|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Robert Byers writes: This creationist sees bats as just rodents who instantly upon spreading out from the ark found a empty sky and filled it somewhat. O_o Do you have any idea how diverse bats are? One in five mammal species are bats. 1 in 5! Bats aren't some obscure offshoot of rats, they're an extraordinarily diverse and variable group of animals. Bats are an order of mammals, equivalent in significance to the group Carnivora that includes dogs, cats, seals, weasels, bears, red panda, civets and so on. Are you really suggesting that they can be written off as rats who saw the sky and wanted to fly? Orville's more successful rat relatives? Come on!
so i see the wings and radar as just minor adaptations. relative. there should be no bat fossils below the k-t line. "Wings and radar [sic]" are minor adaptations? What can possibly count as a "non-minor" adaptation then? If you're happy with bats, all 1100 species of them, evolving from rats in just 4000 years, and evolving sonar and flight in that time what on earth is the limit that stops evolution explaining the rest of life's diversity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology. without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails. But this is simply not true. The strongest evidence for Evolution is all drawn from living species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Robert Byers writes: I just found out on wiki even people have trained their brains to use radar by noise for blindness. no big deal. no time needed. It's sonar not radar! They're radically different things!
Humans can be trained to make a clicking noise with their tongue and discern their environments from the sound bounced back. While this is an impressive technique it does not remotely compare to the high resolution sonar of bats, nor the remarkable physical adaptations they have to it. No human could ever be trained to follow the flight of a moth by sonar. And humans have huge, highly plastic, brains capable of learning remarkable skills. Bats have far smaller, less plastic, brains. It's stretching credulity to pretend they simply learn echolocation, and it does nothing to explain the physical adaptations of bats or the genetic differences you recognise in your own posts. And you still haven't dealt with flight.
Diversity in bats is just a quick adaptation after the flood. Within a century all there ever were in types had arrived. Over a thousand species, crossing a wide diversity of size scales and diet types. Some very highly specialised - such as vampire bats. All arising from a single ancestor within a century. You believe this is possible, yet you blithely deny that it's possible over 50 million years.
no evolution as such. Speciation and the development of novel morphological, physical and behavioural traits occur, but there's "no evolution as such"?!? Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Robert Byers writes: evolution relys a great deal on the fossil record. Without it evolution fails. Again. Not true. You see, unlike you, I've actually studied evolution, and while the fossil record is used it is far from the major source of evidence. About the only exception to that I can think of is the bird-dinosaur link.
I don't see evolution being greatly based on biological research. I mean by biology actual research of living life. That can only be because you haven't looked. There has been a very large amount of research looking at confirming and analysising the theoretical side of Evolution by experimental biology; and vast amounts of work establishing the evolutionary relationships between organisms based on their genetics. This is, in fact, now the primary way of doing so; replacing the previous method based on morphology (which also looked at living organisms primarily). Even Darwin's Origin - where modern evolutionary theory began - barely draws on fossils as evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I believe Mr. Byers is referring to this news story.
I'd be quite willing to describe the boys ability as 'echolocation' or 'sonar'. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Robert Byers writes: Your wrong.Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution. Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo. I'll note that this does not address what I actually said and then leave you to reply to the others who've picked up on this.
if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence. Apart from the hierarchical arrangement of species, developmental biology, homology, gene sequences, endogenous retroviral sequences, gene families, protein families, pseudogenes, and on and on and on.
Read any school book on the evidences and they emphasive the fossil record as proof. I find school books a pretty poor source of scientific information. They're aimed at a very ill-informed reader and their primary basis for presenting evidence is heavily constrained by time and the need for the evidence to be understandable to its audience.
The genetic claims are very recent and morphology claims always included the claims of progression from fossils. This is simply incorrect. Most lines of morphological evidence require no fossils (although fossils may support them), and many lines of morphological evidence are used in the absence of fossils - as they were in Darwin's time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Anyways all evolution eduction is always about the progression of creatures by way of fossils. From big catergories of divisions of life. Primitive to high. Right across the ages with this order or that. Again, this is simply not so. Have you studied evolution at post-secondary level? I have. And I can tell you that a degree level evolution course spends little time on fossils. Fossils support and inform evolutionary theory but they do no from its centrepiece.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
This was another thread rapidly derailed into a tiring attempt to explain basic biology to yet another Creationist who feels able to judge modern biology without ever bothering to learn about the subject.
It is difficult to see how progress can be made when one party not only knows nearly nothing about that which they argue, but is apparently almost entirely unaware of it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024