Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils
ksc
Guest


Message 62 of 96 (9472)
05-10-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
05-10-2002 5:02 AM


This post has been deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 05-10-2002 5:02 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 05-10-2002 2:18 PM You replied

     
ksc
Guest


Message 63 of 96 (9473)
05-10-2002 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Quetzal
05-10-2002 5:39 AM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Quetzal, posted 05-10-2002 5:39 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Joe Meert, posted 05-10-2002 1:59 PM You replied

     
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 64 of 96 (9479)
05-10-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:19 PM


Here's your problem Karl. You desperately want evolution to claim something it does not. Karl's definition of evolution requires that ALL organisms undergo major morphological (or other) changes during a sufficient time period. Evolution makes no such claim. You want people to argue your straw man and are finding no takers on this board. Perhaps, if you went elsewhere, you might find an audience unable to recognize the fundamental flaws in your argument. The simple fact is that your argument (like many before) is a bad argument. I suspect the origin of your argument stems from the super-hyper macro evolution required by the flood model.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:19 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 2:17 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 65 of 96 (9481)
05-10-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Joe Meert
05-10-2002 1:59 PM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Joe Meert, posted 05-10-2002 1:59 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Joe Meert, posted 05-10-2002 3:16 PM You have not replied

     
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 96 (9482)
05-10-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Yeah, your right mark24. After 340 MY, and all of the mutations that according to the evo theories would have occured along with the normal 340 MY of genetic drift, along with a change in the tempo of evolution, yeah, your right. They should still look the same. My bad. sorry.

Good, glad you accept normalising selection acting on non-neutral mutations affecting morphology. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that genetic drift overides NS. & your right, it is your bad.
So, for the umpteenth time, can you show me that the coelacanth didn't evolve?
And you have the gall to ask for an apology from Percy because you answered questions? I think not.
Also, what particular change in tempo of evolution are we talking about? More mutations? Higher level of morphological adaption? Are you SURE the coelacanths experienced this? Are you SURE their environment changes in such a way as to REQUIRE change?
Please answer these questions rather than just reasserting points made in your first post.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:03 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 67 of 96 (9486)
05-10-2002 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ksc
05-10-2002 2:17 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by ksc:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Here's your problem Karl. You desperately want evolution to claim something it does not. Karl's definition of evolution requires that ALL organisms undergo major morphological (or other) changes during a sufficient time period. Evolution makes no such claim.
Repeat after me Joe...Time and mutations, time and mutations, time and mutations. Do you get it yet Joe?

No, repeating a false claim in a mantra like fashion does not make it any more real.
Cheers
Joe Meert
ps: it's still Dr. or Sir to you!
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 2:17 PM ksc has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 68 of 96 (9498)
05-11-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by mark24
05-10-2002 2:18 PM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 05-10-2002 2:18 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 05-11-2002 1:16 AM You have not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 1:28 AM You have not replied
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 05-11-2002 5:30 AM You have not replied
 Message 72 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 05-11-2002 9:46 AM You have not replied

     
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 96 (9500)
05-11-2002 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
BTW: I'm still waiting for Percys apology.
And we are still waiting for you to show us where the ToE requires a certain mutation rate and that evolution of a successful species is necessary.
quote:
So i have to now assume that you and joey both teach that time and mutations DO NOT produce change. especially 340MYs worth of mutations.
Heck, karl, your arguments sure haven't changed a bit in the last 2 years. Why not? Once again though: Why should a species evolve?
quote:
Why don't you present some evidence from a text book that says things don't have to change instead of the evobabble you have been presenting.
Did you ever hear of punctuated equilibrium? Do you think that PE suggests a constant rate of mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 96 (9501)
05-11-2002 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:39 AM


ksc writes:

...perhaps you should have followed the coelacanth post I presented.
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:

When an ESS experiences disequilibrium, the population either adapts (by NS favoring the expression of all those suppressed alleles), moves (habitat tracking), or goes extinct (crash). In the latter two cases, we’ll see an abrupt disappearance of a species from a particular geological site.
...
The other related issue is the fact that, in an environment that doesn’t change much over very loooong periods of time, an ESS — once achieved — will favor those populations best adapted to that environment. In places like the ocean, where conditions are pretty invariant, this apparent stasis can last millions of years — basically until something relatively drastic occurs to cause change.

