Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 54 (65667)
11-10-2003 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:26 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 32 of 54 (65669)
11-10-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:37 PM


the bigger they are the longer their lifespan. Noticed how simple it can be.
Cows live longer than people or turtles now???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 54 (65670)
11-10-2003 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:37 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:58 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 54 (65671)
11-10-2003 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:43 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 54 (65672)
11-10-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
11-10-2003 7:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 7:53 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 8:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 54 (65673)
11-10-2003 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coragyps
11-10-2003 7:52 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 11-10-2003 7:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:09 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 54 (65677)
11-10-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rei
11-10-2003 7:47 PM


'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 7:47 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:13 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 38 of 54 (65678)
11-10-2003 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:59 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:18 PM Rei has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 39 of 54 (65679)
11-10-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 8:07 PM


[quote]
quote:
'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?'
quote:
Sorry to dissapoint you, but the scientist showing me the tooth compared it to a recent shark, and yes it was the same.
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:
'Show me the multiple dating methods which all agree that she is 400.'
It's easy , I'll ask that museum I went to.
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:
My main points are, preservation and living fossils. Do you deny these facts? Answer without an animal name or m.y.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:26 PM Rei has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 54 (65682)
11-10-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 7:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 7:58 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 41 of 54 (65683)
11-10-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rei
11-10-2003 8:09 PM


'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:09 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:27 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 42 of 54 (65686)
11-10-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
11-10-2003 8:15 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 8:15 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 9:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 43 of 54 (65687)
11-10-2003 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rei
11-10-2003 8:13 PM


'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:13 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 44 of 54 (65688)
11-10-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by mike the wiz
11-10-2003 8:18 PM


quote:
quote:
'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.
And what comeback are you referring to? Where, for example, did you address shark evolution?
quote:
The fossils I was shown 'living fossils' were recognisable.
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:
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
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:
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.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2003 8:35 PM Rei has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 45 of 54 (65692)
11-10-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Rei
11-10-2003 8:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:27 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rei, posted 11-10-2003 8:49 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 10:00 PM mike the wiz 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