Stasis as criticism of evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> Stasis as criticism of evolution (1/30/2008 2:57:39 PM)

The ordinary course of evolution we are told by Neo-Darwinists is that of natural selection acting on ordinary mutations, which occur as a regular part of life on earth.

These two processes acting in concert produce gradual changes in populations of organisms which are only evident after much time has passed. Indeed, we are assured, this same sort of evolution is occurring now, and if we were able to fast forward several hundred thousand years, perhaps a few million, significant changes to organisms would be evident.

Evidence of this is said to be two-fold, the fossil record which indeed shows the appearance of novel organisms over time, and genetics, which indeed contains evidence of having been acted upon by mutations.

What evolution seems to fail to account for in this scenario is the extreme stasis of certain organisms over lengthy geological periods. Indeed, as the fossil record becomes more complete, the length and the durability of certain forms seems certain. A few examples to consider:

Horseshoe Crab

Two nearly complete fossil specimens discovered in Canada reveal a new genus of horseshoe crab, pushing their origins back at least 100 million years earlier than previously thought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primitive looks
Analysis of the recent finds also indicates the ocean creatures haven’t changed much over the eons.

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.

"This body plan that they've invented, they've stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."

Jellyfish

Using recently discovered "fossil snapshots" found in rocks more than 500 million years old, three University of Kansas researchers have described the oldest definitive jellyfish ever found.

"The fossil record is biased against soft-bodied life forms such as jellyfish, because they leave little behind when they die," Lieberman said. "That means that we are still working to solve the evolutionary development of many soft-bodied animals."

With the discovery of the four different types of jellyfish in the Cambrian, however, the researchers said that there is enough detail to assert that the types can be related to the modern orders and families of jellyfish. The specimens show the same complexity. That means that either the complexity of modern jellyfish developed rapidly roughly 500 million years ago, or that the group is even older and existed long before then.

Cartwright said the jellyfish described in the article are also unique because they push the known occurrence of definitive jellyfish back from 300 million to 505 million years, a huge jump, and show more detail than anything previously described that is younger.

Army Ants

Army ants, nature's ultimate coalition task force, strike their prey en masse in a blind, voracious column and pay no attention to the conventional wisdom of evolutionary biologists.

The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was one evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same ancestor, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit.

"Biologists have wondered why army ants, whose queens can't fly or get caught up by the wind, are yet so similar around the world. Army ants have evolved only once and that was in the mid-Cretaceous period," says Sean Brady, a Cornell postdoctoral researcher in entomology, whose study was conducted while he was doctoral candidate at the University of California-Davis.

Flowering Plants

University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin scientists have shed light on what Charles Darwin called the "abominable mystery" of early plant evolution.

The scientists are reporting that the two largest groups of flowering plants are more closely related to each other than any of the other major lineages. These are the monocots, which include grasses and their relatives, and the eudicots, which include sunflowers and tomatoes.

Doug and Pam Soltis, a UF professor of botany and curator at UF's Florida Museum of Natural History, respectively, also showed that a stunning diversification of flowering plants they are referring to as the "Big Bang" took place in the comparatively short period of less than 5 million years -- and resulted in all five major lineages of flowering plants that exist today.

"Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species," said Pam Soltis. "So to think that the burst that give rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing -- especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years."

Beetles

Most modern-day groups of beetles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs and have been diversifying ever since, says new research.

There are approximately 350,000 species of beetles on Earth, and probably millions more yet to be discovered, accounting for about 25% of all known life forms on the planet. The reason for this large number of beetle species has been debated by scientists for many years, but never resolved.

Now a team of scientists has shown that large numbers of modern-day beetle lineages evolved very soon after the first beetles originated, and have persisted ever since. Many modern-day lineages first appeared during the Jurassic period, when the major groups of dinosaurs appeared too.

So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.

This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution.



DanJames -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (1/30/2008 4:28:38 PM)

Let's not also forget Sponges (the earliest animals).



cow451 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (1/31/2008 10:44:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Let's not also forget Sponges (the earliest animals).