Percy in message 8 writes:

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%.
Quetzal in message 10 writes:

You are confusing phyletic evolution (change in the characteristics of a single lineage — which is what you are arguing against) with speciation. Simply because a single lineage does not significantly change over time, doesn’t mean it didn’t give rise to other species. Your strawman here is the dual implicit claim that orthogenesis is somehow a foundation of evolutionary theory (not for the last 100 years, at least ), and that somehow speciation requires the extinction of the parent species.
Mister Pamboli in message 26 writes:

Firstly, the living coelecanth has evolved. 250 million years ago they were small to moderate size fish (upto about 60cm long), had no indication of viviparity and about a third of species were freshwater dwellers. Later specimens can be much larger. Today the only surviving coelacanths are deep sea fish, growing up to 2m and are viviparous.
I thoroughly recommend the following paper: Yokoyama, S. and Tada, T. (2000) Adaptive evolution of the African and Indonesian coelacanths to deep-sea environments.
The bradytely (slow rate of evolution) of the coelecanth does little, if anything, to undermine the theory of evolution. A period of rapid mutation, settling into a much longer period of slow mutation is exactly what one would expect from a model of efficient adaptation to a relatively stable environment. The architectural stability of the coelecanth genome is further attested by the measured genetic drift between the two main populations African and Indonesian populations of living specimens - the species have drifted to the point where it is not known if they can interbreed, yet remain morphologically all but identical. The genome of the coelecanth appears to be architecturally stable - and again, pleiotropic constraints on mutation is exactly what one would expect of a species mutated to a stable environment.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM ksc has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 71 of 96 (9504)
05-11-2002 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Good, glad you accept normalising selection acting on non-neutral mutations affecting morphology. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that genetic drift overides NS. & your right, it is your bad.
So, for the umpteenth time, can you show me that the coelacanth didn't evolve?
...perhaps you should have followed the coelacanth post I presented.

quote:
Originally posted by ksc:

Now why are you fibbing? The question was answered and it was answered in more than one way. Sheeze mark, go read the post then get back to me.

Then answer the question. It’s a simple cut & paste job, after all. Silly ol' me can't see where you answered this precise question in context of genetic variation, (which, if you check, WAS the context). I’m very interested as to how you know such details as chromosome number & structure of cretaceous coelacanths, not to mention amino acid/nucleotide sequences of proteins/genes. Have you shown that coelacanths never evolved?
I hope this isn’t going to turn into one of those kidnician postings (creationweb), where you continually maintain to have answered questions, but actually haven’t.
Paste away.
quote:
Originally posted by ksc:

Also, what particular change in tempo of evolution are we talking about? More mutations? Higher level of morphological adaption? Are you SURE the coelacanths experienced this? Are you SURE their environment changes in such a way as to REQUIRE change?
Please answer these questions rather than just reasserting points made in your first post.
Why don't you present some evidence from a text book that says things don't have to change instead of the evobabble you have been presenting.

From Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, p344-5. In describing Dhobanskies experiments with Drosophila pseudoobscura . The critical implication of this experiment is that the chromosome frequencies approach STABLE EQUILIBRIUM, no matter what the initial frequencies are. This can only be due to natural selection, FOR GENETIC DRIFT WOULD NOT SHOW SUCH CONSISTENCY. Moreover, natural selection must be acting in such a way as to MAINTAIN VARIATION; it does not necessarily cause fixation of the single best genotype."
Figures are provided showing the equilibrium being reached over TIME, regardless of initial variations introduced. Natural selection is acting to maintain variation, IN SPITE OF GENETIC DRIFT.
Your question was to give a textbook quote as to why things don’t have to change. Answered. Can you give one that says they do?
quote:
Originally posted by ksc:

So i have to now assume that you and joey both teach that time and mutations DO NOT produce change. especially 340MYs worth of mutations.

