Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,567 Year: 4,824/9,624 Month: 172/427 Week: 85/85 Day: 2/20 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 211 of 223 (341537)
08-19-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 9:36 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Chuteleach writes:
it's funny you discredit it because the soft part wouldn't be preserved, how do scientists figure anything about fossils if all they see is the hard parts.
They see differences in the hard parts.
But back up for a minute, you still haven't supported your assertion that fossil horseshoe crabs have been found that are indistinguishable from one of the modern species.
This is a science forum. You may be called upon to support your claims.
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 9:36 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Belfry has replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 223 (341553)
08-19-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Belfry
08-19-2006 9:42 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Yes, I understand this is a science forum, but also, you have no scientific proof that life can come from non-living matter.
Living Fossils: Ferns and Crabs | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 9:42 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 10:45 PM Chuteleach has replied
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2006 11:03 PM Chuteleach has not replied
 Message 215 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-20-2006 12:22 AM Chuteleach has replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 213 of 223 (341575)
08-19-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 10:09 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
quote:
Yes, I understand this is a science forum, but also, you have no scientific proof that life can come from non-living matter.
  —Chuteleach
That is off-topic in this thread. In fact, it's off-topic in the Biological Evolution forum, as abiogenesis and evolution are distinct topics. For this reason, we have a separate "Origin of Life" forum.
As for your link. Links are useful for support, but you should explain how it supports your view. "Bare links" are frowned upon here.
In this case, the AIG page you linked to does not support your claim. Putting aside the fact that AIG is hardly a reliable source for scientific information, they do not even make the claim you do. They show a picture of a fossil horseshoe crab and a modern one, and the caption asserts simply (and incorrectly), "A serious challenge to evolution." They do not say that the two are indistinguishable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Belfry has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 214 of 223 (341596)
08-19-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 10:09 PM


I notice that on that page they identify the modern organisms by species but the fossil specimens only by genus. Deliberate deceit, or did their poor little brains get muddled? You decide. In any case, they do not assert that they are the same species.
'Cos they can't.
And they do not give the slightest reason why they think a conservative lineage is evidence against evolution. Not one line of argument, not one shred of reasoning.
'Cos they can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 215 of 223 (341628)
08-20-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuteleach
08-19-2006 10:09 PM


