|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Wow. I've seen an OP that is not developed or defended by its author in any detail. I've seen questions and refutations repeated and repeatedly ignored. I've seen solid scientific evidence skipped over like crap on the sidewalk. Now we have a blanket declaration that everything here is nonsense, and having won this stunning victory, the creationist moves on to another thread.
I'm impressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Me too.
My thoughts are similar to Nosy Ned's. There has been no concession of the oft repeated fact that the ToE easily accommodates species that have changed little over millions of years, which seems to derail the whole idea of this thread. Not even any attempt to rebut this in any logical or rational way. It seems to me that a defense of the title of the thread, supported with evidence, is in order if conversations are going to continue here. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: Actually I've read every single post in this thread. What I've seen is you posting a picture, avoiding having to deal with commentary on it from anyone here (including some who do this stuff for a living), insisting you are right regardless, and then posting another picture -- in other words, doing the "Gish Gallop." When Percy stopped you, you said you were leaving the thread. Since you've decided to stay, why not start defending why you say the bat is devastating for evolution.
quote: I don't think anyone wants quick posts with little or no substance, which is usually the result of the above. Most people seem to be posting because they are asking you over and over to defend statements you've made that have no evidence to support them, or to reply to their rebuttals. We'd actually like you to take your time and do so.
quote: No, they are working with the ground rules that you yourself defined in Message 20:
quote: Now we're seeing what we usually see when asking a creationist to define what a "kind" is. When you get yourself into a pickle, i.e. when you've been informed that some of the pictures you posted show organisms that have undergone so much change that they're not in the same family, you want to shift the goalposts. The problem is, you're not going to find any legitimate type of classification that suits your purposes because you will always find some organisms that have made huge evolutionary changes and others that have not, and none of this runs counter to the ToE. (added in edit)By the way, don't feel obliged to reply to this post. While I've been typing, some others have made some good points (see above) and I think your time would be well spent in addressing their specific questions, as well as other outstanding ones from earlier in the thread. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: The fact that you can even be saying this at this point, after everything that's been said to you here, is truly astounding. You still seem to believe that posting pictures of organisms that look alike is proof that none of them have evolved (it isn't, as has been shown). You still seem to believe that the existence of organisms that have changed little over time is somehow devastating for evolution (it isn't, as has been shown). Don't you think that the fact that a biologist has a fossil on his desk which is millions of years old, but not very different from existing present-day organisms, and freely admits such, is a bit of an indicator that he is rather unperturbed by your unsupported accusations? If you want to leave the thread with beliefs about the ToE which are just as mistaken as they were when you came here in the first place, then go right ahead. Or you might like to stick around and try to learn something. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
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: 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:
Brachial index - radius/humerus x 100 Limb 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
You really, really like cute pictures, don't you? Please stop using them to distract from the discussion.
quote: As usual, you have ignored all the evidence I included in my post, the majority of which was evidence previously posted by others that you ignored. I wonder if your biology teaching included some advice along the lines of, "If the evidence doesn't square with what you believe, then ignore it"? You defined "kind" as being "family." Onychonycteris is a separate family from those of present-day bats, which means that according to your own definition, evolution has taken place. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I would really appreciate it if you started answering the questions that I and many others have put to you here, while staying on topic. Remember, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: A reminder, from Message 338:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK 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.
quote: This point is emphasised in the article because all the rest of it is about why this fossil shows significant differences to modern bats. These are key differences because as has been illustrated to you in numerous different ways here, they are intermediate between moderns bats and non-volant (non-flying) mammals -- classic characteristics of a transitional species. I highly recommend Bluejay's Message 362 to Archangel because it's equally pertinent to you:
quote: 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. That's because jumping to a new argument before the old one is settled is not an honest debate tactic. Getting back to your link, you said,
quote: Because in the following sentence, the article explains,
quote: You went on to say:
quote: This fossil shows us the process in action. If you insist on denying this then you really need to address Lithodid-Man's post above. You also might like to keep us entertained by starting a thread about transitional fossils. That's a meatier topic than the (to all intents and purposes) non-topic we're discussing here. Interestingly, other scientific fields can also investigate evidence for evolution, which is yet another part of this discussion that went totally ignored -- from Message 308: Molecular Biology Fills Gaps in Knowledge of Bat Evolutionquote: What's more, it seems that a single mutation might have been responsible for a relatively rapidly evolved ability to fly:
Rogue Finger Gene Got Bats Airborne Note that this article was published in 2004, before the information about the onychonycteris fossil was published. So where it talks about a lack of transitional fossils, the author was not yet aware of the one we've been discussing. I will repeat my earlier question to you, which went unaddressed like 99% of the other questions to you in this thread: what exactly is your deadline for the discovery of transitional fossils? Who decides when it's time to press the buzzer and say, "Time's up"? It would be really nice to see you attempt to address any of the points made to you here; we've already seen one person leave the thread because it hasn't really risen above the "yes it is/no it isn't" level. Hint: the way to win a debate is to defend your claims. And if you don't win, you might at least win a little respect for trying. On top of that, there's the added bonus of possibly learning something. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: You are ignoring the information that dozens of posts in this thread have given you.
quote: Onychonycteris, the fossil bat, is a member of an extinct family.
quote: Please explain how your personal classification system is superior to that of Linnaeus. You have been repeatedly asked to outline your criteria and have not acknowledged the numerous requests for you to do so. Why is onychonycteris "just a bat"? A list of specific morphological criteria for "bat" would be fine.
There is a long list of questions to you on this thread, which you have repeatedly ignored. Please answer them in your next posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK 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. I find this disturbing, given your alleged background. It's increasingly clear that it's a waste of time trying to engage you in a discussion.
Once more, with feeling: this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Still continuing with the distractions Calyps?
quote: I think all of us have been tempted to talk about these things but they are off topic here. These are points for discussion in a thread about transitional forms. I hesitate to invite you again to start one though because I fear all we'd hear from you over and over is, "Aren't any." What's more, in typical creationist fashion, you want to move the goalposts regarding the definition of "kind" (i.e. by rejecting the classification system that scientists use without any elucidation). If you have nothing new to add here, maybe you can do as Percy suggested and sum up? Bets that we get anything other than "It's a bat!" followed by more pictures of cars? Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I don't think I can improve on what others here have already said. This thread is a good example of cognitive dissonance in action, and as such, it's been interesting to watch the degrees to which Calyps has taken denial. This is someone who is not ready to take on board any facts that challenge his a priori beliefs.
I think we've been handicapped in a way by not being able to discuss transitional forms in any depth here, because this is a topic in itself. I wonder if anyone would like to start such a thread, or resurrect an old one (my guess is there must be several in the archives).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024