Nope, I'm sure time & mutation does produce change. This is the point of my question, above. Positive adaptations may well have taken place, just not on the morphology of the coelacanth. Probably many neutral mutations have been fixed/reached equilibrium, via drift. However, those mutations that affected the basic body plan would be deleterious, & acted on by ns. Stabilising selection, no less.
Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM ksc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 AM mark24 has replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 96 (9506)
05-11-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:39 AM


I have been searching for a reference that should shut Karl up. Maybe someone here remembers seeing the article. Sometime last year, I read an article at a Creationist site — maybe AIG or ICR, about fruit flies and morphology. They claimed that in some cases two fruit flies only shared 25% of their DNA in common, but the basic morphology remained the same. They were trying to demonstrate that a fruit fly would never be anything other than a fruit fly. But, if the article was correct, it demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for an organism to undergo tremendous amounts of evolution and still maintain the same basic form. It all depends upon which parts of the DNA got mutated, and how these changes affected the survivability of the organism.
In the case of the coelacanth, Karl is right about one thing. We can hardly expect that the DNA didn’t change over these millions of years. Sure it did. But as many others have pointed out, and as I have attempted to reiterate in the paragraph above, it is possible for a large amount of evolution to occur without affecting the basic morphology. It is not likely, but then again it apparently hasn’t occurred too many times. This is what you would expect, given an unlikely event but millions of chances (species) for it to occur.
To take an old (and very worn) line from Karl, NEXT!
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:39 AM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 73 of 96 (9507)
05-11-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by mark24
05-11-2002 5:30 AM


mark24 writes:

Can you tell us why stabilising selection cannot act over 340 m.y.?
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:
  • To be technically accurate, the fish we're talking about is actually the Latimeria chalumnae. The complete classification:
    Kingdom: Anamilia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
    Order: Coelacanthini
    Family: Sarcopterygii
    Genus: Latimeria
    Species: chalumnae
  • Latimeria chalumnae is the only known extant species representing an order, the Coelacanthini, that was once thought to have become extinct in the Cretaceous because no fossils from more recent periods have ever been found.
  • The modern coelacanth's closest known relatives, species of the genus Macropoma such as Macropoma lewesiensis, went extinct about 70 million years ago in the Cretaceous. No fossil of Latimeria chalumnae has ever been found.
  • It isn't the species coelacanth which has survived for 340 million years, but rather the order Coelacanthini, of which Latimeria chalumnae is the only known living representative. For this reason, use of the popular term "coelacanth" is both misleading and insufficiently accurate for this debate.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 05-11-2002 5:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 10:35 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 05-11-2002 12:21 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 81 by wj, posted 05-12-2002 9:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 90 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-27-2002 6:01 AM Percy has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 74 of 96 (9508)
05-11-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
05-11-2002 10:19 AM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 05-11-2002 11:06 AM You have not replied
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 3:42 PM You have not replied

     
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 96 (9510)
05-11-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by ksc
05-11-2002 10:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Notice: Untill the evos present realistic answers to the questions as to why the Coelacanth and the other living fossils have not changed I will terminate this discussion and present the topic again at a later date when an answer could possibly be presented.
Unfortunatly for the sciences of evolution...they don't have to change...is an inadequate answer.
I was aksed to give reason why the Coelacanth would need to change and presented valid reasons employing the evos own theory.
For those that had responded to this topic, I thank you for your responces. Perhaps at a later date you'll have answers to help prop up the T.O.E., but as for now, evolution has another weakness it must overcome.

Karl, you never once attempted to present any evidence that the DNA of the coelacanth has NOT changed substantially over millions of years. You have tried to equate genotype with phenotype, which is not always a good assumption. If you had even a small clue about biology, you would recognize your error. As it stands, you have just demonstrated your old, tired trick of present an assertion, repeatedly ignore the rebuttals, and then claim victory. Of course you hinted at the next step which I have also seen you do repeatedly: Regurgitate your argument unchanged at a later date and claim that it has never been refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 10:35 AM ksc has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 76 of 96 (9513)
05-11-2002 12:02 PM


NOTICE:
Until Karl defines "DNA strand" and "pinpointed mutation" discussing issues related to genetics is a waste of time.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-11-2002]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024