|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Sense is a very bad way of determining truth. I agree.But if we do not rely on sense, we should see evidence. Do we have the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Europa writes:
Do you often laugh when true things are said? what is "logically difficult to believe" to you is irrelevant, what the evidence shows to be the case is. So yes, this is a logical fallacy.
Logically, it is also difficult o believe that for one population the environment is more or less the same for millions of years. Now Huntard will say this is an argument from incredulity. lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
what is "logically difficult to believe" to you is irrelevant, what the evidence shows to be the case is. okay.But where is the evidence? I am waiting for you to show this evidence to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Europa writes:
Precisely. In fact, we should always rely on the evidence.
I agree.But if we do not rely on sense, we should see evidence. Do we have the evidence?
For?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Do we have the evidence? For? Evidence to say the environment of 'living fossils' did not change much? Edited by Europa, : No reason given. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Logically, it is also difficult o believe that for one population the environment is more or less the same for millions of years. Prefacing a remark with the word "logically" does not make it logical; some sort of reasoning is also required. One thing to bear in mind is that species are mobile (even a plant species, qua species, is mobile by dispersal of its seeds). And this allows species to stay in the same environment even when environmental changes occur. For example, the evidence shows that during Ice Ages, species requiring a temperate climate neither evolved nor went extinct. They just moved south. When the glaciers retreated, they moved back north. (ABE: I note that you have acknowledged this point in post #60; I began writing this post before you'd posted #60.)
Now Huntard will say this is an argument from incredulity. Yes. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evidence to say the environment of 'living fossils' did not change much? Pick one in particular, and we'll discuss it. Bear in mind that the term "living fossil" does not imply prolonged morphological stasis, which is what you actually want to talk about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Do you guys honestly believe that the environment can remain similar for an organism for 200 million years? I agree that the organism can also move to what environment that suits him. So the environment of an organism is not on a fixed piece of land area. Still, to believe that an organism managed to live in an unchanging environment for 200 million years, while the others could not do it, is so counter intuitive for me. However, the fact is that the evidence shows that some types of organism have remained relatively unchanged (at least morphologically) over long periods of time without going extinct. And this means that there must, throughout that period, always have been some environment that was within their tolerance, otherwise they would have gone extinct, wouldn't they? Now that is logic. The fact that stromatolites (for example) have survived for hundreds of millions of years does in fact prove that for hundreds of millions of years there must have been, at any particular time in this interval, some place on Earth in which stromatolites could survive. So yes, I "honestly believe" that it is possible, because the evidence shows that it has actually happened; and things that happen are of course possible. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Bear in mind that the term "living fossil" does not imply prolonged morphological stasis, which is what you actually want to talk about. Well doctor Adequate, according to Katsuhiko Yoshida,"Living fossils are taxonomic groups surviving for a long time without any remarkable morphological change." Don't know why you want to redefine what a living fossil is. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/abstract/28/4/464 Pick one in particular, and we'll discuss it. Since you insist, please tell me how the cockroach managed to remain a cockroach for hundreds of millions of years. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
However, the fact is that the evidence shows that some types of organism have remained relatively unchanged (at least morphologically) over long periods of time without going extinct. And this means that there must, throughout that period, always have been some environment that was within their tolerance, otherwise they would have gone extinct, wouldn't they? Now that is logic. The fact that stromatolites (for example) have survived for hundreds of millions of years does in fact prove that for hundreds of millions of years there must have been, at any particular time in this interval, some place on Earth in which stromatolites could survive. So yes, I "honestly believe" that it is possible, because the evidence shows that it has actually happened; and things that happen are of course possible. Now, now, now. doctor.You started with an explanation. Then you called it logic. And in the end you are calling it evidence. Huntard told me sense [and probably logic too] is not good enough. We need evidence. But a mere label of 'evidence' is not enough for me. If it is so, you can label what i called logic also as evidence. I would still call what you explained an explanation. That explanation unfortunately, for me, is so counter intuitive. When I say it is counter intuitive, you say it is an argument from incredulity. That is what lead me to ask for evidence. Where is the evidence that the environment did not change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Since you insist, please tell me how the cockroach managed to remain a cockroach for hundreds of millions of years. Which of the thousands of species of cockroach were you thinking of? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Hi wounded,
Which of the thousands of species of cockroach were you thinking of? The one that survived without much morphological change, for the longest duration. lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well doctor Adequate, according to Katsuhiko Yoshida, "Living fossils are taxonomic groups surviving for a long time without any remarkable morphological change." Don't know why you want to redefine what a living fossil is. But if you are going to take that as a definition of living fossil then a lot of things that people call living fossils aren't living fossils, and you should bear this in mind when selecting your example.
Since you insist, please tell me how the cockroach managed to remain a cockroach for hundreds of millions of years. "The" cockroach?
From WP:
These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("Blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period between 354—295 million years ago. However, these fossils differ from modern cockroaches in having long external ovipositors and are the ancestors of mantises as well as modern cockroaches. The first fossils of modern cockroaches with internal ovipositors appear in the early Cretaceous ... Current evidence strongly suggests that termites have evolved directly from true cockroaches, and many authors now consider termites to be an epifamily of cockroaches, as Blattaria excluding Isoptera is not a monophyletic group. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The one that survived without much morphological change, for the longest duration. And which is that, and how long was the duration?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
And which is that, and how long was the duration? This is info can be researched but this is not important.You are evading my question. The cockroach has been around for more than 300 million years. Please give me the evidence that the environment did not change for the cockroach and THAT is why it has been around for more than 300 million years.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024