Yeah, Sponge Bob has an episode where he and Patrick are seen in their prehistoric forms.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (1/31/2008 10:54:42 AM)

quote:

Yeah, Sponge Bob has an episode where he and Patrick are seen in their prehistoric forms.


Did he look different than his modern form? Was he Spongebob SquareFurLoinCloth?



cow451 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (1/31/2008 4:54:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yeah, Sponge Bob has an episode where he and Patrick are seen in their prehistoric forms.


Did he look different than his modern form? Was he Spongebob SquareFurLoinCloth?


His attire was from the Stone Knives and Bear Skins Collection at Target.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 3:56:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

The ordinary course of evolution we are told by Neo-Darwinists is that of natural selection acting on ordinary mutations, which occur as a regular part of life on earth. [...]
What evolution seems to fail to account for in this scenario is the extreme stasis of certain organisms over lengthy geological periods. Indeed, as the fossil record becomes more complete, the length and the durability of certain forms seems certain. [...]
So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.

This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution.


The answer to your question is in your own post. "This body plan that they've invented, they've stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."

My following response may stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution (TOE), and if it does, please correct me.

While TOE explains why things such as genetic drift or speciation happen, it is not in conflict with static species. Indeed, static species should be an expected result of any system defined by natural selection.
And indeed, natural selection is the sole reason that static species would occur. If evolution consisted solely of genetic drift and mutation, you would expect to see every species on Earth change quite often. You would expect no consistency of body form within various classifications, and would expect a massively different fossil record. Mutation is the random portion of evolution.

Speciation, on the other hand, accounts for consistency in animal types. If a species, the horseshoe crab, for example, is very well suited to the niche that it occupies, then any other species will find it hard to dislodge it from that genetic niche. Further, if the horseshoe crab has evolved to such a point that it's well suited to it's niche, and hard to dislodge, then any further mutation may be a hindrance, not a help.
For instance, if the horseshoe crab has little competition in its niche, but started to evolve traits that would put it in competition for another, already filled niche (such as a preponderance for a specific species fish, instead of their normal wormy diet), then they face fiercer competition for their food source. If they're not the better at catching our hypothetical fish than the creature(s) that already prey upon them, then they are more likely to die.

Other examples might include living fossils, or Lazarus taxon that still hold a specific niche, but at a massively reduced population. For instance, the Coelacanth, previously thought to be extinct, was re-discovered. However, it is considered 'critically endangered' due to it's low population numbers. This is in contrast to its fossilized brethren, which occupied many bodies of water. So while it still survives, it may not have been a good enough design to keep its evolutionary territory, but good enough to stay alive.

Basically, if a creature has a good 'design' to it, and there is no major adverse environmental or ecosystem changes that would effect that species in any meaningful way, we expect to see it stay the same. If a species changed when there was no need for it to, or when it would be harmful to change, then the TOE would be handily disproved.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 9:24:34 AM)

quote:

The answer to your question is in your own post. "This body plan that they've invented, they've stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."

My following response may stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution (TOE), and if it does, please correct me.

While TOE explains why things such as genetic drift or speciation happen, it is not in conflict with static species. Indeed, static species should be an expected result of any system defined by natural selection.
And indeed, natural selection is the sole reason that static species would occur. If evolution consisted solely of genetic drift and mutation, you would expect to see every species on Earth change quite often. You would expect no consistency of body form within various classifications, and would expect a massively different fossil record. Mutation is the random portion of evolution.

Speciation, on the other hand, accounts for consistency in animal types. If a species, the horseshoe crab, for example, is very well suited to the niche that it occupies, then any other species will find it hard to dislodge it from that genetic niche. Further, if the horseshoe crab has evolved to such a point that it's well suited to it's niche, and hard to dislodge, then any further mutation may be a hindrance, not a help.
For instance, if the horseshoe crab has little competition in its niche, but started to evolve traits that would put it in competition for another, already filled niche (such as a preponderance for a specific species fish, instead of their normal wormy diet), then they face fiercer competition for their food source. If they're not the better at catching our hypothetical fish than the creature(s) that already prey upon them, then they are more likely to die.

