Living fossils expose evolution

Hi Calypsis,I've given you a short 1 hour suspension so that you have time to notice that in Message 275 and Message 284 I requested that you focus on a single example, the bat from Message 1. Also, please stay on-topic. I'm also issuing short suspensions to any others who have gone off-topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

The fact that there is so much direct, visible evidence and you turn your nose up to it is astounding.

---

What evidence? You have presented none in this thread. Gainsaying everybody else and making specious claims about pictures from the internet is not the same thing as presenting evidence.Why don't you do as Percy suggested and show us how the bat is devastating to evolution.

Thanks for an thoughtful assessment of classification.One of the problems in classifying fossils (including living fossils) is the obscurity of some samples; i.e. the crayfish example. This is not uncommon as many fossils are so badly damaged by nature and/or accidentally by the geologists who discovered them.Information as it comes from nature comes in many forms, but specificity helps us to identify the difference between natural and non-natural.For instance:The degree of specificity in information can determine the difference between this: and this: Since science has pretty much determined by yrs of observation that the face on Mars is merely natural but the faces on Mt. Rushmore are not. Why? Because nature has never been observed making faces like as are seen on Mt. Rushmore, at least nothing to that degree of specificity. We can easily identify what was developed on Mt. Rushmore many yrs ago because of the specificity and that those faces are comparable to human beings with well known features. But the photo of the face on Mars never did have enough specificity to be identified with any known person.Question: If presented with a photo of this could we identify this as legitimate? I think I can safely say most people would regard the first photo evidence as a legitimate representation of Mt. Rushmore based upon the experience of countless millions of observers. But the second photo would not/should not be so regarded because empirical investigation by the same countless millions who have seen Mt. Rushmore have never seen a face that looks like Smeagol in Lord of the Rings.The Smeagol insertion instantly causes the face scenario on Mt. Rushmore to be of a totally different ‘kind’ or (‘family’ if you please). But what is true about this is not true about the crayfish and other examples posted on this thread. It was immediately identified as a 'crayfish' by all who observed it. We can bicker and dicker about classification but if observation of the evidence is of any true value then there has been no evolutionary change in the organisms so depicted. The living fossils speak loud and clear: no evolution in biological organisms.

'What evidence?'Excuse me? Oh, about 40 examples I have given on this website and another 150 I have not posted yet. The Internet is full of them but you and those of your persuasion choose to ignore it. "Columbus, why don't you REALLY prove the world is round by taking us all the way next time?"Right.You really do want me to commit massive overkill on this subject, don't you? But truth is truth whether one chooses to believe the truth or not.Nonetheless, concerning the bat.The oldest fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old. Now would you please reveal to us evidence of the transitional forms leading to this bat? If you can then it will be something no one else has ever done. ALL of the transitions are missing.Show the readers that THIS has occurred in nature... Now, perhaps you can give all kinds of clever arguments but you cannot reveal the evolution of the bat. It appears abruptly in the fossil record and bats (about 100 species) are still bats: they have not changed except for the variations within the kind.Now, why is such an intelligent person like you having such a hard time grasping this?

I see that again, you've failed to give any reason why we should consider your examples of "living fossils" an argument against evolution and instead try to introduce a new argument. Is it simply that you don't have an argument?On to other matters: The kind. According to you in many posts that corresponds to the level of family. Do you know how many different families of bat there are? (Hint: you may run of fingers, and using your toes won't help much)And, once again, this bat is not in any of these families, but a completely different one. This is not, as you've pretended, some arbitary decision but because this "unchanged" bat has a number of features which are not found in any extant bat. Including, as it happens, features that are nicely intermediate between bats and non-volant mammals.

