Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Coelacanth was stated by believers in Evolution to of died off 60 to 70 million years ago. They knew the Coelacanth existed only because it was found in the fossil record. Evolutionest taught that the Coelacanth was the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates and a true transitional. Yet this all changed when they discovered a living one in 1938. What was also discovered was the Coelacanth showed no evidence of any kind of evolution, which was another blow to their theory. And of course, after they lost another one of there though to be transionals, they just moved on to another fish to take it's place. No, I do not believe all modern biology is hogwash. Yet when it comes to Evoultion, without question, I do.
The hole in your post is that the coelacanth is/was a deep-water fish. Very few deep-water fossils ever reach a recoverable depth, so it's impossible to judge the extent of its evolutionary track.
Oh, and the theory is that the coelacanth is 'closely related' to the first four-legged land animals, not that it's an ancestor. It may seem like I'm it-picking here, but there is a distinct difference between something that's 'closely related' to a species and something that's an 'ancestor'.
The Coelacanth was stated by believers in Evolution to of died off 60 to 70 million years ago. They knew the Coelacanth existed only because it was found in the fossil record. Evolutionest taught that the Coelacanth was the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates and a true transitional. Yet this all changed when they discovered a living one in 1938. What was also discovered was the Coelacanth showed no evidence of any kind of evolution, which was another blow to their theory. And of course, after they lost another one of there though to be transionals, they just moved on to another fish to take it's place. No, I do not believe all modern biology is hogwash.Yet when it comes to Evoultion, without question, I do.
Missing link a media term? sanspeur, you know better than that. The editor of Nature Magazine Henery Gee stated that was a term used by believers in evolution. Now are you going to refute one of your main people?
The term "missing link" has not been used credibly since the 50s.
Wake up and look around you--there have been numerous advances in ALL fields of science since then. Your credibility--if indeed you possess any at all--takes a nose dive every time you dig up antiquated terminology and sling it around as if it were current scholarship.
Well you see sanspeur. For years people have been led to believe that evolution is a done deal. They were taught that evidence confirms the theory. Yet this is simply not the case. So unless we show them what many scientist believe. How will they ever come to the knowledge of the truth? Of course one has to search for such material, because this material is never spoken of in the classroom. Those who push the theory of evolution, would be happy if their statements never saw the light of day. Call it quote mining if you will. Yet sometimes we must do the mining, and the digging. Especially, if we are seeking the truth.
You didn't read anything sanspeur posted regarding all of your quotes being taken out of context, did you? Either that or you subconsciously ignore them. That would actually be less disturbing.
The Coelacanth was stated by believers in Evolution to of died off 60 to 70 million years ago. They knew the Coelacanth existed only because it was found in the fossil record. Evolutionest taught that the Coelacanth was the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates and a true transitional. Yet this all changed when they discovered a living one in 1938. What was also discovered was the Coelacanth showed no evidence of any kind of evolution, which was another blow to their theory. And of course, after they lost another one of there though to be transionals, they just moved on to another fish to take it's place. No, I do not believe all modern biology is hogwash. Yet when it comes to Evoultion, without question, I do.
Why write my own post? This one had long been dealt with.
Claim CB930.1:
The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83,89.
Response:
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
Links:
Lindsay, Don, 2000, Living fossils like the coelacanth. Living fossils like the Coelacanth
You may as well argue that Evolution is discredited because mammoths are still alive. Except we call them elephants. I was also astonished to see the Japanese giant salamander is a smaller replica of the Permian Diplocaulus or the Jurassic 'living fossil' Protosuchus, though they were a bit different and a lot bigger, just as the modern horse differs from Eohippus.
But I bet you ignore this and trot Coelacanth out again, if you think we aren't watching you.
Okay, gotta jump in here even though I cannot see (and do not want to see) all that YSM is saying, but I did catch the perpetual student, taxpayer's dime crap she's tossing around the forum.
For her information, I had a very successful career in the sign industry as a graphic designer and project manager for years before I returned to school once my children were older. I returned to pursue my dream avocation--Archaeology. My single mother status did indeed make me eligible for financial aid, i.e.; grants and yes, I definitely accepted them. But I paid taxes into the same system which provided me with the grants during my undergraduate degree for twenty five years prior to my return to school and NEVER took anything back, even during lean times when my children and I could have easily qualified for state aid.
I have taken out student loans as well as applied for and received scholarships. I have also worked full time during summer and part time during the semesters in order to continue to finance my education. Higher education in this country does not come cheaply. I'll be paying off student loans of close to $70,000 by the time I receive my graduate degree. So what of it?
