Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 96 (9403)
05-08-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ksc
05-08-2002 1:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Percy, I think you owe me an apology for your false accusations and rude remarks. You accused me and I presented answers. Your reply back to me was "get a clue or get lost?"
Is that anyway for an administrator to moderate a forum? Perhaps I should ask the folks at if that is proper administrator conduct.

Well, that is head and shoulders above the antics at every creationist-run forum that I have visited, where dissent is often responded to by deletion, editing, and banning.
Eh, karl?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 1:09 PM ksc has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 96 (9410)
05-08-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Darwin's Terrier
05-08-2002 2:14 PM


I read through some of your links. That's Karl, no doubt about it. Posting the same arguments over and over, ignoring all rebuttals, and then complaining that nobody can answer his points. On the other hand, when you ask him a question, he gives some vague and implausible response, and after that insists that he already answered that and refuses to provide additional details.
It would be sort of funny, if I didn't know he was dead serious. But as I said, he has been around these debates a long time, and has a long history of this. Don't expect him to go away anytime soon. Just be sure you understand his tactics and make sure you understand his game. He sees himself as a Crusader for Christ, and it is his duty to demolish the claims of all the "atheistic evos". Honest debate is apparently not a prerequisite.
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 05-08-2002 2:14 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 96 (9418)
05-09-2002 3:01 AM


Okay, ksc. Last chance. You claim to have answered everyone’s points. Guess we should take a moment to look over what’s really happened
Quoted sections (Quetzal) are from post #10 on this thread, quoted sections from ksc are from his alleged response on message #11, with current additions.
quote:
ksc: 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.
Quetzal: Where did you come up with this assertion?
Ksc: The assertion comes from "evo facts" . Considering most mutations are harmful or neutral, with most being harmful, and the extremely large amount of time involved, the rvolutionary history of the animal would run counter.
Quetzal: 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
Ksc: This is one of the flaws with evolution. especially over such extremely long periods of time coupled with the reasons provided in my first post there will be no status quo (typos in original)
What on earth are "evo facts"? Is this a textbook, article, journal, website, what?
"No status quo" is a bald assertion on your part with absolutely no evidence. You call this responding? You have not shown that natural selection cannot maintain equilibrium. The fact is that status quo is one of the three possible outcomes to natural selection:
I hope you note from this graphic that phenotypical stability is expected as one of the normal outcomes of natural selection. Now it is incumbent upon YOU to refute this - since it directly challenges your opening assertion that "living fossils must evolve". Provide references.
quote:
Quetzal continuing: 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.
Ksc: As you see you fail to explain why your statement in the above when applied to a species, especialy after millions upon millins of years would not produce evolutionary change (typos in original)
On the contrary, you have been provided the precise mechanisms how such stasis is maintained over quite a long period of time. Perhaps you’d care to show why these mechanisms were incapable of maintaining species relatively unchanged over evolutionary time scales? Your response is another hand-wave. Perhaps you don’t know enough about evolutionary theory and its mechanisms to respond (in which case your OP becomes pretty obviously erroneous)?
quote:
Quetzal: 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.
Ksc: .....perhaps I should ask you for some rferences. Hmmmm
In reality the fossil record is a record of contemporanious animals captured during the world wide flood. (typos in original)
References provided in message # 20 in this thread. Would you care to provide specific evidence that shows a world-wide flood actually occurred? Also, evidence that the fossil record — which extends backwards in time for ~3.5 billion years — indicates that all these organisms were contemporaneous? Of course, you’ll be able to cite specific references?
quote:
ksc: 2) The natural occuring genetic drift that the evolutionist claim would have occured over the many mullions upon millions of years. (typos in original)
Quetzal: 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.
Ksc: My argument involved many reasons to change. Everything from mutations to genetic drift and a changing environment. It's evolutionary theory that backfires when applied to living fossils.
Restating your assertion without addressing my points does not constitute a rebuttal. Care to respond concerning your obvious error on genetic drift? Not to mention the rest of the errors I pointed out.
quote:
ksc: 3) The tempo of evolution was increased ..they say....about 65MY ago. My post mentioned the changes to the erths biomes. (typos in original)
Quetzal: 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?
Ksc: The living fossils SHOULD have evolved. They didn't.
Another restatement of your original bald assertion. Again, you have failed to address the points refuting your post. Try again.
I would say that Percy is absolutely correct. You have neither debated in good faith NOR provided any evidence or argument or answer to anything I — or anyone else - wrote. My suggestion would be to substantively address what has been presented refuting your spurious arguments, or go play with yourself somewhere else.

