|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
It is a little bit surprising. Normally creationists have really bad arguments, but at least they have arguments. You like to pretend, don't you, granny? Now let me point out that scientists can find NO transitional forms either before or after this fossil...uh, sort of like that bat thingy you saw on the topic post (hint, hint).
From the Encyclopdia of Trees by Hugh Johnson. Here's another:
From the Smithsonian. Now back to my easy chair. Have a nice evening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
And as you successively refuse to respond to anyone who presents you with truths you can't deal with, you will end up talking to yourself. I was blessed by your absence. And as you continue to fail to be accurate in your statements about the truths of living fossils, a subject that you cannot deal with I will continue enjoying communicating with OTHERS. Bye, bye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
dokukaeru:
"...substantial changes" What changes? Where? Let me illustrate just how strong my position is by pretending to be you and using this illustration: "Hey Calypsis4, I am going to PROVE to you that the Chevrolet evolved over the years from lower forms to higher ones. Ready? My first example. A 57 Chevy from the distant past. An actual 1957 Chevy (in 1957):
Now here is the 'proof' that it evolved:
And then this:
And then this:
Now, Calypsis4, these are my 'living fossils'. Do you see the many differences? Don't you see that this is 'proof' that the Chevy evolved?" Well, enough with the pretending. It would be an easy thing to prove that cars have changed through the years, including Chevy's. The first photo is an acutal 57 Chevy in 1957. The others are all rebuilt 57 Chevy's in our time. But what can be done so easily with cars cannot be done with the fossils. So if (hypothetically) what I posted above in the Chevy's is ALL I could come up with then who would I be fooling? Despite the differences they are ALL Chevy's! No one who recognizes cars is going to mistake the 57 Chevys listed above for something else. So my opponents tell me: "Calypsis4, you're being stubborn! Can't you see that this (Onychonycteris finneyi):
...evolved into this!?"
Quite frankly, no. Interesting what the folks in Scientific American said about my bat in the topic post: "You look at it and say, 'it's a bat, no question,'" says evolutionary biologist Nancy Simmons of the American Museum of Natural History in New York." Going further, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight. Ancient bat fossils dating to around 50 million years ago looked much like existing bats, down to the enlarged cochlea necessary for echolocation." Bats Flew Before They Could Echolocate - Scientific American How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability? And why are the 50 million yr old fossils 'so much like existing bats'? That's because bats have not evolved. There is merely a variation within the kind and they are not going to escape that fact. No transitional form precedes the bat above and there is nothing in the fossil record since that initial bat fossil to indicate a serious change of bats into another kind of organism. Then to answer this:
Well essentially, what you have argued for 120 some posts is, "Here is a picture of a fossil. Here is a picture of an existing species. There is not enough change so evolution is false." It is the same argument as this, "The gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 m/sec squared. The gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is 25.9 m/sec squared. The two planets have different accelerations therefore gravity is false. 'Here is a picture of 'A' fossil? 'A' fossil? I have presented a large array of fossils that have living offspring that reveal no evolution and I can easily post a hundred more. I might. You seek to trivialize the matter by saying 'a fossil' ignoring the fact that the preponderance of the evidence is numerous and weighty. In fact you're being deluged with example after example of the non-evolution of biological organisms. Your comparison of my evidence in living fossils to gravitational acceleration comes down to a level of specificity compared to another level of specificity. Specificity exists in both but one is more minute than the other. I can't help it if you and your accidentalist comrades don't wish to see it. I think it is because you have been mentally conditioned to NOT see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
There are many changes that have happened over these millions of years. But all still clearly identified as 'bats'. "The evolutionist viewpoint is that defining things into categories is only for convenience in research and communication, not as an accurate assessment of reality." So evolutionary theory is likened therefore, to a rubber band which stretches the truth any way the adherents wish to stretch it. So we have our very first 'bat'(Onychonycteris finneyi) appearing abruptly in the fossil record followed by all else which are ALL described as 'bats' (order chiroptera) and none have revealed a branch of the tree of life that has become another kind of organism...and somehow we are supposed to accept THAT(?) as evidence for evolution of the bat? If however, we had seen a slow and gradual development of the bat into something like:
...or this:
then you might have a case. It was argued by another poster that the evolution doesn't 'predict' that bats would evolve into 'cat/bats'. O.K. But not only do we not find 'cat/bats' or 'man/bats' or any other kind of organismal change since Onychonycteris finneyi, the fact is that there are no 'rat/bats' or 'shrew/bats' in the fossil record preceding Onychonycteris finneyi. Do you begin to get the picture? No evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Hi Calyps, it might help if you give your sources a thorough read before linking to them; as opposed to, say, scanning them and cherry-picking quotes that appear to help your case. I did. I said it was Scientific American.
This point is emphasised in the article because all the rest of it is about why this fossil shows significant differences to modern bats The point's been made time and time again. So why continue to beat this horse, er, bat?
