Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

quote:

---

I want to change the environment and predict down to the genes what set of changes will evolve.

---

If anyone is able to do this, I may want them to pick my lotto numbers as well. I can search around a little bit, but I have heard of specific mutations occuring in separate bacteria under the same environmental pressures. However, in bacteria we are dealing with very small genomes as compared to larger genomes such as those found in mammals. Bacteria (in comparison) have very little intergenetic sequence and very few pseudogenes. Combine this with their sheer ability to multiply and you would expect exactly what has been observed, the same mutation arising in two different bacteria. Also, mutational hotspots can be found in bacterial genomes, so while this is still random mutation, the occurence of some mutations is higher than the background rate. On the other hand, we still see divergent mutations in other studies, such as a paper I read on nylonase where a bacteria developed the ability to subsist on nylon derivatives due to mutations unrelated to the more famous nylon bug (the mutations in this paper were not plasmid encoded but in the genome itself).Getting back to the point I was trying to make, I find it very improbable that the same selective pressure will always involve selection of just one mutation, especially in a genome with superfluous sequence like that in mammals. Instead, we may see the same phenotypic adaptation from different genotypic sources. That is, we might see the same physiological/morphological adaptation but it may be caused by separate mutations in separate experiments. I would say, however, that in developing ecosystems science is getting close to predicting the niches that are available for specialization through adaptation. The lemurs of Madagascar are a great example. These primates filled quite a few empty niches by becoming specialists (eg insectivores that developed sharp hearing and a long, probing fingernail to get grubs out of trees). The kiwi is another great example, a bird that filled the niche usually occupied by mice and rats.

quote:

---

Asking a lot I know.

---

Yeah, it is. And the problem lies in the very mechanisms that you want to be predictable but in fact defy rules of predictability. Even human nature is unpredictable, and we have a pretty good understanding of that. My guess is that we will be able to predict weather patterns before we are able to predict direct evolutionary genotypic change.

Robert, Robert, Robert . . . you really need to study science instead of a creationist distortion of evolution.

quote:

---

The finding of the Ceolacanth,Nosyned, was an embarrasment to evolution as I understand it.
First this was thev exact creature that Darwin said was evidence of an intermediarie.
Therefore it was said to be extinct.

---

I don't remember Darwin ever mentioning coelacanths anywhere. If you could, would you point me to where Darwin mentions coelocanths?Even if the coelocanth was proported by Darwin to be the intermidiate between fish and land amphibians, this still doesn't mean that coelocanths should not be alive. Evolution is not a ladder with a species moving together at the same time towards a goal. If this was true, then humans would be the only organisms alive since evolution states that everything shares a common ancestor.Also, the current theories state that it was a lobe fin fish that was probably the ancestor to terrestrial quadrapeds. Through DNA analysis, the lobe finned lungfish is the best candidate, not coelocanths.Also, the extant species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. The fossil species are actually quite different than the living species, so much so that they are placed in different genera.

quote:

---

First it shows how somebody big up there is on our side (creationist I mean)

---

Why, because we found a species of fish found nowhere in the fossil record? Are you telling me that rotifers are also a sign from God since they aren't found in the fossil record either? Or how about passenger pigeons? They aren't found in the fossil record either.

quote:

---

Dawin said, and thought this fish had leg things and so went aha an intermediary. This proves it. Also of coarse since it was on its way to the land it disappeared from the sea.
Not so fast.
First it was found alive and NOT walking.

---

You might want to stop sniffing glue so often. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. For the same reason that you are descendant from your parents and your parents are still alive, parent and daughter species are expected to be alive at the same time.

quote:

---

Also in all that time no real changes to its form while humans went from a mouse to our present glory.

---

So coelocanths and the ancestors of humans must have been under different selective pressures. Nothing in evolution says that morphology MUST change. This is another creationist misconception (read lie) that you have fallen for.

quote:

---

You folks should have no trouble admitting a loss when you take one.

---

You have no problem swallowing lies and deception as long as it has "christian" in front of it.

quote:

---

It was presented as proof of a intermidiate creature between land and ocean.
The idea of its extinction was a part of their theory. It didn't die out but rather evolved out. That was their great point.

