Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

[Wowbagger]

One thing we know about Evolution (even if it was not "true"), is that it is an awfully good framework for allowing scientists to do science.

You can use it as a basis for hypothesizing how life forms have changed over time, then dig up fossils to see how accurate those educated guesses were. Where they don't match, is where you've learned something new. The Tiktaalik is a good example: It is a specimen demonstrating transitional features, whose location and features were mostly correctly guessed by scientists, before it was actually found.
ETA: Here is a link about it. Go down to the "Discovery" section, in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

This framework is also tremendously useful for fighting microbial diseases. Hopefully, you can already figure out why. But, I can go into details if you need it.

And, in case you think all that only counts as "microevolution", and you still do not accept "macroevolution", you should know that it is, in fact "macroevolution" thinking that ultimately saved the Kakapo from extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060401_kakapo

Does anyone have an alternative framework of thinking that would work better?

 

[MG1962]

What I'd like to know is why so many people will make the assertion that the FACT that the animal hasn't changed, proves that it was perfectly suited to the environment.

Not all change needs to be either positive or negative. Some can be neutral. An example is humans. A percentage of the population is left handed. No one knows why they are left handed. It does not seem to add anything significant to the survival of the organism. Nor does it disadvantage it either

 

[truethat]

Not all change needs to be either positive or negative. Some can be neutral. An example is humans. A percentage of the population is left handed. No one knows why they are left handed. It does not seem to add anything significant to the survival of the organism. Nor does it disadvantage it either

You aren't understanding my point.


My point is,


Why is it when someone states that it is a fact that a creature didn't evolve because it was perfectly suited to its environment for 92 million years, no one points out that this is a nonsensical statment.

Even if the creature basically stayed the same it still evolved. It had to have.
The earth hasn't stayed the same for 92 million years.

 

[Wowbagger]

A percentage of the population is left handed. No one knows why they are left handed. It does not seem to add anything significant to the survival of the organism. Nor does it disadvantage it either

Well, I suppose left-handed people are slightly more prone to ink poisoning... at least when they are writing in a language that is read from left to right, with a pen.

 

[Wowbagger]

Even if the creature basically stayed the same it still evolved. It had to have.
The earth hasn't stayed the same for 92 million years.

There is no law that states "All life forms MUST change significantly over very long periods of time".

Maybe all the changes on Earth, during those millions of years, did not actually place any significantly different selection pressures on those particular life forms.

 

[Nogbad]

You aren't understanding my point.


My point is,


Why is it when someone states that it is a fact that a creature didn't evolve because it was perfectly suited to its environment for 92 million years, no one points out that this is a nonsensical statment.

Even if the creature basically stayed the same it still evolved. It had to have.
The earth hasn't stayed the same for 92 million years.

It is true that the world has changed in 92 million years but some deep sea environments are heavily cushioned from the more significant swings and roundabouts. It is not an absolute but there are niches where change is much slower simply because there is no imperative to change. Random mutations may occur and may be beneficial or they may not. However, the process of natural selection will be less dramatic in those areas that are most stable. The Octopus has changed but much more slowly than some creatures.

 

[fuelair]

Ok so the articles show that the octopus has changed.


So this takes me back to what I consider a nonsensical argument.


The statement was made on here




And I stated that I've heard this sentiment many times and I find it to be nonsensical.

The octopus DID change so the statement is false. The idea that an environment (even the one just surrounding the octopus) has not changed in a significant way in 95 million years is nonsense.

The fact is the animal has changed and is evidence of a "transitional fossil"

What I'd like to know is why so many people will make the assertion that the FACT that the animal hasn't changed, proves that it was perfectly suited to the environment.

I find this to be a false statement filled with illogical conclusions. Right up there with Goddidit.

But it rarely seems to be corrected. Just curious why?

First, it does not get corrected - in information provided for the general public - because the general public is mostly interested in simple, easy to digest, basically correct information (simplification to over-simplification). If you read in the books/publications of specialists for specialists and upper level students, you won't find that kind of thing - they do get it as right as known at publication. Minor changes occur in species all the time - changes a specialist will notice but a regular person would not. The shark example you gave likely (notice, I am guessing because I am not a specialist) occured because the things competing with sharks had ceased to exist and certain effects of large size stopped being advantageous to the shark. For Octopi, they appear to have been early adapted to differences in water temperature and salinity so, unless entire groups of prey species or predators changed, minimal change would occur. Like our friend the cockroach.

 

[truethat]

So because people are too stupid to understand it, lets just let them dwell in their "misinformation" rather than correct it.


Hmmm


I often hear this argument put forth that Science can't be bothered to make sure the public is properly informed.

But ok, I get that Science doesn't think this way. I guess that does make feel better on some level.

 

[MG1962]

Why is it when someone states that it is a fact that a creature didn't evolve because it was perfectly suited to its environment for 92 million years, no one points out that this is a nonsensical statment.

Even if the creature basically stayed the same it still evolved. It had to have.
The earth hasn't stayed the same for 92 million years.

Because the creature has develope a balance between specialisation while retaining some adaptability.

Two branchs of the bear family. The brown bear, well adapted for its environment, yet still retains enough behaviour adaptabilty to thrive even though its natural habitat is under threat, by basically scavenging on human rubbih dump

The Panda. Specialised to the point it eats bamboo, bamboo or bamboo. Incredibly successful while the bamboo is available. Bamboo goes away due to envionment, panda heads to the fossil record.

If we look at two other great survivors, sharks and crocodiles. We find that they survive beause they have so many behaviour advantages. They eat anything, they will ambush, stalk, scavenge, as their environment dictates

So in effect these are examples of creatures who's basic design is so good they can cope with many changes. It doesn't mean they are immuned to changes, just that a change big enough has not occured.