Other examples might include living fossils, or Lazarus taxon that still hold a specific niche, but at a massively reduced population. For instance, the Coelacanth, previously thought to be extinct, was re-discovered. However, it is considered 'critically endangered' due to it's low population numbers. This is in contrast to its fossilized brethren, which occupied many bodies of water. So while it still survives, it may not have been a good enough design to keep its evolutionary territory, but good enough to stay alive.

Basically, if a creature has a good 'design' to it, and there is no major adverse environmental or ecosystem changes that would effect that species in any meaningful way, we expect to see it stay the same. If a species changed when there was no need for it to, or when it would be harmful to change, then the TOE would be handily disproved.


Well I think the problem with such a valuation is that it seems not to account for the presumed regular mutations that are said to occur in the genomes of all organisms (which is thought to be a regular and ongoing) and the fact that in the time periods these species are said to have remained in stasis, hundred of millions of years, the earth is thought to have changed considerably acting as a strong selective force on numerous other species, many of them which are similar in body plans and habitats as the ones that didn’t change, though they would be subject to the same selection events and mutational change.

I think this is a considerable weakness of the evolutionary theory.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 9:37:44 AM)

Another startling example of stasis:

Fossil suggests platypus lived in dinosaur times

Just about everyone loves the platypus, but for years the strange little monotreme has keep its secrets to itself.

Now Australian scientists have discovered that the platypus is significantly older than previously thought: it may have been around since 120 million years ago, meaning it lived alongside the dinosaurs.

Palaeontologists Dr Tom Rich from Museum Victoria and Professor Pat Vickers-Rich from Monash University have been searching the southern coastline of Victoria for the remains of early mammals for more than two decades.

Around 10 years ago they found a fossil jaw which was thought to be around 120 million years old.

Museum Victoria's head of sciences, Dr John Long, says at first the paleontologists thought the jaw was from an ancestor of the platypus.

"But the recent discoveries made in the last week have shown with the high resolution CT scanner in Texas that some of these jaws that they found, they're actually in the same family, ornithorhynchidae, as the modern platypus and this is absolutely outstanding," he said.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 1:28:26 PM)

Is it possible that horseshoe crabs required little change through adaptation however, periodic mutations resulted in divergences leading to scorpion and spiders who are their modern relatives?

Are you saying that the modern horseshoe crabs are exactly like the ancient ones?



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 1:49:04 PM)

quote:

Is it possible that horseshoe crabs required little change through adaptation however, periodic mutations resulted in divergences leading to scorpion and spiders who are their modern relatives?


Well, up until recently horshoe crabs were thought to have originated later than the earliest spider or scorpion, so until this fossil was discovered it wouldn't have been a consideration. Of course, as we know, with evolution we can imagine any scenario we want.

quote:

Are you saying that the modern horseshoe crabs are exactly like the ancient ones?


Well not me of course, but the researcher quoted in the article:

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/1/2008 6:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Is it possible that horseshoe crabs required little change through adaptation however, periodic mutations resulted in divergences leading to scorpion and spiders who are their modern relatives?


Well, up until recently horshoe crabs were thought to have originated later than the earliest spider or scorpion, so until this fossil was discovered it wouldn't have been a consideration.
Is that a yes?

quote:

quote:

Are you saying that the modern horseshoe crabs are exactly like the ancient ones?


Well not me of course, but the researcher quoted in the article:

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.


Well, I used the term "exactly" and was looking for your personal opinion. If you are going to use the researchers opinion then that makes my first point.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/3/2008 6:53:36 PM)

quote:

Is that a yes?


Well, as scorpions existed even around the time as this earliest fossil, and spiders a short time later - and there is no evidence of a horseshoe crab changing into anything else in 500 million years, I would have to say no.

quote:

Well, I used the term "exactly" and was looking for your personal opinion. If you are going to use the researchers opinion then that makes my first point.


I am not sure how - the researcher expressed no opinion on the origin of weither scorpions or spiders.



BVZ -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/4/2008 2:07:55 AM)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Once a specie is very well adapted to a specific niche, any mutation tends to move it AWAY from perfection, rather than TOWARDS it. Evolution predicts this. Statistics predicts this.