---

Darwin and others were wrong about speciation and evolution in this respect. Darwin is not the last word on everything evolution. In fact, if you burned every last copy of Origins of Species the theory of evolution would not be hurt one bit. Also, if you take their ideas to the ultimate conclusion, then there should have only been one species alive throughout the history of earth. This isn't what Darwin was arguing anyway.

quote:

---

Currant theories were influenced by the embarrasment of the discovery and observation of this fish.

---

Will you please show me one evolutionist who has a problem with this fish. What is embarrasing is that creationists are so lacking in logical skills that they fail to realize what they are saying.

quote:

---

Loudmouth say it ain't so. Your retreating to "this isn't the same fish anyway"

---

What am I supposed to do, lie? It isn't the same species, period. Show me that I am wrong. You might as well make me admit that the great white shark and a nurse shark are the same species since they are both called "sharks". The living coelacanth species is not found anywhere in the fossil record. The class of fish that it belongs to, coelacanths, was thought to be an extinct TYPE of fish. The discover of a living coelacanth in DEEP OCEAN WATERS was quite a shock since none had been seen since the dawn of civilization except in the fossil record. However, new species are found almost every single day and there is no fossil record of these species either. This supports Gould's argument that the fossil record is incomplete due to the chances of fossilization.

quote:

---

It is so the same creature as in the fossil record exactually as presented in all discussions on it.

---

Can you show me one discussion involving a biologist or taxonomist that claims that they are the same fish. It is up to you to support your claims. I have my support already, they are classified as different species in different genera. From Coelacanth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1991.

quote:

---

"DArwin and others were wrong" Well we've been saying that from the beginning what was the hold up. (One might ask why was he wrong. Were did the "science" break down logically. Why did the method fail. Are there more errors admitance loaming)

---

Some of Darwin's ideas on speciation and heredity were wrong. This has nothing to do with the coelacanth's impact on the current theories of evolution. Changes in environment cause changes in morphology. No changes in environment cause very minor changes to morphology. The deep sea is an environment that changes very little so we see very little change in the organisms that inhabit this environment. Where is the problem?

quote:

---

I know its not the same specis. The operative word here is Coalacanth.

---

And the living specimen of this GROUP of fish is different than any fossil species of coelacanth. Therefore, the species has changed over time and supports the theory of evolution. The only problem is in your ability to read creationist sites and ignore real scientific findings and theories.

quote:

---

I say the discovery and observation of the real fish was a blow to evolution in its method and premises.

---

I say that there are invisible pink unicorns dancing on the lawn outside. Sorry, I will need more than your say so on this one.

quote:

---

Toe to justify great change in kind needs great time. So when a fish from way back when all else was different is found it hints at a problem. This fish should of been flying by now.

---

This is how all creationists see the ToE, and wrongly so. The fish never had to change because it was adapted to it's envirohment. There is no need to change, no new niches to fill, no new competition or predation. Therefore, there is no selective pressure to change morphology over time. Creationists raising a ruckus over the coelacanth fish species hints at a problem alright, a problem of understanding on the part of creationists. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it require that all organisms change at the same rate or at all. Please indicate where the theory of evolution states this. If you are unable to do this then you have zero evidence that this is a problem for the ToE.

quote:

---

To have no change in a long time as Toe tries too say requriers either evidence for this or dropping the idea of evolution and and long geologic time in the first place.

---

The age of the coelacanth fossil species is a matter of geologic science, not evolutionary sciences. Second, the living species of coelanth is not found in the fossil record so even you can't claim that it hasn't changed dramatically over time. Thirdly, no one is claiming that either the fossil or living species of coelacanth are the direct ancestors of terrestrial organisms. However, the larger family of lobe finned fish to which the coelacanth belongs is thought to be the ancestral group for all terrestrial animals. Fourthly, even if the coelacanth was our direct ancestor this doesn't mean that they shouldn't still be around. Fifthly, there is no selective pressure for a deep sea fish to sprout wings and fly. Sixthly, your understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution is so slim that you are incapable of even criticizing the very theory you think is wrong.

quote:

---

Again you retreat to it didn't need to change because its envirorment stayed the same.
PROVE IT. Where's the evidence?

