Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 96 (9514)
05-11-2002 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
05-11-2002 10:19 AM


Percy,
Thanks for the information. I understand that kscs position is that the ceolacanth has remained unchanged for 340 m.y. The point I'm picking up upon is that just because species are morphologically similar, doesn't mean they are genetically similar. So, assuming common descent, a 1m long cretaceous ceolacanth may have a very similar bone structure to Latimeria chalumnae, doesn't mean that it is genetically the same. Namely, that evolution has acted upon & changed the genome, whilst retaining the same morphology via stabilising selection.
Karl has asserted that todays coelacanth is virtually unchanged, & that evolution hasn't acted upon it. Until he can show this to be true, he really doesn't have an argument. The best he could attempt is to try to demonstrate that there is no such thing as stabilising selection.
Note that he hasn't answered......
1/ Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.?
2/ Can you show, in a genetic context, that the coelacanth didn’t evolve?
If he can show that stabilising selection can’t work over 340 m.y. (& I understand that modern coelacanths aren’t the same species as their fossil ancestors, also that is the basic body plan that has been preserved), then he has a point.
If he can show that evolution in it’s broadest sense hasn’t occurred (loosely, SINES, LINES, pseudogenes, retreoviruses etc.), then he has a point.
Until then, he can’t claim victory because the very assumption that he bases his arguments upon can’t be shown to be true. ie The coelacanth hasn't evolved, & that there isn't a mechanism that prevents change.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 AM Percy has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 78 of 96 (9515)
05-11-2002 12:52 PM


Does not Karl's focusing in on a few select "living fossils" seem to imply that he does recognise that there is (abundant?) evidence of the evolutionary paths leading to the other species?
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-11-2002]

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 96 (9551)
05-12-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
05-11-2002 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
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.
--Percy
[Edited to fix the link to the picture. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]

Percy, you are being too modest, the point IS critical to Karl's argument. Karl seems to be claiming that the extant species of coelacanth has remained unchanged for 340 million years. Whereas the fact is that sufficient changes have accumulated over the last 70 million years that the extant species now resides within a different Genus!
How many other "living fossils" which Karl has cited are in the same situation? Where is the evidence that the extant SPECIES have remained unchanged over lengthy periods of time? If Karl cannot nominate such unchanged species then his original assertion becomes moot.
Karl, I believe the ball is your court to provide the evidence to support your assertion of unchange species over hundreds of millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 05-13-2002 12:45 PM wj has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 82 of 96 (9552)
05-12-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
05-12-2002 3:16 PM


[ksc's board hack deleted. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 05-12-2002 3:16 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 05-12-2002 10:05 PM You have not replied
 Message 84 by edge, posted 05-12-2002 11:03 PM You have not replied

     
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 83 of 96 (9553)
05-12-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ksc
05-12-2002 9:56 PM


Bye, Karl! See you in a week.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ksc, posted 05-12-2002 9:56 PM ksc has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 96 (9555)
05-12-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ksc
05-12-2002 9:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Attention participants, especially Percy. As of this post I will begin to conduct a 1 week ban on Percy for his unprofessionalism in his task of administrator.
In the following week I will not read any of his post nor will I respond to any of his post.

Hey, Karl... could you apply that ban to the rest of us, too?
Thanks, in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ksc, posted 05-12-2002 9:56 PM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 87 of 96 (9565)
05-13-2002 11:17 AM


Karl (ksc) is apparently aware of some UBB security holes and hacked this thread so that this page wouldn't display. I've deleted his hack.
Karl, you may be aware that there is a difference between a suspension of posting privileges and a ban. One more incident like this and you'll be permanently banned.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 88 of 96 (9571)
05-13-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wj
05-12-2002 9:13 PM


Karl is banned right now, so we may never know how he responds. My guess is that he would ignore this information and simply keep asserting that the coelacanth hasn't changed in 340 million years.
If Karl *did* accept this information and modify his assertion to be that there's been insufficient change then I think Mark already has the right response.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wj, posted 05-12-2002 9:13 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Joe Meert, posted 05-13-2002 1:07 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 89 of 96 (9572)
05-13-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
05-13-2002 12:45 PM


Percy,
I would think that a ban and a message to Karl's service provider would be in order. This was a malicious attempt by Karl to run away from an argument. In the past, he simply disappears. Apparently, he now feels he must disappear with malice.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 05-13-2002 12:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 96 (10398)
05-27-2002 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
05-11-2002 10:19 AM


FYI, some years ago the second coelacanth species had been discovered, healthy and in abundant numbers, on the fish market of the city of Manado. It's called Latimeria manadoensis. The local fishermen there appears to have regularly caught the second living fossil fish without knowing its importance. Luckily a scientist who's on honeymoon there spotted the fish and described it as a new species of Latimeria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Quetzal, posted 05-27-2002 9:09 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 91 of 96 (10404)
05-27-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Andya Primanda
05-27-2002 6:01 AM


Hi Andya. Welcome. Here's a link to more information on Latimeria menadoensis. The article is interesting because it mentions the Latimeria habitat preferences are identical between the two species, but they are genetically distinct. As though more info were needed that ksc was talking out his, err, fundament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-27-2002 6:01 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 92 of 96 (28965)
01-13-2003 1:18 AM


I've been looking back at all the messages, to compile a database, and to explore for messages to possibly be thinned out.
I've just gotten down to this one, and I thought I'd give it a bump, as being of historical interest.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-13-2003 5:09 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 96 (28977)
01-13-2003 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Adminnemooseus
01-13-2003 1:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I've been looking back at all the messages, to compile a database, and to explore for messages to possibly be thinned out.
I've just gotten down to this one, and I thought I'd give it a bump, as being of historical interest.
Adminnemooseus

You mean my first post sparks some historical interest? Oh, thank you!
[gets bricked]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-13-2003 1:18 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-13-2003 3:02 AM Andya Primanda 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