Any change AWAY from the well adapted form will be selected AGAINST.

I assume you want to attack evolution. If so, why not use something that actually poses a problem for evolution? That would make more sense don't you think?



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/4/2008 10:26:59 AM)

quote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Once a specie is very well adapted to a specific niche, any mutation tends to move it AWAY from perfection, rather than TOWARDS it. Evolution predicts this. Statistics predicts this.

Any change AWAY from the well adapted form will be selected AGAINST.

I assume you want to attack evolution. If so, why not use something that actually poses a problem for evolution? That would make more sense don't you think?


Well to suggest that one organism has found the 'perfect niche' and somehow stabilizes it genome so that it is impervious to mutations for 500 million years, while another organism (like a trilobite) which existed in the same niche and died out because of changes to the same environment simply tells us that evolution is incapable of telling us why this is so.

Indeed, evolution regularly tells us contradictory things - it tells us that the changes in life are due regular mutations occurring in the genome expressing themselves in organisms and that the survival of that organisms is either enhanced (thus preserving the mutation) or harmed (thus selecting against that mutation) leading to the cumulative and significant modification of the organism.

Then of course you have bad explanations like the one above which completely ignores these evolutionary forces, and with a wave of hands, simply claims somehow that jellyfish, horseshoe crabs, flowers and beetle groups, army ants as well as platypuses all became well adapted to a 'specific niche' (ignoring the fact that no 'niche' exists for that long) for hundreds of millions of years, when organisms in those same niches were evolving and going extinct as a result of the tremendous environmental changes that were occurring all around them.

They claim selection forces both force change, and force stasis, simultaneously!

Not only will evolutionists believe anything, they will willingly believe mutually contradictory things.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/4/2008 3:46:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well to suggest that one organism has found the [...] they will willingly believe mutually contradictory things.


From my understanding of evolution, the previous poster was correct. "Any change AWAY from the well adapted form will be selected AGAINST." So that even though mutation is continuing to occur, the harmful mutation will not persist because it is harmful. Generally, only beneficial mutations are selected for. So while successful changes in a genome of a species will be selects for, ones that decrease survival chances will be weeded out via natural selection. Basically, mutation does not have to occur in all species. This does not mean that mutation will not occur within individuals within that species, but if those individuals are not better at fulfilling a role than a non-mutated individuals, the mutation will be weeded out.

As for the trilobite-crab thing. (And I don't know much about either species, their locals, diets, etc...) Is it possible that the crabs pushes the trilobites into extinction? If the two species were trying to occupy the same ecological niche, then the one more suited to survive in that niche would probably push the other one out. This would either force the other species to evolve to a different niche, or die out. Perhaps the trilobites were simply inadequate.

Third, are 'living fossil' species exactly the same as the fossil versions? I remember reading a report a few years ago that detailed a 'living fossil' that was re-discovered. Even though the species was remarkably similar in appearance to its ancestral form, some changes had taken place. It was significantly larger, and some of the innards were moved around. So while the creature was generally adapted to its niche, change was still required.
Moreover, 'niche', in my understanding, refers to a general type of role a creature fulfills, and not necessarily a specific instance. For example, trees would be one niche to occupy, and could be inhabited by different species based on type of tree and food availability, but the niche (pending a massive disaster) would remain essentially unchanged for quite a long time. I imagine that ocean dwelling creatures would experience even less in terms of sudden, massive change to their environments.
In the case of horseshoe crabs, I can't see much that would greatly disturb their niche other than a new species seizing it.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/4/2008 4:06:05 PM)

quote:

From my understanding of evolution, the previous poster was correct. "Any change AWAY from the well adapted form will be selected AGAINST." So that even though mutation is continuing to occur, the harmful mutation will not persist because it is harmful. Generally, only beneficial mutations are selected for. So while successful changes in a genome of a species will be selects for, ones that decrease survival chances will be weeded out via natural selection.