---

The deep sea never changes by more than a few degrees Celcius per year. The deep sea is fed by detritus that falls from above like manna from heaven. It is a very static environment that is only interrupted very rarely by "hot smokers" where magma is close to the surface. There is no mechanisms other than utter upheaval of the entire earth that could cause any change to the conditions in the deep sea.

quote:

---

You simply draw this conclusion because you have to accomadate the reality of living fossils.

---

You simply make evolution say things you want it to say so that you can go on ignoring it. Ignoring the possibility of static morphology is one of those things.

quote:

---

For something to not change at all in so long a time when everything else life or matter did is not plausiblr to a fair minded person even if you can fit it in the theory. Your streching very far.

---

It did change. Please show me a 65 million year fossil that is identical to the fish alive now. If you can't then you can't claim that it has stayed the same.

quote:

---

You say the present kind is missing from the record so maybe it came on land went back to sea and a million years of gliding and then flying.

---

No, your claim that the living member of the coelacanth family is the same as that found in the fossil record is incorrect. Second, from a person who claims that land mammal to whale only took a few generations I would be careful about judging what other's mean by "change". We might actually mean something that is biologically plausible unlike your other caricatures of science.

quote:

---

Can't have it both ways Loudmouth.Either the fish remained unchangerd or it did change and thier is just no evidence.

---

Fine, it changed. My evidence is that there is not one fossil that is 65 million years old that is identical to the coelacanth alive today. Care to provide contradicting evidence?

quote:

---

It is in the record. The present fish father back by father is the one in the fossil record. A bat is a bat. The specis is irrelevant.

---

Well in that case, why don't you use other groups of organisms that are found in the fossil record instead of the coelacanth. Here is a list of GROUPS of organisms that have a longer fossil history than coelacanths:1. Sharks
2. Lampreys
3. Bacteria (3.5 billion years and they are still bacteria)
4. Insects
5. CrocodilesIn fact, most GROUPS of organisms have a much longer fossil history than coelacanths. So why are you saying that the coelacanth is a huge problem when most groups of organisms pose the same supposed problem. By your definition of evolution, there should only be one species alive at a time (eg "why haven't these coelacanths moved onto land?") meaning that according to your definition humans should be the only species on the face of the earth. Does it ever occur to you that your definition of evolution is different than the one used in science?

quote:

---

OKAY you did provide explanation for how the envirorment could stay static. HOWEVER you did not prove that it did. (of coarse you can't whether it did or not).

---

Science can't prove anything, only offer evidence for theories that are held tentatively. You should know this by now.I did offer my explanation. The static environment in the deep sea is caused by the sheer mass of water involved. There is no known mechanism other than volcanism (deep sea vents) or catastrophic increases in the earth's local temp (massive meteor strike) that can effect deeps sea temps or cause the static environment to change. Just as an example, if you have ever owned a pool you will notice that even if the outside temp is 100 degrees F the water still remains relatively cool. This is because water absorbs a lot of energy before it changes temperature. Hence, the large volume of water involved prevents drastic changes in temps for waters thousands of feet from the surface.If you have ever seen pictures from deep sea subs you will notice that ever picture is of a grey, bottom devoid of plants and populated by strange creatures. Some of these creatures are not found anywhere except in the deep seas. Therefore, it is consistent with the data that coelacanths went extinct in areas susceptible to more drastic changes than seen in the deep seas.

quote:

---

I understand static morphology as part of TOE. Again I repeat.
But again it is a retreat by evolutionists to account for living fossils.And it is unlikely to common sense of the public.

---

To tell you the truth, I don't give a rat's ass what the public considers "common sense" when it comes to science. I do care that theories are consistent with the data. There is no retreat, only an effort to stay consistent with the data. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that every organism must change it's morphology at the same rate. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THIS. There is no reason that science should change it's theories so that the public likes it more, and this would include throwing out static morphology. The coelacanth has optimal physiology and morphology to survive and flourish in the deep seas and this lends itself to selective pressures that keep the coelacanth "where it is" until the environment changes. This is often called a "peak in fitness" where large changes would require the species to become less fit before moving towards a different fitness peak. The coelacanth, in it's current environment, is in an evolutionary dead end. If conditions in the deep sea do change signifigantly then we would expect the coelacanth to go extinct.

quote:

---

For this discussion this fish is the same as the one in the fossil record. Its specis is irrelevant.