Xiphosurans
Chuteleach,
I am going to assume from your choice of source that you are one of those unfortunate victims of AiG deceit.
The modern species of horsecrab are not identical to any fossil species. In fact, none of the paleozoic species are in the same family and a good number of those in a different ORDER than the modern species. Pictures of fossils like those on AiG make convincing (but wrong) arguments to people with no background in invertebrate zoology. The fact is that many invertebrate taxa look similar to laymen but have profound and important differences. In horseshoe crabs the shapes of the appendages and degree of fusion of segments are very important (but not the only ones) and separate out taxa with greater differences than seen in the order Primata (lemurs, monkeys, apes).
On the link you provided there is also a plant, Comptonia peregrina shown next to a fossil:
AiG writes:
The same species of Comptonia found as a fossil, supposedly millions of years older. No evolution has taken place.
This is simply untrue. There are fossil Comptonia, but not C. peregrina.
AiG writes:
Fossil Limulus from Solnhofen limestone”Upper Jurassic (supposedly about 140 million years old).
The genus is Mesolimulus and not in the same subfamily as is Limulus. With such errors (fabrications?) on their site you need to really ask yourself how much faith you can put into anything they say.
I strongly encourage you to look up claims you read on AiG (or anywhere for that matter, creo or evo). At the very least type in some good keywords in Google and see what you get.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuteleach, posted 08-19-2006 10:09 PM Chuteleach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:38 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 223 (341803)
08-20-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Belfry
08-19-2006 10:45 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't. I don't care if just giving a link is frowned upon or not, use a little common sense it goes a long way.
the middle right is a living Limulus
the bottom right is a fossilized Limulus
how does that not support my claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 10:45 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Belfry, posted 08-20-2006 10:25 PM Chuteleach has not replied
 Message 223 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2006 4:50 AM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Chuteleach
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 223 (341805)
08-20-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Lithodid-Man
08-20-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Xiphosurans
no, the genus is Limulus. I double checked.
Atlantic horseshoe crab - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-20-2006 12:22 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-20-2006 10:17 PM Chuteleach has not replied
 Message 220 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 10:27 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 218 of 223 (341813)
08-20-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Xiphosurans
Chuteleach writes:
no, the genus is Limulus. I double checked.
Better triple check, it isn't. Limulus polyphemos is one of the four living species, the others are in the genus Tachypleus (I believe, don't have my ref handy). The fossil from the Solnhofen limestones is Mesolimulus. Even the caption says the fossil is Jurassic, the oldest known limulin (Member of the subfamily Limulinae) are Miocene in age and IIRC that one is some dispute.
I would highly recommend doing a bit more research before making such bold statements.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:38 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 219 of 223 (341817)
08-20-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:30 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Chuteleach writes:
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't. I don't care if just giving a link is frowned upon or not, use a little common sense it goes a long way.
I should probably have been more clear. Presenting bare links runs counter to the Forum Rules:
quote:
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
This forum takes its rules a bit more seriously than what you might be used to, and people are often suspended or banned for failing to follow them. I'm not a moderator, but I see that you're new, and I'd like to help you find your footing here.
We can provide many examples of AIG giving false, misleading, and deceptive information. But that's another topic that has been covered many times over. As for common sense, it's a notoriously bad way to come to conclusions. But that's also another topic. Your AiG link does not support your conclusion, and provides false information besides. From this latter point alone, we can conclude that it is not credible.
Chuteleach writes:
the middle right is a living Limulus
the bottom right is a fossilized Limulus
how does that not support my claim?
I realize that you might not be familiar with the scientific classification, so that's a reasonable question. Limulus is a genus name. A genus can include many different species, and species within a genus can be remarkably different from each other. Certainly, saying that two samples are in the same genus does not equal saying that they have the same phenotype.
In reference to your Message 217, the Jurassic specimen would indeed be in the Mesolimulus genus as Lithodid-Man said. This is another case where your link does not support your assertion. The Wiki link shows that there is a modern species of Limulus (L. polyphemus), but we already knew that. The wiki does not say that the same species is found in the Jurassic fossil record.
Although the horseshoe crab lineage is highly conserved, there are differences apparent in the fossil specimens that have been found, and paleontologists have been examining these for a long time. As the abstract says in this old Journal of Paleontology article (Stormer 1952):
quote:
Fossil Xiphosura are known from all geological systems from the Cambrian onward. A distinct trend of development, particularly from the Silurian to Recent time, is demonstrated.
In other words, the changes within this lineage may not be drastic, but the evidence demonstrates that change has been taking place over time in this group. The article says that Mesolimulus is "characteristic of the Jurassic. Compared with Recent forms, it shows primitive features particularly in having distinct dorsal furrows."
A recent phylogeny of Xiphosura (the class which includes the horseshoe crab family Limulidae) can be seen here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6430 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 220 of 223 (341818)
08-20-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Xiphosurans
I think what Lithoid-Man is saying is that the fossil pictured on the AiG site is of the genus Mesolimulus. I'm a complete know-nothing on this but if you put Solnhofen and horseshoe into Google you will find lots of references to Mesolimulus fossils - specifically Mesolimulus walchi.
There are a few (and it is very few) references to Limulus walchi fossils from Solnhofen. It would take somebody who knows their fossils to say what the one pictured on AiG is. Actually given how few references to Limulus walchi there are I wonder if they are misidentifications.
Edit: I see from the phylogeny that Belfry posted that there is no such thing as Limulus walchi so I guess they are indeed misidentifications or mistakes and should (I guess?) be Mesolimulus walchi.
Edited by MangyTiger, : Add update about non-existence of Limulus walchi.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:38 PM Chuteleach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Belfry, posted 08-20-2006 10:46 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 221 of 223 (341827)
08-20-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by MangyTiger
08-20-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Xiphosurans
quote:
There are a few (and it is very few) references to Limulus walchi fossils from Solnhofen. It would take somebody who knows their fossils to say what the one pictured on AiG is. Actually given how few references to Limulus walchi there are I wonder if they are misidentifications.
  —MangyTiger
I'm pretty sure it's just an outdated classification. From what I've been able to gather, I believe Mesolimulus is a fairly new genus, and prior to that M. walchi was placed in the Limulus genus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by MangyTiger, posted 08-20-2006 10:27 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-20-2006 11:15 PM Belfry has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 222 of 223 (341833)
08-20-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Belfry
08-20-2006 10:46 PM


Re: Xiphosurans
Belfry,
Thanks for the excellent Xiphosuran link. The genus Limulus was named in 1885 by Stormer. Mesolimulus was first erected as a genus in 1952. Between 1885 and 1952 the genus Limulus was used to include many xiphosurans. The species Limulus polyphemus was first described in 1778 by Linnaeus as Cancer polyphemus.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Belfry, posted 08-20-2006 10:46 PM Belfry has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 223 of 223 (341854)
08-21-2006 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:30 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't.
If you claim to have any familiarity with science then a reference to peer reviewed material in a scientific journal is always going to trump a link to a site that any monkey with a computer could produce. If you don't recognise that then you haven't the first clue what actually constitutes scientific evidence. Use a little education, it goes much further than common sense.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024