|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It is hard to figure out why you can't get this (other than you don't want to).
I don't care what it is popularly called. "Living fossil" is not a technical term. They are NOT the same speicies. Secondly, so what? There is nothing in the ToE that says something has to evolve. Why do you think that something has to? Recognizable doesn't make them the does it? If a particular body plan works well it has some chance of being evolved to. Why does this matter? "Big deal it won't change the facts" What are the facts then, exactly and in more detail please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
the bigger they are the longer their lifespan. Noticed how simple it can be.
Cows live longer than people or turtles now???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This is your level of response?
You think you are arguing on the same level as the information being put in front of you. "My Mum is 400 old" Is that a deeply intellectual discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You are giving us what you think you were told. In any case you were told this, not something published with error bars and the method of determining the value.
Why on earth would you think this constitues a reasonable arguement. I get the impression that you are suggesting that the millions of years is wrong. I have bumped a thread which disucsses part of this. Why don't you jump in and give you evidence and profound reasoning on that topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
The fact is I can be the world's biggest nitwit. But the facts wont change. It's not that I don't get it, it's the fact that no evolutionist can explain in a simple way how the facts are wrong. You admitt living fossils - bingo, the facts, that CAN indicate creation rather than evolution whether I am Einstein or an ape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Wrong,
If big Crocs are found in the fossils, and huge insects e.t.c. How can't that mean they lived longer in a better climate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
'I'll bet you 20$ that if you go ask, the scientist will say that it's a megalodon. Want to take me up on that bet?'
Sorry to dissapoint you, but the scientist showing me the tooth compared it to a recent shark, and yes it was the same. 'Show me the multiple dating methods which all agree that she is 400.' It's easy , I'll ask that museum I went to. 'And you also need to stop the nonsense about fossils being "size sorted", which ' My main points are, preservation and living fossils. Do you deny these facts? Answer without an animal name or m.y.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
1) You didn't address where I showed you that, in fact, these species have changed *dramatically* over the course of their history; what is remarkable about so-called "living fossils" is that they only changed via gradualism (i.e., occupied the same niche continuously, vs the typical pattern of niche change).
2) Take a dragonfly, and change its environment. It will *never* get big, no matter what you set it to. Crocodiles will get somewhat larger in an ideal environment, but within reason - there's no way to raise a sarcosuchus, for example. Ask any zookeeper. The problem is that an organism's shape is only valid within certain constraints; just making things bigger doesn't fix the problems. Bone structure on land needs to have strength proportional to the square of the height, while blood flow needs to increase linearly - except with height changes, which add an extra linear making it a square growth. Nerve timing will get off as the head moves further away from the rest of the body. I could go on. The best example of this is humans with pituary problems that keep on growing: they virtually always die young, in horrible health. Now, if you selectively breed for larger organisms, you *will* get larger organisms - it's easily reproducible in the lab with drosophila. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
[quote]
quote: quote: Give me the scientist's name, and where they work. I'll track down their number, and call them. You can run, but you can't dodge reality, Mike. They undoubtedly compared a megalodon to a modern shark (modern, not 9-25mya). Megalodon is not found in the modern earth, just fairly recent strata.
quote: Dodging substance, Mike? You're still short one sorting mechanism, one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history, and one example of a gap that you can point to that you feel is too large.
quote: I already showed you that sharks have changed dramatically. Want me to cover crocodiles as well? If your definition of "living fossil" is a species that hasn't changed over the entire fossil record of it (or has only changed size), then there are none. What exactly is your question about preservation? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Can you please explain what "facts" you are talking about?
Could you also sohw the logic of why living fossils are a problem for the ToE? Could you also define a "living fossil" so we know what you are talking about? Also could you explain why the idea of a living fossil can indicate creation over evolution? You haven't offered any line of reasoning to follow yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
'1) You didn't address where I showed you that, in fact, these species have changed *dramatically* over the course of their history; '
Forgive me , but look at my comebacks. A gentle visit to the e.v.c to mention 2 facts was my actual intentions. The fossils I was shown 'living fossils' were recognisable. Now ask yourself this, if they havent evolved, or changed slightly within their kind why havent they changed over M>Y , could this 'not' support evolution and M>Y - if your reasonable you will admitt, this with the quick sudden preservation of fossils can indicate Creation. This is what Creation Scientists are saying, if your reasonable you'll agree they've stuck to the facts. The 'size' issue is not really my debating intentios, the evo's however have taken it and ran, my knowledge of this is limited. And Ned meeds to smile and lighten up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Ned,
My main point is that living fossils do indicate Creation, or 'can'. To not admitt this simple truth is silly, as Creationists DO use this line of reasoning, they are also scientists and geologists. You have explained that a species doesn't, or might 'not' need to evolve, I accept your stance but I still think it can favour Creation - that's my objective, not to bash evolution completely but to say what creation scientists say can indicate Creation. And why should I believe you over them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
'Give me the scientist's name, and where they work.'
John Mackay - Geologist. Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied Am I hiding? 'one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history,' Any living fossil, a big Dragonfly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote:quote: And what comeback are you referring to? Where, for example, did you address shark evolution?
quote: Is this "variation within kinds"? (this is a drawing of the earliest "true shark" - xenacanthus - and we have parts of protosharks as well) (want some of the next transitional sharks?)
quote: Do you call this not having "changed slightly within their kind"? This is about as close to the radiation of sharks, rays and skates, and earlier jawless fish as you can get.
quote: Again, you clearly missed what I stated before about preservation vs. fossilization. Fossils are not skeletons of preserved organisms; they are places where minerals leached into cavities left over by decaying organisms. Why are no fossils from recorded history even close to complete fossilization? Also, how did delicate things (such as tree roots, footprints, varves, etc) "preserve"? Once again, you're short one sorting mechanism, one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history, and one example of a gap that you can point to that you feel is too large. Please try to fill these things in with your next post, instead of vague responses. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Well, picture are all I've ever been shown. Artists interpretations but no facts or fossils. That is why I enjoyed John Mackay's evidence, as he always brings it with him.
'one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history,' The human Being. Sorry but the line of monkeys wont cut it. 'and we have parts of protosharks as well)' Parts, that speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024