The problem with the term ‘well adapted’ is that that is a term relative to a particular niche. In the case of the horseshoe crab, you would have to argue that the niche it occupies was unchanged for 500 million years. This would be an interesting thing to see an evolutionist argue. Of course, I would expect that ther forms of life would occupy this niche as well, and also be relatively unchanged for the same amount of time.

quote:

Basically, mutation does not have to occur in all species. This does not mean that mutation will not occur within individuals within that species, but if those individuals are not better at fulfilling a role than a non-mutated individuals, the mutation will be weeded out.


I don’t know a single biologist that has argued that mutation doesn’t occur in a particular species. That in fact is one essential element of neo-Darwinism – that mutations occur regularly and are regularly acted upon by natural selection. Perhaps you are referring to an evolutionary theory with which I am not familiar?

quote:

As for the trilobite-crab thing. (And I don't know much about either species, their locals, diets, etc...) Is it possible that the crabs pushes the trilobites into extinction? If the two species were trying to occupy the same ecological niche, then the one more suited to survive in that niche would probably push the other one out. This would either force the other species to evolve to a different niche, or die out. Perhaps the trilobites were simply inadequate.


Well they presumably lived alongside each other for 200 million years, it would seem odd that they would suddenly compete in a niche that wasn’t apparently changing in any significant way.

quote:

Third, are 'living fossil' species exactly the same as the fossil versions? I remember reading a report a few years ago that detailed a 'living fossil' that was re-discovered. Even though the species was remarkably similar in appearance to its ancestral form, some changes had taken place. It was significantly larger, and some of the innards were moved around. So while the creature was generally adapted to its niche, change was still required.


Well, it is of course impossible to know their genetic similarities, but based on the well recognized morphological structures it seems pretty safe to assume it’s the same animal.

Of course, we could disregard morphological similarities as reliable indicator of relationships between groups, but this of course would cause us to throw most evolutionary evidence out the window.

quote:

Moreover, 'niche', in my understanding, refers to a general type of role a creature fulfills, and not necessarily a specific instance. For example, trees would be one niche to occupy, and could be inhabited by different species based on type of tree and food availability, but the niche (pending a massive disaster) would remain essentially unchanged for quite a long time. I imagine that ocean dwelling creatures would experience even less in terms of sudden, massive change to their environments.
In the case of horseshoe crabs, I can't see much that would greatly disturb their niche other than a new species seizing it.


Well again, there have been a number of incredible extinctions in the fossil record of ocean dwelling animals, it would seem that the case is quite the opposite of what you stated, that many events can greatly disturb a marine niche.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/4/2008 8:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:

Basically, mutation does not have to occur in all species. This does not mean that mutation will not occur within individuals within that species, but if those individuals are not better at fulfilling a role than a non-mutated individuals, the mutation will be weeded out.


I don’t know a single biologist that has argued that mutation doesn’t occur in a particular species. That in fact is one essential element of neo-Darwinism – that mutations occur regularly and are regularly acted upon by natural selection. Perhaps you are referring to an evolutionary theory with which I am not familiar?


Heh, good thing I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything marine or evolutionary. I think I just got pwnt.

But, in reference to the above quotation. I suppose I should have used the word "to" instead of "in" in my first sentence. That's what I was trying to convey by the individuals vs. species description. The mutation occurs, but does not effect the population as a whole, due to natural selection weeding the non-beneficial mutation out.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 10:18:13 AM)

quote:

But, in reference to the above quotation. I suppose I should have used the word "to" instead of "in" in my first sentence. That's what I was trying to convey by the individuals vs. species description. The mutation occurs, but does not effect the population as a whole, due to natural selection weeding the non-beneficial mutation out.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.


I appreciate the clarification.

It may be that in each case over the 500 million years (or 100 million years, depending on which case you are considering here) that when a mutation arose it was so egregiously detrimental to the survival of the individual organism in which it arose that it had no opportunity to spread in the respective population through selection. But this would seem again to be as antagonistic to evolutionary theory as if no apparent mutations had arisen at all.



futuredocter37 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 2:22:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But, in reference to the above quotation. I suppose I should have used the word "to" instead of "in" in my first sentence. That's what I was trying to convey by the individuals vs. species description. The mutation occurs, but does not effect the population as a whole, due to natural selection weeding the non-beneficial mutation out.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.


