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

RobertThere is no purpose, no direction to change. There is no schedule, no timeline. There is no goal, no objective.Change is random. It can happen, or not happen.The filter is simply natural selection. Some species survive to reproduce, some don't.You've been told, numerous times, that coelacanth has changed. The species alive today is not the same critter from 65 million years ago. It, like most everything else except creationists, has evolved. The evidence, and it's clear enough for even a rock to understand, is that the sucker is still alive today. We can see the fossils from 65 million years ago and we can see the critters swiming today.That's evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

For something to not change at all in so long a time....[Emphasis added]

---

Robert, try to understand what I am writing. I will type slowly so that you can keep up. You may trace the words with your finger -- no one will notice. Sound the words out loud if you need to.None of the modern species of coelacanth is found in the fossil record at all. The modern species fall into the genus Latimeria. There is no known example of a fossilized specimen of a Latimerian whatsoever.If you can provide an example of a fossil dated before 65 million years ago that is the same as a modern species, with no changes at all, then please do so. If you cannot do so then you cannot truthfully claim that the present species of coelacanth have survived without any changes at all for such a long time.

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?

Pure denial and more logical fallacies (nothing like consistency):
Forbidden
- Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
- Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not BAre you feeling imperial? "we are not amused" Really? what idea is that? That all knowledge can be denied if you just keep repeating it? I have yet to see an idea from you.Sorry, but the universe will not be changed by your denial.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thats circular reasoning. I ask for proof that there was no change in the evirorment and you say behold the fish. Before i had stressed the unchangeness of the fish and you said behold the envirorment had never changed. This is unreasonable.It our discussions on origin matters it is assumed that all premises of evolution or creation are not settled. Otherwise each party would be contending the others view while accepting some of the premises of the others view and thus making thier own view false to start with.
Rob

You offer nothing new that hasn't been discussed and accepted.It is a desperate clinging to straws/branches to say the present fish is unchanged because it is not in the record. 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. The fish is famous only for the reason it is. Unchanged since its fossilization. Simple.
It is because it is unchanged that it is famous not because it slight change. I'm surprised at you guys trying to argue this is not the same unchanged fish. That is the whole point accepted by all.
Rob

Species is irrelevant? Bat is a bat? So if you look at a basking shark, a whale shark and a hammerhead shark there are no differences whatsoever? I'd say that step is only a short step away from saying "an animal is an animal" and grouping all of animalia into one kind

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?

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).
It order to account for the fish long history you must assume a static envirorment. You don't provide a reason for any one else to assume this.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.For this discussion this fish is the same as the one in the fossil record. Its specis is irrelevant. A horse is a horse. Coelananth is the only important word. And its fame is based on the premise of its unchanged history not its slight change.
Rob

If the coelacanth was unchanged as you assert then it would be present in the fossil record as it is found today. The coelacantch that is extant is not the coelacanth that is fossilized. Of all the 125 species of coelacanth that are known in the fossil record, this is not one of them.This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 09-08-2004 01:36 PM

Wow! This post wasn't even coherent!Let me try this again. The modern coelacanth does not appear in the fossil record. At all. The specimens of coelacanths that appear in the fossil record before 65 million years ago are not only different species, they are in different genera.You claim that the coelacanth has been unchanged for over 65 million years? Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Present a fossil coelacanth (noting where the specimen may be found, of course), and a skeleton of a modern coelacanth. Show us that they are identical.Simply stating that it is unchanged over and over again is not going to make it true.

Happy, that didn't answer Robert's point. He says that the species (and I guess even the genus isn't important). So the fact that this is of the same family makes it the "same" in his eyes. I think you might want to ask him some more questions about what the heck he does mean.You might also want to point out what other things are as close as this and the extinct coelacanth.added by edit for ChiropteraHe defines "the same" as being of the same family I think. You might want him to get clear just what he does mean.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-08-2004 01:40 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-08-2004 01:40 PM

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.

From what I understood it ned, he said that the coelacanth was unchanged becasue it was the same as that found in the fossil record. I then said that there are about 125 species of coelacanth in the fossil record, and the extant one isn't it. I meant to imply that what is in the fossil record is NOT in existance today, anymore than the bengal tiger is the same as the sabre tooth tiger etc.If he does mean family then thats another thing, but i was just going on the repeated assertions of "species are irrelevant". If he didn't mean species, then I guess we have to start over with what he DID mean

Hi Robert,You seem to be saying that the scientific perspective people have been providing you is wrong, and that it must instead be what you say it is, and further that what you say it is is wrong. I agree with you that the views you think science *should* hold have lots of problems, but that's only because these are only your misconceptions.This may already have been said, but one of the interesting things about the Coelacanth was that it was believed to be extinct because it hasn't been found in the fossil record more recently than 65 million years ago (give or take, I'm going from memory). That the Coelacanth is not extinct is more evidence for a point evolutionists have to repeatedly make to Creationists, that fossilization in a place available for our discovery is a rare event. In no strata of the last 65 million years that we've examined has a Coelacanth ever been found, yet evidently they lived throughout the entire period.This does raise an interesting and legitimate charge against evolution's interpretation of the fossil record. We believe the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago because we can find no dinosaur fossils in younger strata. But if the Coelacanth could exist for 65 million years without leaving a fossil, why couldn't the dinosaurs?But there are no places left in the world where dinosaurs could exist without being discovered. We know they're extinct today. But perhaps they only went extinct a few thousand years ago and merely failed to leave fossils, just like the Coelacanth. It is a common Creationist position that dinosaurs lived up until the flood, but we have no evidence that this is so. It seems a bit unlikely, though, since dinosaurs were landlubbers, a very large class of many different and widely varied creatures that once lived almost everywhere throughout the globe, very unlike the Coelacanth which exists only in oceans at great depths. You're going to have to explain why you believe this, instead of just repeating it without any support. Evolution was aware of living fossils long before the discovery of the Coelacanth, the horseshoe crab being one very common example. The discovery of a living species of the order Coelacanth was viewed by scientists not as a blow to evolution but as a surprising but not entirely unexpected occurrence and a great boon to research. You're again confusing scientific views with scientific misperceptions held by the public. It is unfortunate that the public is uninformed or misinformed, and Creationists can take some considerable credit for this, but how could the fact that the public is ignorant affect the validity of a scientific theory? But a horse is a species, and a Coelacnth is an order, which is three levels in taxonomy above species (remember, it's kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). The Creationist dictum is that animals reproduce after their own kind, and so they often group horses and zebras and donkeys and so forth as the same kind because they can reproduce, though often producing sterile offspring. But horses and zebras and donkeys are closely related species of the same genus, Equus, and some level of reproductive compatibility is expected. Once you get above the genus level, though, this effect disappears, and creatures of different genuses or families can not reproduce together, and so by the Creationist definition are not of the same kind.The modern Coelacanth is the Latimeria chalumnae, and its closest relative in the fossil record is the Macropoma lewesiensis. They aren't even the same genus, and so couldn't possibly be the same kind as defined by Creationists.--Percy