---

Bullshit, it is relevant. You don't get to unnecessarily redefine biology to fit your needs. The coelacanth alive today is signifigantly different than the coelacanth seen in the fossil record. This is a FACT that you have to address. AGAIN, THE LIVING SPECIES OF COELACANTH IS SIGNIFIGANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE COELACANTH SEEN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. THIS IS A FACT. No amount of whining is going to change this. No amount of obfuscation is going to make us ignore this fact. Your argument that the coelacanth has been identical for 65 million years IS A LIE, a lie that made obvious by the facts.

quote:

---

Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"

---

And the fact remains that the living coelacanth is still different than any coelacanth species found in the fossil record. From http://home.entouch.net/dmd/livfos.htm There are also other differences listed on that same page.And here is a picture of the ancient, extinct coelacanth next to the living species. Now that you can see them side by side, can you still claim that the coelacanth has not changed in 65 million years?Added in edit:I found some more pictures.Latimeria (living species): And examples of the extinct species A. Macropomoides orientalis, from the late Cretaceous.
B. Rhabdoderma elegans, late Carboniferous.
C. Allenypterus montanus, early Carboniferous.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-10-2004 04:22 PM

quote:

---

The creature is essentialy unchanged. The small changes are irrelevant effect of speciation.

---

You are claiming that the coelacanth is the same one as in the fossil record, but then you claim that any small changes are irrelevant. They are anything but irrelevant. They falsify your claim that unchanged coelacanths falsify evolution. So would you now agree that coelacanths do not pose a problem for evolution?

quote:

---

What I've said from the beginning is verified by the pics.

---

No, it has not been verified. In fact, your claims have been falsified. There are detectable differences between the living coelacanth and those found in the fossil record. Look at the positioning of the dorsal fins. Look at the movement of the pectoral fin and the subsequent movement of the gill plate. Look at the different tail. Everything about the living species is different, including its size.

quote:

---

You seem to be under some impression I said lack of change falsified evolution. I never said that. I only meant in the big picture way that evolution has run on and in the public mind.

---

So, in other words, even if the coelacanth were completely unchanged and absolutely identical to fossil species from 65 million years ago this still wouldn't be a problem for evolution? Are you then saying that the coelacanth is not an embarassment for evolution or scientists? Are you then saying that it should be the public that is embarassed because they don't understand the implications of evolutionary predictions?

quote:

---

The explaining away of living fossils by TOE is a recent and forced thing by TOe.

---

As Percy has pointed out, Darwin himself dealt with "living fossils" in Origin of Species. I would hardly call that recent. In fact, it would seem that living fossils are expected in environments that don't change much AT THE VERY TIME THE THEORY WAS WRITTEN. Unless you have evidence of scientist being embarassed or rewrites of the theory of evolution occuring because of the coelacanth I would suggest that you are wrong.

quote:

---

I'm amazed that everyone has let RB get away with this line thusfar:

---

I noticed that as well. If we were going to fix everything in Robert's posts we would end up writing books instead of posts. His statement is hardly surprising. In another thread he hypothesized that whales could have evolved from otter like creatures in only a few generations after the flood. Apes to slugs, I am guessing, should only take a few hundred generations in Robert's view. But you should also realize that Robert doesn't even accept an old earth, so he really isn't bound to the 65 million years you have posted.As THIS thread moves along it has become apparent what the problems with the ToE are. That the creationists can't or refuse to understand the theory. Claiming that the coelacanth poses a "problem" is simply not true, as are all of the supposed "problems" that crop up on creationist websites. Perhaps the only problem is that evolution is not provable and requires continuing experimentation to support the theory. Of course, this applies to every theory in science.

quote:

---

As I follow you still do not understand that Toe requires great change over great amounts of time as THE GREAT PICTURE.

---

And you are missing the BIG PICTURE. ToE does not REQUIRE great amounts of change, but it CAN PRODUCE great changes if the conditions are right. The deep sea is not an environment that causes great changes in morphology due to the static nature of the environment. However, in changing environments we DO see great changes and so the ToE is able to explain biodiversity as we find it today.

quote:

---

True it is not a recent thing to explain away living fossils.

---

Nothing is being explained away but rather explained through observation. Natural selection has been OBSERVED to maintain ratios of alleles in some situations and natural selection has also been OBSERVED to change allele frequencies. Therefore, living fossils are EXPECTED, not explained away.

quote:

---

These creatures strike at Toe and only a desperate accomadation is used to deal with them.