Oh, and I didn't mock YSM's children's education. I mocked the garbage she was force feeding her children in the name of education--we've all seen examples of the "education" her children were receiving.
Hey rifleman--I joined you in adding her to the dustbin. I too am amazed at the fact that I cannot see an entire page of posts! Some people just need more words to say nothing than others.
Kele, you don't need to defend yourself at all, especially to her. She is light years behind in education and refuses to learn fact from fiction. You and I have very similar backgrounds, I too went back to school after years away, I am getting my masters in Architecture, not as much fun as archeology though!!
Please do not put real science and Evolution in the same camp. A Fairy Tale is a story that is base on no evidence. That is pretty much the story of Evolution.
Derek Ager, U. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be siginificant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been "DEBUNKED." Similarly, my own experienced of more than twenty years lookiing for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
Yep Bible fits the fairy tale to a T. I see you did not answer any of my points. Sorry to tell you AGAIN, but there is FAR MORE EVIDENCE for Evolution than your fairy tale Bible. You just refuse to see it. Me I have nothing to lose in examining the evidence, in fact if true ( bible) I would gain. But that just is not the case. You on the other hand, would lose everything your life is based on, so I understand your reluctance. Oh and posting a few ramblings by some wanna be scientist does not DEBUNK anything.
Their beliefs our obvious, and your attempt to suggest their comments were only taken out of context is lacking.
Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100
That statement reminds me of your last post sanspeur.
For some reason, you ignored this quote when I posted it before. I'll try again. You're being quite misleading by pretending that Patterson agrees with your views about evolution :
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
C. Patterson, "Evolution", 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., pp 131-133
Since you think Patterson is a reliable source, I guess we've got to conclude that you pretending to believe that evolution is false is just a game. After all, why would you refer everyone to Patterson if you didn't think his opinion about biology was correct?
(A number of creationists use the term missing link?)
A number of older evolutionist still use the term missing link as well. Are you trying to suggest that the creationist are the only ones using such a term because they are out of touch?
Senior Editor of Nature Magazine Henry Gee states. New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. (WE) call these new discoveries (MISSING LINKS) In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.32
(Many intermediate forms have been discovered?)
Quote, from David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H.,
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ---- We now have a quarter of a million fossils species but the situation hasn't changed much....
ironically, we have even fewer example of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
It was pointed out by Raup that we have less examples because classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as horse evolution was discarded because of more detailed information.
The fossil record, is (STILL) an embarrassment for supporters of evolution. And that is why Mark Ridley of Oxford states, that no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution. New Sceintist, June, 1981, p.831
It looks well, but I wonder whether this is an example of creationists quotemining and assembling the quotes to give a misleading impression?
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
This is an interesting article, and it is quite surprising that any "creationist" would want to call attention to it. By the way, it is on pages 830-832 of that issue.
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
- Tom (TomS) Scharle
Do you see, Campbell34, how you are damaging your integrity by cutting and pasting deciets and misrepresentaions from the Creationists websites? Do you LIKE being lied to and made to look like a deciever yourself?
You could afford to check a bit further and get at the facts instead of just copying Creationist garbage, if the case for creationism was any value, it would stand up without needing trickery and deceit such as this quotemining.
Quote, from David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H.,
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ---- We now have a quarter of a million fossils species but the situation hasn't changed much....
ironically, we have even fewer example of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
"On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about which we can be more confident. The geologic time scale has been checked and rechecked by many independent methods. Although individual dates may be subject to error, the overall chronology stands firm. It is used every day in petroleum and mineral exploration, and, if there were basic problems with it, I am sure that industrial geologists would have blown the whistle. The fossil record is intimately tied in with this chronology and shows a record of change in organisms through time."
So we have a direct statement from Raup saying evolution is as close to fact as is possible in science. We also have a heavily edited quote taken badly out of context cut and pasted from a creationist propaganda site. Which one to believe?
Quote:
And that is why Mark Ridley of Oxford states, that no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution. New Sceintist, June, 1981, p.831
Why are you pointing us to an article which says that creationists like yourself are making a terrible mistake and says that there are multiple lines of evidence which confirm that evolution does happen? It's almost like you've never read anything by the authors you claim to be quoting and hope we're as gullible as you are.
Here's the full quote in context :
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.'
(page 831)
`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.' (page 832) "
"Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record."
"Some palaeontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that fossils record offers no firm evidence for such gradual
change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The
argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution --- whether evolution occured [sic] at all.
"This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments --- and the present debate within palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution."
(Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts
evolution?" New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.830)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