The fossil record is littered with incredibly sucessful creatures who's existene on the planet dwarfs virtually anything else, yet something eventually came along and took them out

 

[MG1962]

So because people are too stupid to understand it, lets just let them dwell in their "misinformation" rather than correct it.

Hmmm

I often hear this argument put forth that Science can't be bothered to make sure the public is properly informed.

But ok, I get that Science doesn't think this way. I guess that does make feel better on some level.

There was a time when science was not for the unwashed masses. Even in my time I have seen this change. Science does need to make itself more accessable. And I have to say it is making great strides in this direction. The problem is it still requires some effort from the masses to engage in the pocess. Science cant make people curious, it can only encourage them

 

[shadron]

To emphasize what Nogbad said, if there is an unchanging habitat on this planet it is the deep sea floor. Understand that cold water and fresh water are denser than the average ocean salt water, so when they enter the ocean from continental rivers that water sinks to the lowest places. Even the warming periods of he Cretaceous and the high oxygen atmosphere of the Jurassic didn't much find its way into the deep oceans. It is not an accident that both the coelecanth and the octopus occupy the deep sea bed.

Truethat. you mention size. The octopus is a type of animal that grows from birth until death; it's size is not dependent on some pre-arranged genetic limit, but only on its age. Therefore the size, whether the fossil has the same as today's octopus or not, is irrelevant to the argument. Some previously unknown, truly huge specimens of octopi and their marks left on deep feeding whales have only coming to light in recent times.

Your protestations about "It had o evolve" are wrong. Yes, it suffered mutations, but there is no selective pressure for it to move evolutionarily into any other niche, so none (or rather very few) of the mutations were naturally selected for, and the proportion holding those changes never grew to take over the population. Evolution requires both mutations and natural selection from survival pressures to cause change.

 

[truethat]

Where did I mention size?

 

[truethat]

There was a time when science was not for the unwashed masses. Even in my time I have seen this change. Science does need to make itself more accessable. And I have to say it is making great strides in this direction. The problem is it still requires some effort from the masses to engage in the pocess. Science cant make people curious, it can only encourage them

Right but where better than a public message board could you devote yourself to such correction?

I saw several people address the skeptics position on evolution, but none corrected that mistake made by a supporter of evolution.

I see this double standard a lot. If a Creationist or IDer makes a mistake about evolution people are all over it.

But if an evolutionary supporter makes a mistake it is glossed over.


I find it annoying.

 

[shadron]

Why is it when someone states that it is a fact that a creature didn't evolve because it was perfectly suited to its environment for 92 million years, no one points out that this is a nonsensical statment.

Even if the creature basically stayed the same it still evolved. It had to have.
The earth hasn't stayed the same for 92 million years.

No, but the deep seafloor bed has been unchanged as an environment for that long - indeed, for much longer. The last great event that may have had a profound effect on the deep sea beds was the complete freezing of the surface 550 million years ago. At a minimum the source of dissolved oxygen ceased. Thankfully, anaerobic bacteria around volcanic vents could still metabolize sulfites until plate tectonics could restore the temperature balance. With the restoration of the oxygen to the deep sea bed, nothing has significantly affected that environment since.

Proof of your assertion to the contrary would be welcomed.

 

[shadron]

Where did I mention size?

See #7: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4560221&postcount=7
"even the shark has changed in size..."

 

[shadron]

Right but where better than a public message board could you devote yourself to such correction?

I saw several people address the skeptics position on evolution, but none corrected that mistake made by a supporter of evolution.

I see this double standard a lot. If a Creationist or IDer makes a mistake about evolution people are all over it.

But if an evolutionary supporter makes a mistake it is glossed over.

I find it annoying.

Fine. Find it annoying, and pounce upon it, and prove it is wrong. Simply asserting that the "earth can't be unchanged in 95 million years" falls short of proof. Even when the evoluionist can be shown to be wrong, that doesn't make the Creationist position any more right, does it? It just shows that us ignorant speculators can be as wrong as anyone else.

 

[Wowbagger]

But if an evolutionary supporter makes a mistake it is glossed over.


I find it annoying.

I do too!

(Though, just because some evolutionary supporters have double standards, that, alone, is no indication that the actual science of evolution is wrong, in some way. The empirical science roots out any attempt at double standards.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Let's assume it's visibly indistinguishable from a modern octopus, for giggles.

This tells you nothing about genetic drift, adaption to resist disease and parasites, the octopus's sophisticated active camouflage, or brain development.

 

[I Ratant]

Warning.
The following question is asked rhetorically and satirically to illuminate a couple of flaws in popular thinking about evolution.
It in no way reflects my attitudes about race.

"Why are there still brown skinned Humans?"

.
Because brown is a better skin color for the environment where that skin color predominates.
Solar exposure is the environmental driver for skin color.
Brown is most common at the equatorial regions, as it protects from excessive radiation while providing the proper amount of vitamin D absorbtion.
As the location of the skin moves away from the equator, less brown becomes more common to permit the vitamin D production, as the solar radiation is diminishing, and protection isn't as important.
Chimpanzees, if shaved, have fair skins. It's their hair that provides the protection.
Eskimos are brown, because the vitamin D they need is present in the fish they eat, and there's no benefit to losing the color, which is probably beneficial at those latitudes for its heat retention.

 

[truethat]

Fine. Find it annoying, and pounce upon it. That doesn't make the anti-evolution position any more right, does it?

Who said it did? Why do you keep saying I'm saying things I'm not?

Where did I mention size?


I dont' understand your comments at all.

I saw a comment that eroneously stated that it was a fact that the octopus had not changed at all in 92 million years.

This was rallied by the OP and no one save me, sought to point out that this was a false statement.


Why?


The idea that people only need to be corrected if they are creationists or IDers is strange to me.