---

I would hardly call observed instances of natural selection a "desperate accommodation". I would call it science.

quote:

---

This finding and examination of this fish hasn't required Toe to be dropped but its picture and methods reveal a basic problem with Toe.

---

Why is static morphology a problem for ToE? Why is it a basic problem? As it has been pointed out, it is part of the theory. Natural selection is capable of creating new morphology AND preserving morphology. Can you show me how it is impossible for natural selection to keep morphology the same over time? Can you also show me how it is impossible that natural selection can cause great change as well? I can do the opposite, I can show both are POSSIBLE through observation.

quote:

---

With respect I deny i repeat assertions and ignore the others points.
in these discussions all of us drift off from original thought.

---

You continue to assert that organisms HAVE to change at the same rate over time. You have yet to show the evidence that backs up this position. We have continued to tell you that ToE makes no such assertion. We have continued to tell you that natural selection can cause change or stasis through the same mechanism. You claim that natural selection is only capable of change, not stasis.You have continued to assert that the coelacanth today is the same as the one in the fossil record. This is untrue as is made obvious by the pictures I have posted. You claim any changes are due to speciation, which is exactly what the ToE states as well. Not only that, but that same method of speciation resulted in the biodiversity we see today from a single universal common ancestor.You continue to assert that scientists are embarassed by the coelacanth, but yet you are unable to provide us one example of a biologist who is embarassed.You continue to assert that what the public thinks of the ToE is more important than the actual evidence that supports the theory. This one baffles me the most. Somehow, in your opinion, public opinion is a true reflection of reality which allows us to ignore evidence. Strange claim indeed.

quote:

---

But I think it's a great forum and meaty and better then a lot of stuff out there which is forever entry level.

---

On this we can agree. But for this discussion to get beyond entry level then you need to start understanding a few things. First, you may not understand the theory of evolution. You do not have to accept the theory to understand it, but it makes logical sense that you should understand the mechanisms of a theory before you attack it. Saying that natural selection is incapable of keeping morphology the same over time is evidence that you don't understand the theory. The fact that "living fossils" are expected to be found according to the ToE is another piece of information that you like to ignore. If the ToE is wrong, then you need to show how natural selection is incapable of keeping static morphology.

So then let's go back to post #50. The blue box below is a direct copy/paste of that entire post. Point 1: "The fish was presented as a intermediate kind because it was thought to have legs."Which isn't true. A fish like the coelacanth would be a potential intermediate. However, coelacanths are not the intermediate that is hypothesized as being the intermediate between aquatic and terrestrial. This honor goes to Acanthostega and others: Also, when a speciation event occurs the parent species is still there. ToE does not claim that a species evolves as a whole, but rather through a splitting mechanisms that creates new species while the parent species is nearly unchanged. Therefore, even if the coelacanth were our direct ancestors it is not a falsification of ToE if the coelacanth still existed.Point 2: "It was extinct because it had evolved away and not died away."This is false. Coelacanths were thought to be extinct because none had been seen in current times and they were not seen in the fossil record since 65 million years ago. More notably, the living species of coelacanth is seen nowhere in the fossil record. This is a problem for creationists since they argue that the fossil record is complete. This is strong evidence that more intermediate species will be found and that the gaps in the fossil record are not due to the created kinds but due to the chances of species being fossilized.Point 3: "It reveals in a atomic way the error of Toe in that it is not science but simply data and interpretation resticked [sic, restricted?] by present knowledge/imagination."Our interpretations are always restricted by our present knowledge and imagination. This is why science is tentative, in that new information could come forward that would falsify the theory. However, the coelacanth does not fit that bill.Point 4: "that the fish was just the ticket for creationists and so heavon sent. Really."No, it really isn't. As has been shown to you, ToE does not REQUIRE morphology to change over time. Therefore, finding a species that is only slightly changed from the fossil species does not falsify ToE. The theory still stands. Also, creationists have to explain why the living species is not found in the fossil record. If they are not able to do this then they can not claim that our current knowledge of past life is complete. This falsifies their claim that species appear "fully formed" since the intermediates between each species may not be contained in the fossil record.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-14-2004 04:03 PM