I appreciate the clarification.

It may be that in each case over the 500 million years (or 100 million years, depending on which case you are considering here) that when a mutation arose it was so egregiously detrimental to the survival of the individual organism in which it arose that it had no opportunity to spread in the respective population through selection. But this would seem again to be as antagonistic to evolutionary theory as if no apparent mutations had arisen at all.


I guess you could say the branches only go so far out in the tree of life and some branches go through a 500 million year winter where they produce no leaves at all, like this one.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 3:43:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Is that a yes?


Well, as scorpions existed even around the time as this earliest fossil, and spiders a short time later - and there is no evidence of a horseshoe crab changing into anything else in 500 million years, I would have to say no.


Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.

The fact that scorpions existed around the same time as horseshoe crabs does not mean they could not have had a common ancester once again..



drmark -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 3:52:20 PM)

quote:

Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.
Ridiculous semantic posturing, Aristocrat! My sister, cousins and I all share common ancestry. Are we more evolved than our mutual grandparents?



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 4:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.
Ridiculous semantic posturing, Aristocrat! My sister, cousins and I all share common ancestry. Are we more evolved than our mutual grandparents?


I've never met the rest of your family so I can't say, but no, you aren't.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 4:08:49 PM)

quote:

Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.


Well then, next time I hear an evolutionist claim one kind became another kind, I’ll tell him you said so.

quote:

The fact that scorpions existed around the same time as horseshoe crabs does not mean they could not have had a common ancester once again..


Sure, but that common ancestor doesn’t appear to be a horseshoe crab. In fact, according to the fossil record, the only common ancestor for a horseshoe crab appears to be a horseshoe crab.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/5/2008 11:59:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.


Well then, next time I hear an evolutionist claim one kind became another kind, I’ll tell him you said so.


You will not hear that one kind became another kind. You will hear terms like branching out through adaptation and mutations. But, once you are mature, you remain the same kind. You really don't understand the concept of common ancestry? I could dig up some really good sources for you to learn from.


quote:

The fact that scorpions existed around the same time as horseshoe crabs does not mean they could not have had a common ancester once again..


Sure, but that common ancestor doesn’t appear to be a horseshoe crab.That's not a problem.

quote:

In fact, according to the fossil record, the only common ancestor for a horseshoe crab appears to be a horseshoe crab.

Wait, you just said "that common ancestor doesn't appear to be a horseshoe crab".



futuredocter37 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/6/2008 12:16:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Jhud, evolution is not about one kind becoming another kind, it is about common ancestry.


Well then, next time I hear an evolutionist claim one kind became another kind, I’ll tell him you said so.


You will not hear that one kind became another kind. You will hear terms like branching out through adaptation and mutations. But, once you are mature, you remain the same kind. You really don't understand the concept of common ancestry? I could dig up some really good sources for you to learn from.


quote:

The fact that scorpions existed around the same time as horseshoe crabs does not mean they could not have had a common ancester once again..


Sure, but that common ancestor doesn’t appear to be a horseshoe crab.
That's not a problem.

quote:

In fact, according to the fossil record, the only common ancestor for a horseshoe crab appears to be a horseshoe crab.

Wait, you just said "that common ancestor doesn't appear to be a horseshoe crab".


I believe that Jhud just said was the scorpions and horsehoe crab have always existed together, therefore they could not have a common ancestor. Lets see the evidence for a common ancestor, wouldn't that be the part about homoglous structures, apparently that proves that if the stuctures are similar they must be closely related. Ok, how has it ever been tested or what evidence that similar structures mean being closely related??? There we go agian with the logic, one thing really has nothing to do with the other and there is no evidence other than an assertion made that there is connected between the two, namely about similar structures and being "related". I'm guessing there is already the assumption every organism is related to each other. So the attack aginst is, when you question Darwinism you question wether or not animals have smiliar structures in their anantomy or they question your knowledge about science. So lets hear some quick evidence for common ancestory, namely that your distant relatives were the same kind of organism that now resides in your gut.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI