but it will tend to vary around a mean frequency. This “evolutionary stable strategy” is difficult to upset unless the environmental variables change. 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. I think it is significant, in this context, to remember that Gould and Eldridge were studying marine organisms when they came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium (snails and trilobites, respectively). Once a stasis situation changes, radiation and adaptation occur “rapidly”, as natural selection operates on the remaining population – permitting radiation into new niches created by the change in environment, and favoring those traits that are more adapted. (One of the things we see is that often it’s the non-specialist organism that is favored. The exquisitely fit organism, near-perfectly adapted to the existing environment over eons, simply can’t change quickly enough to survive.)

Finally, it needs to be remembered that once a species or lineage has acquired an effective isolating mechanism of some kind, it may NOT materially change over millions of years – no reason for it to. All the species with which the “living fossils” (what a silly term – like saying “living rock”) shared their original ecosystems have either changed beyond recognition OR gone extinct. Why the genotype of a particular species like the horseshoe crab (Limulus) managed to maintain itself without substantial change is unknown – at this time – but there’s a whole subspecialty of evolutionary developmental biology that is working on the issue. My current favorite hypothesis is a combination of normalizing selection (which also operates on fast speciating lineages) and an as-yet-unidentified inherent property of certain genotypes that allows them to “resist” mutation – the key element in producing variability in a population. Please note: “resist” may indicate either very efficient error correction at the DNA level, or an extremely delicate organism that simply is unable to survive a “normal” level of mutation hence MORE vulnerable to negative selection, or something I haven’t thought of yet. It doesn’t mean there’s something teleological going on here…

quote:
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.

Despite this catastrophic event it is amazing that the evolutionist still claim that these living fossils conformed to their very own particular ecological niche. Some how they were able to pass through this world wide niche changing catastrophic event at the K/T boundary. It was at this time, 65 million years ago, that the evolutionist claim that 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings on the land, in the skies and under the seas were wiped out forever. It’s interesting to note that each of the above mentioned living fossils are claimed to have pre-dated this catastrophic event by tens of million years with virtually no change prior to or after the catastrophic event.


Actually, our little shrimp may have survived three – Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous – mass extinction events. My question is, so what? Most major classes had survivors – even of the incredibly devastating Permian extinction which almost cancelled the entire experiment in life of this planet. Crocodiles* survived the Alvarez event? 80% of their relatives didn’t. In all mass extinctions, there appears to be a very strong element of “chance” that allows some lineages to survive relatively intact, while others disappear forever.

Sarcosuchus imperator[/i], the entire family Atoposauridae, and Simosuchus clarkii are all extinct crocodilians. There are currently 23 living species – which ones are you claiming have survived since before the K-T event?)

The obvious follow-up question:

quote:
Certainly after an event such as the supposed mass extinction mentioned above, the changed environment, disappearing food chains on land and in the seas, tsunamis crashing into continents, fire scorched landscapes, sun blocked “winters” etc. would have caused the tempo of evolution to increase all over the surface of globe and under the seas. This increased evolutionary tempo would have allowed for the selection of new beneficial mutations while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental biomes created on the land and under the seas.

The answer goes back to differential rates of speciation among different lineages. “Increased evolutionary tempo” is somewhat misleading. It took nearly 20 million years for biodiversity to recover from the K-T Alvarez event, nearly 100 million for the recovery following the Permian and Triassic events (since the T-J mass extinction occurred while the planet was still recovering from the P-T event). Life was severely impoverished for a very long time following the major catastrophes. In each case, organisms that were superlatively evolved and dominant disappeared, others survived. Of the survivors, differential evolutionary rates explain why some lineages were able to radiate rapidly, whereas others remained relatively unchanged.

quote:
Despite the argument that time coupled with mutations, and the normal pressures of evolutionary change should have been more than enough to introduce major morphological change into the living fossils. Considering the above, the event surrounding the K/T boundary and the massive change to the earth and the insignificant changes to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.

Errr, no. See above.

quote:
To perplex the issue even more, besides the mutational/natural selective changes mentioned above that should have occurred during the last 65 million years there is yet another mechanism that the evolutionist claim introduces major morphological changes into animals. This mechanism is Genetic Drift. Apparently in the last 65 million years this process also produced no significant change where according to their theories a considerable change should have occurred to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs as their niches were upset.

