|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
ksc Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Found basically the same argument in very similar words over at CARM posted by someone with the ID "karl" back in '98, perhaps it's the same person:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/fossils_coccoliths.htm --Percy [Fixed URL. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc writes: Evolution predicts that species will adapt to changes in the environment. If the environment doesn't change then neither will the species. The dramatic environmental changes of the K-T event drove many changes, among them evolution and extinction, but also migration. Species that survived the most difficult period immediately after the impact needn't "evolve or die" if a) their region returned to normal or close enough to normal before they went extinct; or b) they were able to migrate to another region more amenable to their survival.
Just as a coin coming up heads 10 times in a row has no effect on the probably of tossing heads once again, the antiquity of a species is unrelated to the effect on it of a dramatic environment change. The coelacanth, the tuatara and the rest were no more or less likely than any other species to go extinct after the asteroid strike. And naturally they *were* affected. The period immediately after the strike was likely difficult for all species, but as the earth began to recover some species would benefit from the opening of new ecological niches, while others would suffer due to the environmental changes and to competition from new rivals. Which category each species you listed falls into is open to speculation, though in some cases fossil evidence is informative. For example, before the K-T extinction the coelacanth was common, while now it is restricted to only a small number of tiny areas in and about the Indian Ocean. Certainly the stress of dramatic environmental change would be a primary force for evolution. The K-T event drove the dinosaurs into extinction, and mammals evolved into many of their ecological niches, including the first primates. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc writes: Around 65% of species went extinct after the K-T event. That means that 35% of species passed through the K-T event unchanged. Why do you believe that species that had exhibited little to no change for millions of years prior to the K-T event were in some way prohibited from being members of the 35% of species that passed through the K-T event unchanged? Why do you think that species of great antiquity could not avoid your "three methods" when 35% of species did precisely that?
Why? 35% of species didn't change after the K-T event. Again, why were the ancient species required to change? The bottom line here is that roughly 35% of species survived the K-T event. There is no particular reason why gingkoes and crocodiles and so forth couldn't be members of that 35%.
According to recent fossil evidence (this year), primates evolved within 10 million years after the K-T event. There is no evidence of primates prior to the K-T boundary. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Did your quoted sections get out of phase perhaps? There's an edit button you can click to modify your post.
--Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The guidelines state that one shouldn't personalize the debate, but there *are* such things as trolls on the Internet, and warnings about them are generally appreciated. Joe was warning us that you have a history of ignoring rational arguments, which is fairly trollish behavior.
But you have a fairly clean slate here, and most here probably don't already know you and so have no negative preconceptions. You could show us that Joe and Fedmahn Kassad are wrong, but so far you're simply proving them right. Instead of addressing the rebuttals you're simply repeating your original points. In fact, as I noted earlier, you're still making precisely the same points you made over at CARM four years ago. Somewhere on my list of things to do is to update the guidelines to address the issue of debating in bad faith. It usually comes down to ignoring rebuttals while restating the original points unchanged. --Percy Evc Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi, Karl!
Your last three posts contributed nothing of substance to the debate. There's nothing wrong with having some fun taking content-free potshots at the opposition, but at some point you have to begin addressing the rebuttals. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
What I would add, in case it hasn't yet been explained clearly enough to Karl, is that the coelacanth *does* experience a normal mutation rate. The coelacanth has experienced a normal amount of mutations (for that particular species) since the K-T event. But given its stable environment, mutations evolving it away from its current well adapted form would be filtered out (ie, individuals expressing the mutation would be less likely to have offspring to which to pass it on).
I'd like to see Karl address the question of why, given that 35% of species passed through the K-T boundary unchanged, that the coelacanth couldn't do the same. I try to make a discussion no more complex than necessary, and it seems that there's really no need to examine mutation rates, natural selection arguments, K-T envirnomental changes and so forth. If many other species could do it, why not the coelacanth? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Jousting with the administrator won't get you anywhere. You can get a clue or get lost.
--PercyEvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Karl,
I'm administering you a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. As someone noted above, there's been only one previous suspension here, and that was of an evolutionist. See you tomorrow. If you'd like to discuss your suspension via email I can be reached at admin@. Or just click on the "Contact Us" link. --PercyEvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The forum guidelines request that members exhibit respect for others, refrain from personalizing the debate, and stay focused on the issues. I think we've said enough about Karl for now, especially given that he can't respond until tomorrow afternoon.
I followed the links people posted to information about Karl's participation at other boards, and there is no doubt in my mind that he's a troll. That's why I moved so quickly to give him a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. But his participation here has been very short and his offenses thus far very meager, and I'm convinced he is unable to perceive the trollish side of his behavior. He may be a troll, but I believe he is an honest troll. I'm not so naive as to believe it likely that Karl will comport himself differently here, but I strongly believe he should be given every opportunity to do so. It is therefore my fervent wish and hope that Karl will be accorded every respect upon his return. I'm now aware of his history, I truly appreciate being informed about him, but I don't think we need any further posts about Karl's activities elsewhere, or any further criticisms of his behavior here. When Karl returns please welcome him cordially, leaving enforcement of the forum guidelines to the moderator. Thank you all! --PercyEvC Forum Administrator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc's posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc writes: I'm not sure which of your posts you're referring to, but in looking back through this thread there appears to be much that you haven't addressed regarding the pace of evolution: Quetzal in message 7 writes: Percy in message 8 writes: Quetzal in message 10 writes: Mister Pamboli in message 26 writes: If your answer is to claim you've already addressed these issues then I don't think this board is for you. People who feel they have the answers are usually eager to repeat them at every opportunity, and in my judgement (which is the one that counts around here), claiming you've already answered something and refusing to elaborate is a rhetorical device intended to stymie debate and discussion. Since this is a debate board, such behavior is anathema to our raison d'etre and will not be permitted. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
mark24 writes: This isn't a critical factor in this discussion, since the main point is Karl's assertion that evolution prohibits stasis, but in the name of accuracy, and as Mister Pamboli has already stated in message 26, the coelacanth *has* evolved quite a bit over the past 340 million years. A few facts:
These facts indicate that Karl's assertion that the coelacanth is an example of a species surviving unchanged for hundreds of millions of years is simply wrong. It is easy to see where one could pick up this misimpression, because most popular articles about the coelacanth describe it as virtually unchanged from its Devonian relatives. For example, the picture of Macropoma lewesiensis is part of an article that says, "The skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths." Use of the term "virtually identical" is misleading - just look at the pictures. By "virtually identical" the article only means "very similar", which is why they're classified in the same order. Had they actually been identical then they'd have been classified as the same species. --Percy [Edited to fix the link to the picture. --Percy] [This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ksc writes: I thought you were demanding an apology from me because you don't do things like this. You claimed you were falsely accused of such behavior, yet here you go again, once more violating rule 2. Have another 24-hour suspension, Karl. See you tomorrow. Oh, by the way, don't expect prompt reinstatement on Sundays. Once again, I am available at admin@ if there's anything you'd like to discuss. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Karl's (ksc's) posting privileges have been restored.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024