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 96 (9428)
05-09-2002 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ksc
05-08-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Just for the record:
As of now the evos have not been able to present a reasonable answer as to why the living fossils presented have not changed from the original animal of tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. I have presented just 3 examples as why they should have changed morphologically. You can re-read this thread for examples and explanations of the 3 reasonscand also see where the evo come up short with scientific answers.
The best answer was...they didn't need to change or who said evolution says they have to change.
The evo have had ample of chance to address the issue but have chosen not to.
Instead some have decided to change the topic of the thread.

I think this analogy will validate the answers given.
When you cross a street you can get hit by a bus. If you cross a street 100 million times your chances of getting hit by said bus increase, but not once does the chances of getting hit by a bus increase to 100%. So while there is a chance that the "living fossils" could have mutated, never is there an instance that they HAVE to mutate. I believe this is all covered by basic probability. If I am wrong please tell me why and how, and not with some reply talking about how long they haven't changed.. I've read that same response like 8 times in this thread already.

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

  
scarletohairy
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 96 (9430)
05-09-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ksc
05-07-2002 2:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
I really enjoyed reading the evo responce. For all you out there this is it in a nut shell
"No one says animals have to evolve."
Funny though, even the evo logic dictates that they do. In my post I presented an example of evolution they tell us occurred, (wolf to whale) in a time frame according to evo time frames much shorter than the coelacanth ghas supposedly been around. Image all the mutations that they say would have occcured in all of those millions upon millions of years and the coelacanth is still the same......What's wrong with their pcture? They want the cake and eat it too.

'They' who? Evolutionary biologists do not say that it was wolf to whale. Darwin speculated on bear to whale, but was clear that it was speculation. The current science? It suggests a common ancestor to the whale and the ... hippopotamus (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020506/whale.html). But, then, I wouldn't expect a Creo to get it right. And no, there is nothing in evolution that states that a particular species MUST evolve -- although its members must adapt to conditions, and mutations may produce a new evolutionary route. And has been noted, there is nothing to keep a parent species and an offshoot from both continuing to exist, perhaps in the same habitat if the they exploit different resources. But old Karl, here -- he just keeps asserting that evolution posits an imperative to evolve. Neither evidence, nor theory, nor logic mean anything, apparently.

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

  
scarletohairy
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 96 (9431)
05-09-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ksc
05-08-2002 12:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Edge posted:Actually, the coelacanth did evolve somewhat and it is not clear that modern versions would actually be the same species as the Cretaceous coelacanth by some definitions. Nevertheless, there is no part of evolution that says an organism must evolve. If you think differently, then produce evidence to that effect.


You gotta love these evos! So much for mutational rates and theories. So much for genetic drift. So much for changing environments that would select differently. So much for extremely long time frames that would allow it all to occur in.....So much for evolution.

You gotta love these Creos! So much for natural selection acting on mutations at whatever rates. So much for genetic drift's application being to: (1) small populations, or (2) genetic changes that are neutral with regard to phenotype change. So much for diversity of environments, even in times of world-wide environmental stress. So much for extremely long periods of statis. So much for major changes in most of life, when a fairly-stable few can be picked on.....So much for Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ksc, posted 05-08-2002 12:49 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:32 AM scarletohairy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
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

  
ksc
Guest


Message 55 of 96 (9442)
05-10-2002 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by scarletohairy
05-09-2002 3:04 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by scarletohairy, posted 05-09-2002 3:04 PM scarletohairy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:34 AM You have not replied

     
ksc
Guest


Message 56 of 96 (9443)
05-10-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:32 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:32 AM ksc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:38 AM You have not replied
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 05-10-2002 5:02 AM You replied
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 05-10-2002 5:39 AM You replied

     
ksc
Guest


Message 57 of 96 (9444)
05-10-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:34 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:34 AM ksc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 05-10-2002 1:03 AM You replied

     
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 58 of 96 (9448)
05-10-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
As you see, proof has ben presented that the coelacanth should have evolved.
Of course I don't expect the evos will agree...therefore, they will still cry foul and claim I presented no evidence and/or answered the question as to where their theory claims things need to change over time.