Huh?Could you please tell us how your post either:1. Engages my post
or
2. Discusses the fossil batEnquiring minds want to know.Seriously, I know you feel swamped here, but once you've decided to reply to my response then choosing to not engage the points made is downright rude.There's a rock formation in Wisconsin Dells that looks just like a map of Illinois...what the hell does that have to do with this topic either? Believe me, you don't want to bring up information around here unless you have a very good working definition and an understanding of information theory sufficient to support it. I stay out of those myself...you might as well go swimming in a lake full of piranha wearing a hamburger speedo. Back to my original point: Crayfish is a word we use to describe anything that the observer thinks is or is like a crayfish. It's quite possible someone might call something a crayfish that on closer inspection turns out to be something else, another decapod probably but maybe something totally unexpected. Words don't constrain life...which is my point.To expand on that: our understanding of life does not constrain life in any way. We may be totally wrong and discover that everything runs on zero-point energy, who knows. But what we do know we have learned by closely observing nature and comparing our findings with each other. The bible gives no useful guidance for how to tell one kind from another and so it is scientifically impotent. Pick all the holes in evolution you like, it doesn't bring you any closer to demonstrating that the bible is true.Darwin says living fossils are expected. The experts say living fossils are expected within the ToE. You say that they destroy the ToE...you'll need to bring a bigger dog to this fight.

I can see your cards mister. You know that this is the oldest fossil bat discovered so far, meaning that we've yet to discover anything bat-like enough to call an immediate transition. You're going all-in on the wild bet that such a fossil will never be found.Fossilization is rare...very rare. That means it doesn't happen very often and it is more rare in the case of small, fragile animals.Tell you what...here's a deal. The first side to produce either a complete record of fossil transition or a signed, original manuscript of the bible written in the very hand of God wins. I think those are about equal demands. If you can't provide the original bible then the bible must be a lie, right? That's about the level of argument you're making.ABE: Oh, just as an aside: Doesn't the bible say bats are birds? Shouldn't Creation scientists be providing us evidence of bird-to-bat transition? Edited by Tanndarr, : looking for proof of biblical transitions.Edited by Tanndarr, : Fixun mizpelz

Hi Calypsis,You've picked a strange example to support your argument that evolution does not occur. Your bat is onychonycteris finneyi, a 50-million-year-old (you are correct about the age) extinct species with some key differences to modern bats. In fact it is so different from modern bats that it was classified in a separate family. That family is now extinct. So much for that particular bat-kind.In Message 25, Lithodid-Man discussed this fossil and explained how it shows transitional features:

quote:

---

Now the bat. The picture you showed is Onychonycteris. This differs from all living bats in many fundamental ways and is, in fact, a long awaited transitional. While capable of true flight, it was what is called a 'flutter glider' which is exactly what we would expect if, as proposed, bats evolved from a gliding ancestor similar in form (but not related to) flying squirrels. The diagram you show in another post of proposed bat evolution is a terrible strawman, btw. and not supported by anyone I am aware of. The arm to leg ratio of Onychonycteris is exactly in between (but not clustered with!) volant and non volant mammals. It also could not echolocate and had well-developed claws on all 5 digits, which modern bats do not have. Very poor example of a 'living fossil'!

---

For more information, you can check Wikipedia.So we have a bat ancestor that is capable of quadrapedal locomotion as well as tree climbing ability, and the flight pattern is not fully developed. The transitional nature of these characteristics is illustrated in the diagram posted by jacortina in Message 39. For your convenience I will re-post it here: Intermembral index - humerus+radius/femur+tibia x 100
Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100Limb ratios for Onychonycteris are pretty clearly between non-flying mammals and modern (or even other fossil) bat species.Modern bats have evolved since the first known fossils of bat ancestors, and when older bats are found we will know more about bat evolution. Onychonycteris was found in 2003. Is there some particular reason why you believe we are unlikely to find even older transitionals in future years? What is your deadline, exactly?In the meantime, scientists are doing what they can to uncover evidence by other means:
Molecular Biology Fills Gaps In Knowledge Of Bat Evolution

quote:

---

The team, using DNA sequencing, analyzed data from portions of 17 nuclear genes from representatives of all bat families.