Except that genetic drift is only evident among small populations with no gene flow or immigration. There’s also non-random mate and kin selection, intraspecific competition, etc. The only people “perplexed” are creationists who haven’t bothered to try and understand evolution.

quote:
The evolutionist say that change does happen. Shortly after the catastrophic event that supposably happened 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, in a period of less than 50 million years a four legged wolf like animal Andrewsarchus (or what ever the latest evolution scenario is) is claimed to have evolved into a sleek sea creature. In this time period Andrewsarchus lost its legs as they turned into flippers, developed a spout with a new breathing system that contained special valves for shutting the nostrils, echo location system, blubber and other whale like features.....all while the living fossil Crocodile watched from the swamp as the Tuatara peeped his head out of his borrow under the shade of a the Ginko tree and Wollemi Pine. Meanwhile, the Horseshoe crabs scurried along the bay floors and the Coelacanth swam by in the oceans and didn't change outside of normal genetic variations ...despite the mutations and genetic drift that would have occurred over the millions of years as the species felt the massive environmental change to the fauna in it’s biome at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that the evolutionist tell us happened 15 million years prior.

What’s your point? I already covered this.

quote:
The existence of the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs are great example of creation. It shows that animals reproduce after their “kind” and don’t really change in the fashion in which the evolutionist claim. It seem as if the DNA and genetic code for the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs has been resistant to change through out it’s history....as expected.

Of course, all the other 13 million extant species changed, but why bother inserting facts into a good polemic? Okay, so we have maybe a dozen species overall out of millions whose morphology hasn’t significantly changed for millions of years. This is somehow supposed to refute evolution?

Creationists really need to get some new arguments.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 1:01 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18971
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 yet responded

  
ksc
Unregistered


Message 9 of 96 (9230)
05-05-2002 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
05-04-2002 10:32 AM


Message deleted by ksc

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 05-04-2002 10:32 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 05-05-2002 5:14 AM You have responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4186 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 96 (9231)
05-05-2002 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ksc
05-05-2002 1:01 AM


Ahh, the typical creationist handwave – unable to refute the evidence provided – or even understand it - they merely “wave it away”.
quote:
Quetzal, whith all due respect, you wrote a lot but really didn't say much.

It is quite apparent that you didn’t even read the post, if this is the only response you can come up with. I merely refuted point-by-point everything you (or whoever) wrote in that polemic. It doesn’t help your case to simply ignore the counterarguments.

quote:

All you did was explain what you thought happened. You never explained how it actually happened.

Au contraire, I very carefully explained evolutionary stasis, using the mechanisms we observe in living ecosystems. Unless you’re able to show how evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, ecologists, etc are wrong, all you’ve succeeded in doing is making baseless assertions.

quote:

That's the major problem with evolution...the assumption is presented as face over and over agin untill they finally believe it.

And that’s the major problem with creationists – unable to counter the weight of evidence on the side of modern science, they resort to “argument from incredulity and pseudo-intellectual appeals to ignorance. I assume your target audience with that little screed are those who have little grounding in or understanding of science?

quote:
Onve again I presented 3 reasons why those animals and plants should have changed. They didn't .

Okay, I’ll play. Let’s take a look at those three “reasons”.

quote:
1. The normal mutation path of the living fossils over the millions upon millions of years. It should be noted that if the fitness of the animal didn't increase then the non-benificial mutations that certainly would have accumulated over the millions upon millions of years would certainly have produced some sort of change in the other direction.

Where did you come up with this assertion? Care to provide any evidence to back it up? I’d be especially interested in where you get the concept of “normal mutation path”. I noted “normalizing selection” (look up the words if you don’t understand what this means) is a well-established evolutionary mechanism. RM&NS can quite easily maintain the “status quo” in either lineages or individual species. Since variables such as source-sink equilibrium, turnover pulse, ESS, coordinated stasis, CAS, differential selection pressures, etc, all effect the rate of evolutionary change, it is quite evident that mutation is NOT the only – or even the principal – mechanism for mean phenotypical change in a population. All mutation does is generate the individual variability upon which natural selection operates. Normalizing selection quite easily eliminates both deleterious and beneficial mutations.

For example, paleontologists have documented eight successive intervals of coordinated stasis in the Middle Paleozoic of the eastern US (total time about 45-55 million years). During these intervals, lasting roughly 5-7 million years each, between 70-85% of the extant species are present throughout the interval. However, only about 20% make it unchanged through to the next interval. The pattern that is observed in nature – rather than the pattern you WANT to observe - is great ecological stability (with concurrent evolutionary stability in both plant and animal species), followed by disruption/discontinuity of ecosystems with high rates of extinction, followed by rapid radiation and proliferation of descendant species. Mass extinctions, because of the extreme global disruption, are simply this pattern writ large.

quote:
2) The natural occuring genetic drift that the evolutionist claim would have occured over the many mullions upon millions of years.

This assertion is simply wrong. Genetic drift only effects small, isolated populations. Not large, heterogenous, globally occurring populations such as Limulus. Genetic drift also does not normally produce major phenotypical change – although it can produce both new species and phyletic change within a particular lineage.