What if all scientists in the world agreed to call Onychonycteris something other than "bat"? What would your argument be then? 1. They won't2. They can't. Not honestly. That was the point of my posting Scientific American 'it's a bat, no question'. Are we playing with the rubber band again? Also awaiting a reply is Lithodid-Man's post Message 350, which explains the problems with labelling the fossil in question as "just a bat." Note that Percy is going to make sure that this point is properly addressed, and we're all seeing bats in our sleep, before the topic moves on I will answer them later today. 'we're all seeing bats in our sleep'? or 'until we all go batty'? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Well, it's been fun. I appreciate your intellect and friendliness even though we disagree. Best wishes. Later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
If you truly were a science teacher, how can you read that article and not pick up on what I just pointed out to you? If you read that article to your students, would you have only read the selection that you posted. Would you consider that to be intellectually honest? Why would I not? Did you not see my previous statement:
How then, do they know the the bat in the topic post did not have echolocation ability? I read the whole article. I have it now in front of me on split screen. So you/they are suggesting that other fossil bats who lived during that period HAD echolocation and the bat in question did not? Secondly, I am not convinced that they are correct in their observations. Interesting that the article also said, "Some biologists have proposed that bats evolved echolocation to aid in hunting insects before they acquired flight." Would you explain to the readers how they could know that? Since science is based upon empirical investigation then what empirical findings could they possibly gather from the fossils that would determine such a thing? Secondly, demonstrate how the DNA could develop such a system as echolocation from creatures that had no such genetic capabilities in the first place. Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
"Could you please say yes or no to that definition and why."
The definition represents one of the many changes in defintions that evolutionists have made because of the criticism for their theory. But it doesn't help them because no matter how long or slow the changes are we don't find changes from one organism to another. I've clearly illustrated the extent of change that would have to be observed but that has not transpired and the living fossils demonstrate that very clearly. You don't see it because you don't wish to see it.
Yes, I have seen every picture you have posted. You could go on and list a hundred more(but you will run out and most will be incorrect comparisons as has been pointed out) No, they are not incorrect comparisons. Virtually all of them are of the same kind (although different species). The Mosaic 'kind' is closest to 'family' but does not necessarily have exactly the same boundaries as Linneaus. But that statement tells me that you have already got your mind made up that no matter how many organisms of the same kind are shown you (even if in the thousands?) you will maintain the fairy tale of biological evolution. The science I have given you is objective. You just arbitrarily choose to deny it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
it's just that creationists don't want to acknowledge that they don't get to dictate which changes should occur under the evolutionary model (only evolution itself is afforded that luxury). Dictate what? You can't show us ANY change from one organism into another. The truth is you don't know what the fossil bat evolved from and you have no clue if bats branched off into another different organism. All you are talking about are identified by everyone as bats. So why do I have to make things clearer than that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
You are ignoring the information that dozens of posts in this thread have given you. The information, dearest, is about bats. The information, friend, is about those organisms that are of the same kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So there is no actual basis for how you would classify things. You can make any determination you want and do not feel you need to justify or show evidence. As far as I know there is no complete "mosaic" classification of all the species of the earth. Therefore, unless you can provide a comprehensive, hierarchical listing of species then your claims of "kind" have no legitimacy. All your claims are based on personal bias and assumptions, nothing else. What God revealed as 'kind' in Genesis and in the law of Moses is legitimate whether you wish to regard it so or not. The legitimacy of divine revelation about what God created doesn't depend upon human approval. The boundaries of 'kind' are seen in Leviticus and Deuteronomy but in a much different way than Linneaus and others designated. The authors of the living fossils from whom I derived the evidence revealed organisms that were closely related, at least most of them. But since you don't believe I have legitimacy in the first place and you don't believe anything in scripture, then why waste your time communicating with me any further? Explain yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is...It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion. At your discretion. Why don't you stop attacking me and be honest enough to deal with the issue? There are no transitional changes in biological organisms from one kind to another! Even if evolution did exist (it doesn't) then it would operate in violation of natural law to begin with.
I find this disturbing, given your alleged background. Just call me an interested researcher and let it go at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading all the posts here to you at all. Your chosen tactic seems to be to ignore everything and repeat your own beliefs over and over, no matter how foreign they are to what real science actually is...It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion. At your discretion. Why don't you stop attacking me and be honest enough to deal with the issue? There are no transitional changes in biological organisms from one kind to another! Even if evolution did exist (it doesn't) then it would operate in violation of natural law to begin with.
I find this disturbing, given your alleged background. Just call me an interested researcher and let it go at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I know of a fair number of changes that happened between my parents and myself... Hmm. Were you humans during that change? Are you still human?
and a fair number that occurred between the winged and wingless fruit fly colonies in my lab Were they ever non-fruit flies either before or after the changes?
That, good sir, is why you need to clarify it more. No, you need to clarify how the things you mentioned above go beyond mere variation within the kind to a change of one kind of organism into another. None of you have done that, still less have any of you described any kind of scenario as to how it can happen genetically by the DNA to make such changes. Such morphological changes cannot be done even by genetic engineering. All efforts lead to deformations orhybridization. Notice this quote from an evolutionist concerning the dragonfly fossil: "Dragonflies are living fossils, having remained unchanged for over 300 million years. The fossil at the right is from the Pennsylvanian Period and is at least 300 million years old. It has a wingspan of 6 1/2 inches and was obviously a member of the clubtail group. Modern clubtails closely resemble this fossil specimen. The first known dragonfly fossil had a wingspan of about 29 inches." http://www.hinesdragonfly.org/new_page_2.htm This statement was made by a researcher who was not even involved in the controversy we are now in. I have found scores of statements like this attached to living fossils. Like it or not they speak loudly and clearly of the non-evolution of biological organisms.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024