|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2002 : 18:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Yes, a Carmen Ghia looks a lot like a Boxter but I assure you they are different under the hood.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 18:19:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Rift said:
A creature, which is in an unchanging environment, won't change. There's no reason for it to change. I suppose you can say it has reached a certain 'perfection', for that environment.
Rat said:
Where did you get the stupid idea that the environment is 'non-changing'?! If you can produce any evolutionist that says that I will personally kick their narrow ass
Start runnig Rift, here comes Rat
Six days
Seems like you're reaching here. Rift seems to be using a hypothetical scenario. He hasn't mentioned any particular life form or environment, or a time frame.
But if he says you're correct, well, MY BOOTS ARE LACED!
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 20:27:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[You forgot that a currently living coelacanth has been found that looks just like the fossils dated over 300 MY's old.
Now that you mention this, how does this support your young earth? Or are you some kind of hybrid creationist?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 06:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Certain environments, in certain time frames, DON'T change. If Rat wants to kick my keister, he's welcome to try, but I think he'll agree with me. :P My orginal post was about the question that started this topic, about the abyssal oceanic plains. I doubt THAT environment has changed very much at all in the 150 million years in questions.
As for genetic drift in the Coelacanth, i'm sure there has been. We don't have a 65 million year old DNA sample to make sure... Too say that the fossil species is IDENTICAL to the living species is incorrect, and I have never heard any biologist ever claim such.
What gets me is that creationists think stasis somehow disproves evolution...
Again, if the environment and natural selection doesn't select for a change, a change won't happen... What's so blasted hard to understand???
Sixdays, you are very close to being on my troll list. You were welcomed here, and have done nothing but throw insults around, and now seem to be trying to start fights...
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells
Edited by - Rift on 07/02/2002 06:10:54
Edited by - Rift on 07/02/2002 06:13:09 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 07:03:48 [Permalink]
|
Guys,
Sixdays is none other than Kacey/Karl Crawford/YEC. He is using the same old "living fossils" argument he has used numerous times.
All of this despite the fact that I have explicitly shown him that the Coalacanth has evolved quite dramatically from its original ancestor species.
He has used this rediculous argument on TalkOrigins, on BeliefNet, here, and who knows where else and he has been shown that his argument is wrong on all basis at each place, but still repeats it troll like fashion.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 07:24:59 [Permalink]
|
Here are some links to where I explicitly showed YEC his arguments were false.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2&discussionID=55946&messages_per_page=16
Notice post #35 with abstract to the article.
Key quote from the abstract of the article I referenced.
quote:
We have discovered that an identical pattern of tooth development is used to shape these plates in the hatchlings of fossil and living lungfish species that are separated by 360 million years (Myr) of evolution, even though the adults have very different dental forms; the same pattern is also evident in the transient marginal dentition, despite being functional only until the juvenile stage. This remarkable finding indicates that developmental programming for dentition in lungfish is uniform, unique and conserved for all tooth fields.
Here you will see where he rehashed the exact same argument.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=821&discussionID=83255
Go to post #47 and above where I show that the so-called living fossil the horseshoe crab has evolved quite a bit (with pictures).
Another point to make about this individual, they have to be the most dishonest person I have ever known. To continue to plug this claim despite being shown numerous times it is wrong and to come back to this board and claim they "are new here" shows that quite clearly.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 08:30:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What gets me is that creationists think stasis somehow disproves evolution...
I've always wondered what their deal was with "gaps" in the fossil record somehow meaning that there is no fossil record.
"2,3,4,6,7,8 ! Look there's no number one and no five! That means there is no progression!!!"
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 09:31:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, a Carmen Ghia looks a lot like a Boxter but I assure you they are different under the hood.
I think it is more like the similarity of the Beetle and the New Beetle. 'Genetically' the Karman Ghia is very closely related to the Beetle even if he does not really look much like it. That and the fact, that the New Beetle, who looks a lot like the original, has 'genetically' very little in common with its ancestor just goes to show. Similar phenotypes are no guarantee for similar genotypes and just because two species share the majority of their blueprints does not mean that they will look anything a like.
The Porsche Boxster of today is more of an example of how similar environments will lead to similar looks. A doplhin can look a lot like a fish if you don't pay close attention. The Boxster is only very distantely related to the Karman Ghia going back all the way to Ferdinand Porsche.
If you want to see true stagnated car-evolution look at cars like the Trabant. He could survive with little changes for decades, but the moment his isolated environment collapsed his extinction started.
Do you think I took the analogie to far? 
Edited by - Lars_H on 07/02/2002 10:08:24 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 13:40:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Certain environments, in certain time frames, DON'T change. If Rat wants to kick my keister, he's welcome to try, but I think he'll agree with me. :P
Yep, I agree. As I said, you didn't mention a species, environment, or timeframe.
But I wonder how much more we'll see of 'Six days' now that he seems to have been exposed?
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 13:51:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you want to see true stagnated car-evolution look at cars like the Trabant. He could survive with little changes for decades, but the moment his isolated environment collapsed his extinction started.
Do you think I took the analogie to far?
No, I think it's great. And I'll take it a wee bit farther.
Back East where I grew up, it's very rare to see a Karmann Ghia "alive". Their inadequate adaptation to the wet, road salt-rich winter environment has pretty well turned the species into sad little piles of metal oxides.
Here in Southern California, where the climate is dry and there's never any reason to salt the roads, they still survive. There's a guy at work who has one. Every time I see him pull into the parking lot I feel a bit like I've seen a coelacanth.
edited- speling and cApitALization
Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out.
Edited by - ktesibios on 07/02/2002 13:52:42 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 13:58:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Certain environments, in certain time frames, DON'T change. If Rat wants to kick my keister, he's welcome to try, but I think he'll agree with me. :P
Yep, I agree. As I said, you didn't mention a species, environment, or timeframe.
But I wonder how much more we'll see of 'Six days' now that he seems to have been exposed?
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 14:49:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here are some links to where I explicitly showed YEC his arguments were false.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2&discussionID=55946&messages_per_page=16
I visited the page (forum)and YEC did a pretty good job of shutting down "always searching."
What seem to be your problem?
You evos seem eo want to have your cake and eat it too. If there is no gradual change in fossils...then we'll call it punctuated equilibriam, if we need an old living fossil, heck, we'll claim evolution doesn't have to change while everything else around it does.
Six days |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 14:55:15 [Permalink]
|
I am thinking you would have lit the fire that burned Galileo.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 15:08:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am thinking you would have lit the fire that burned Galileo.
<img src="/forum/images/Abomb1.gif" border=0>@tomic<img src="/forum/images/Abomb1.gif" border=0>
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Once again you are wrong, I would have been on Galileo side.
You see, unlike the evolutionist that I'm skeptical about, I folow true science.
Six days |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 15:18:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Once again you are wrong, I would have been on Galileo side.
You see, unlike the evolutionist that I'm skeptical about, I folow true science.
That's great! You should be able to tell us then, what possible mechanism God used to create the universe. Was it the finger-snap? How about the nose-wrinkle? Maybe he crossed his arms and nodded vigorously? Don't be modest. We wanna do true science, too.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