This brings me to another point. You are also conflating two completely different concepts here and in your main article. 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. Guess what? Both ideas are completely wrong.

quote:
3) The tempo of evolution was increased ..they say....about 65MY ago. My post mentioned the changes to the erths biomes.

What’s your point? The tempo DID increase – just as it did after each mass extinction event. Just as it does at the local level following local extinctions or environmental change. If you read my post, you’d know that. Mammalian radiation, for example, “skyrocketed” after the K-T extinction (if you consider 20 million years skyrocketing). This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the persistence of certain lineages. Just what point are you trying to prove?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 1:01 AM ksc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ksc, posted 05-05-2002 10:39 AM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 05-05-2002 5:35 PM Quetzal has responded

  
ksc
Unregistered


Message 11 of 96 (9238)
05-05-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Quetzal
05-05-2002 5:14 AM


Message deleted by ksc

[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 05-05-2002 5:14 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 05-05-2002 11:59 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 05-05-2002 6:15 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-05-2002 10:05 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 05-07-2002 4:32 AM You have not yet responded

    
edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 96 (9241)
05-05-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ksc
05-05-2002 10:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
The living fossils SHOULD have evolved. They didn't.

Can you show us anywhere in the theory of evolution that says a particular species MUST evolve? Sure, you can dream up any number of reasons why an organism MIGHT evolve, but that does not mean that it WILL evolve. The whole point is that we have direct evidence that some did not evolve significantly through one or more extinction events. For some reason they were immune or remote from the effects, or adapted in some way. What is so hard about that for you to understand? Or were you just told by your professional creationists that this is a "BIG PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTION?" This fact is perfectly accommodated by the theory of evolution. Just what is your point?

And just what the heck is a "normal mutation" path? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.


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

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 96 (9245)
05-05-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Quetzal
05-05-2002 5:14 AM


I have been lurking here for at least six months, but had to jump in when I saw that my old buddy "ksc" (AKA Karl, Karl Crawford, and kc) was posting.

Folks, I should warn you that you are all out of your depth here. You can not win an argument with kc. You don't believe me? He's quite famous actually. Go to Google and do a search of "Karl Crawford" and "Creationism". Many people have accounts of their frustrations in dealing with him. Personally, I engaged him at CARM, NAIG, and the old OCW (under a different persona). I found the experience to be very, very frustrating, and so I finally gave it up. I have also seen others engage him with no success.

The key problem is that logic and common sense are totally thrown out the window (as you probably surmised from his responses thus far). He will post the same argument over and over, regardless of how many times you rebut it. He KNOWS that he is right and you are wrong, so any apparent points that you make in your favor are disregarded, since they can't possibly be correct.

Incidentally, if you want to see something truly comical, see his debate at OCW (mostly with Gallo) on the Oklo natural reactor in Gabon. He just kept repeating the same thing over and over, despite being shown multiple times that he was wrong. You will find a few more similar documented examples in you do the Google search. Here's the link:

http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3cd5952004b6ff ff;act=ST;f=26;t=65;st=0

Anyway, good luck debating him. Don't say I didn't warn you!

FK

[This message has been edited by Fedmahn Kassad, 05-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 05-05-2002 5:14 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 05-05-2002 6:52 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 05-06-2002 2:03 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3509 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 96 (9247)
05-05-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ksc
05-05-2002 10:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
The living fossils SHOULD have evolved. They didn't.

How do you know they didn't?

Your are equating morphological change with evolution as a whole, evolution is the change in allele frequency over time & doesn’t necessarily a mean morphological change. Alleles may have been lost, gained, neutral mutations fixed & lost, even chromosome number & composition changes, all without major morphological change. This is all evolution, if the ceolocanth is morphologically well adapted to it's environment, then anything that changes that will be negatively selected against, maintaining the status quo.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 96 (9248)
05-05-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Fedmahn Kassad
05-05-2002 5:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
I have been lurking here for at least six months, but had to jump in when I saw that my old buddy "ksc" (AKA Karl, Karl Crawford, and kc) was posting.

Folks, I should warn you that you are all out of your depth here. You can not win an argument with kc. You don't believe me? He's quite famous actually. Go to Google and do a search of "Karl Crawford" and "Creationism". Many people have accounts of their frustrations in dealing with him. Personally, I engaged him at CARM, NAIG, and the old OCW (under a different persona). I found the experience to be very, very frustrating, and so I finally gave it up. I have also seen others engage him with no success.

...


Thanks for the heads up. I think that several of us have seen karl coming for some time now, though I have to admit that he's kept a low profile for at least a few days. I'm sure we'll see the old KC any time now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 05-05-2002 5:35 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 05-05-2002 11:34 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18971
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


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 yet 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