Actually, you presented nothing at all. Your original assertion was that the coelacanth SHOULD evolve. Several people have pointed out to you that it has, indeed evolved. Now you are claiming that it has not evolved enough or not at all. Do you just ignore everyone else's posts? Basicaly what you are doing is called moving the goalposts and it is a tactic all creationists learn early. Once again KC, your arguments are bankrupt.
Cheers
Joe Meert
PS: As always, I expect you to refer to me as "Dr. Meert" or "Sir"
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:38 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 11:58 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 96 (9457)
05-10-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:34 AM


ksc,
You still haven't told me WHY long time frames equate to morpological change. I refer you back to message 46.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:34 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 60 of 96 (9458)
05-10-2002 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:34 AM


This discussion is getting surreal.
ksc: Why are you continuing to state that so-called living fossils are somehow a refutation of biology? Even the references you provided actually speak AGAINST this theory (with the exception of Plaisted, who I'll get to in a moment). You literally don't have any idea what you're cutting-and-pasting, do you?
Let's take a look:
1. You reject Theobald's well-referenced article, claiming he provides no evidence. Yet he provides copious examples of every assertion he makes throughout that essay. One of the key points you missed out on is from the last line of the paragraph you quoted: "In fact, paleontological studies indicate the average longevity of 21 living families of vertebrates is approximately 70 million years. (emphasis added)" The point here is that higher taxonomic rankings - in this case families - are even MORE stable over time than individual species. Mayr makes a similar point about mass extinctions: higher taxonomic classifications are conserved (example: whereas some 75-80% of all extant species went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, only 16% of all extant families went extinct. This is purely an artifact of the system of classification we use. Mayr 2001, "What Evolution Is", pg 202.) Once again, we have actual evolutionary biologists predicting that stasis IS OBSERVED - and why. It isn't some strange new phenomenon that somehow falsifies evolution.
2. Your reference from the creationist Plaisted is interesting. No surprise that he uses stasis as somehow refuting evolution. Is this where you got your idea in the first place? Talk about not providing any evidence whatsoever. Plaisted's entire essay is utterly devoid of evidence - and constitutes at best philosophical musings. Plaisted in general probably isn't all that reliable - and not because he's a creationist. He has published numerous essays which have been shown to be completely erroneous (see, for example, his mistakes on retroposons, refuted by Plagarized Errors and Molecular Genetics.
3. The Mayr and Gliedman quotes merely point out that evolutionary stasis is not completely understood. No kidding. Not much support for your claim that organisms MUST evolve. BTW: that website was hysterical. Thanks for the link.
4. Korthoff quoting Matt Ridley: "Natural selection is described as a theory of evolution, and indeed it is one, but it is a theory of non-evolution too." Ooops, you probably shouldn't have referenced this one. Ridley is quite clearly stating that natural selection ALSO explains persistence of "living fossils", conservation of genetic material, etc. Sort of provides additional refutation to your claim that organisms MUST evolve, doesn't it...
5. Your link referencing Eldredge didn't work, so I can't speak to the context or the original sources. Although to me the bit on Eldredge sounds like something from one of his pro-PE anti-darwinian- strict-adaptationist essays. Suggest fixing the link so we can see what was actually written, or at least the references the author of your cut-and-paste actually used.
On to dueling graphics:
quote:
The graph that you presented as with the better one provided just below shows a indicated value for the x and y coordinates. These value indicate a representation of the theorized population and variation, and thusly having a value is subject to change over hundreds of millions of years. The charts fail to include long time frames.
So? Actually, your graphic ONLY showed the action of normalizing or stabilizing selection. You'll note that the variation is in fact around the mean. Like I said.
quote:
In other words, you should understand that stabilizing selections, select against the extremes in variation. There still is variation within the selection pool that over extremely long period of time as with living fossils would produce a significant amount of change.
Right, stabilizing selection works to eliminate the extremes in variation. Meaning that there would be a tendancy in this type of NS to maintain the relative status quo - in the case of coelocanths, this means that they might have gotten bigger, as was pointed out, but that the population mean is generally stable. Oops, you just refuted your own assertion. Timescales DON'T matter!!!!
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:34 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:19 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 61 of 96 (9470)
05-10-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Joe Meert
05-10-2002 1:03 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Joe Meert, posted 05-10-2002 1:03 AM Joe Meert 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