​

Their results support the hypothesis that the group of large fruit-eating bats from the tropics, that fly mostly during the day — known to biologists as megabats — emerged from four major lineages of smaller and more widely dispersed, mostly insect-eating, night-flying bats, known as microbats. These microbats — also known for their highly specialized echolocation — originated about 52 to 50 million years ago during a lush period of significant global warming in a region that is now North America.

---

Perhaps in the light of this evidence you would like to modify your claims?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Calypsis, But as you have learned this is a logically fallacious argument so the "evidence" is at best examples of stasis which doesn't contradict the ToE one iota, & therefore isn't evidence against evolution. What exactly don't you understand?Now, once again I invite you to defend with something more than "no it's not" the charge that your argument commits the logical fallacy of "strawman", which renders your argument logically moot.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I'll come right to the point: such fossils should have been found long ago just like the others. The problem is not a lack of fossils...there are billions to choose from and still trillions to unearth. But by now the steady stream of transitions between not just the bat, but virtually every single organism and other organisms should have not only be found, but be in abundance.The fact that you didn't give any evidence in reply to my challenge speaks loudly and clearly. The Mosaic classification system, which pre-dated Linnaeus by 3,300 yrs places the bat with flying creatures. It was a completely different system. The concept of 'mammal' did not exist at that time.13"...they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;15 Every raven after his kind;16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.Leviticus 11:13-19The divisions of the animal kingdom that Moses laid down depended upon the key differences: scales or no scales, flying & non-flying, crawling or non-crawling, cloven hoofed or otherwise, etc.

Wow. Just, wow.Quote-mining the Bible, of all things.Now, just what did you snip out of that Leviticus 11:13 and insert the ellipsis?Hmm. Let's see."And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; ..."That says quite clearly AMONG THE FOWLS.Really, sir (or madam). That was the rankest of dishonesty.Edited by jacortina, : Corrected for gender assumption.

Dodge. Avoiding the question by pretending its silly to ask it, if the question is silly then it should be easy to answer. Or are you willing to admit carrying this on is dishonest? Spectacular, not only can you be the first but you could start by concluding this thread and answering the question everyone has asked you. I did. Don't avoid the question. As pointed out to you, Darwin brought it up. Then start a thread, you keep bringing it up when its off topic. That is just bluster when you know that your claims can't be challenged on this thread. Defend your OP please. Neither. Those are artistic renditions (as if you didn't know). Wait, is this on topic?? Atomic bombs, please and thank you.

Question: Are they 'bats'?Yes/noIf your answer is 'yes' then I rest my case.Where are the transitions between 'my' bat and different modern organisms that it evolved into?There aren't any, dear. Unless you can demonstrate a clear anatomical/morpholigocal change of bats into another kind of organism...a la ape/like to man then you are forced to concede this point. My prediction: you won't. Those who are emotionally committed to a lie are not going to admit it no matter what.I am talking about a change that is as startling as what is imagined between something like this: Into something like this: But you and I both know you cannot do this. You can't even touch it. And the problem is not just with bats, but flowers, ferns, conifers, bacteria, pigs, horses, and virtually every other organism under consideration. It takes a healthy imagination to fill in all those huge gaps.But then, what would bats 'evolve' into? Something like this? If you were to find something like this in the fossil record or as a 'living fossil' then it would make a difference.

You and your comrades in accidentalism are the ones dodging things.Where are the transitional forms preceding the bat given in the topic post?Furthermore: where are the transitional forms of the duckbilled platypus?Where are the transitional forms for fireflies?Those transitions cannot be found for them either BEFORE or AFTER they are discovered in the fossil record. The testimony of living fossils destroys biological evolution by itself.

No, that was not intentional. Are you so shallow that I would think that others would not look up the reference? Come on! I assumed that the one who challenged me already had done so.But answer this question: Did the Linneaus system exist in Moses time? Secondly, why are we beholden to Linneaus over the six other classification systems...all a bit different with some including some categories that others don't?Just remember this: Moses came first. If God calls it a 'fowl' then it is His determination that is bottom line and not Linnaeus.