PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Living Fossils
       A problem or evolution?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9803.html


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:13 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:13 AM on June 4, 2005 :
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9803.html


I don't see any problems here, just the usual misrepesentations.  Why don't you explain it?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:05 AM on June 6, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:05 AM on June 6, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 10:13 AM on June 4, 2005 :
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9803.html


I don't see any problems here, just the usual misrepesentations.  Why don't you explain it?



You will have to as I see no misrepresentations.
Eventually the only argument an evolutionist has is to attack the messenger.
You started with it.



(Edited by peddler8111 6/6/2005 at 10:34 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:31 PM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:31 PM on June 6, 2005 :
You will have to as I see no misrepresentations.
Eventually the only argument an evolutionist has is to attack the messenger.
You started with it.


Ok, it says:

As we have seen, however, some prominent specialists indeed feel that there are features of living fossils which are difficult to explain in terms of evolution theory. As they themselves admit, their explanations are ad hoc in nature and scarcely satisfactory.

Exactly where do they admit the answers being ad hoc?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:45 AM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:45 AM on June 7, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 10:31 PM on June 6, 2005 :
You will have to as I see no misrepresentations.
Eventually the only argument an evolutionist has is to attack the messenger.
You started with it.

A misrepresentation is a polite way of saying what Demon says: Liar Liar Pants on Fire.
Niles Eldredge, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, made the following comments under the heading, Living Fossils, in his book, FOSSILS, 1991.

"...there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ....We have not completely solved the riddle of living to an extreme degree. .]...We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils. " p.101, 108
He mentions Neopilina as a specific example:

"...were thought to have been extinct by the end of the Middle Devonian [385 MYA]. Modern Neopilina species, however, were dredged from the deep oceans in the 1950's..." p.101

"The Gingko biloba is the sole surviving species of a very old group of gymnosperms which died out 100 million years ago." PREHISTORIC ATLAS, 1982, p.78

"All paleontologist dream of finding a 'living fossil.' Noel Dilly, it seems has done so... As graptolites are arguably the most important zone fossils of the Lower Palaeozoic (570-360 million years before the present), this is far from an esoteric issue." Nature, Sue Rigby, British Geological Survey, Vol.363, p.209, 3/18/'93

Comment: Potentially, doesn't this mean all diagnostic work using graptolites to identify strata within the geologic column is now subject to reinterpretation?

How is an explanation of why the existence of "living fossils" being supportive if evolution not an ad hoc , designed for a purpose , explanation?





Ok, it says:

As we have seen, however, some prominent specialists indeed feel that there are features of living fossils which are difficult to explain in terms of evolution theory. As they themselves admit, their explanations are ad hoc in nature and scarcely satisfactory.

Exactly where do they admit the answers being ad hoc?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:11 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.