Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

[yy2bggggs]

I may have misunderstood, but I didn't have you as accepting evolution. This whole thread is about the OP and the link to Farah's article, is it not? The quote above comes directly from that article.

 

[qayak]

Neither one of us made that claim. Do not put words in my mouth.

Her complaint was against bonehead science and I agree with it.

You will have to explain the bonehead science here because I didn't read any. Someone did make a false claim, sounding like they hadn't read the original article but other than that there wasn't any bonehead science.

This statement is very unscientific and demonstratively false.

Demonstrate away.

Allowed by what? This statement sounds like an I.D. claim.

And it seems to me that you rely on a lot of logical fallacies. This one is known as "poisoning the well" if you are unaware.

It is obvious from my statement that the "what" you ask about is the environment of the octopi.

 

[frankvan]

There's no law I know of that says an animal can't be "perfectly suited" to more than one environment. Why shouldn't octopi remain unaffected by whatever changes take place in 82 million years on the ocean floor?

 

[Neverfly]

You will have to explain the bonehead science here because I didn't read any. Someone did make a false claim, sounding like they hadn't read the original article but other than that there wasn't any bonehead science.

The bonehead science is in supporting Evolution theory with I.D. sounding claims.

Demonstrate away.

Uh- we exist.

The majority of mutations are harmless or too subtle to be noticed. Only a very, very severe and limiting mutation will cause a creature to not survive and be unable to pass on the mutation. What you said was complete and utter garbage. Had what you said was true, we would have hardly any of the vastly varied and diverse genetic differences that we do.



And it seems to me that you rely on a lot of logical fallacies. This one is known as "poisoning the well" if you are unaware.

It is obvious from my statement that the "what" you ask about is the environment of the octopi.

So the environment determines what mutations take place? Very interesting hypothesis. Wrong, though.

 

[truethat]

There's no law I know of that says an animal can't be "perfectly suited" to more than one environment. Why shouldn't octopi remain unaffected by whatever changes take place in 82 million years on the ocean floor?

So you assert that octopi remain unchanged and unaffected for 82 million years?

Why would you even make this claim when the article points out that the octopus did reflect change? Additionally it is a fossil, we don't have genetic material to work with. I would suspect that more changes would be found if we could.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So you assert that octopi remain unchanged and unaffected for 82 million years?

There seems to be a major confusion over this. The word "change" can have contextual meaning. Let's say I had two containers of milk in my refrigerator yesterday, drank one, went to the store, bought another, and put it in my refrigerator.

The amount of milk that I have in my refrigerator did not change (I had two, I have two).

The amount of milk that I have in my refrigerator did change (It went to one, then to two).

Both of these are not only true, they are proper ways to use the word "change". Note that the first one refers to an equivalence class--that is, we're talking about change in a particular way (here, same number of containers). The second just means that something was modified at all.

This is all a bunch of semantics. The octopus hasn't changed in its overall morphology in 95MY, which is the type of change talked about by Fuchs, and then Farah, and not you.

ETA: See change^dict. Compare, e.g., sense 9 to sense 10.

 

[Neverfly]

This is all a bunch of semantics. The octopus hasn't changed in its overall morphology in 95MY, which is the type of change talked about by Fuchs, and then Farah, and not you.

Not quite.
Farah was very misleading in his article. Not only did he get much of his science downright wrong, he stuck to vague descriptions.

His basic claim is that the octopus fossil IS the same octopus we have today.
That is exactly what Farah was aiming for.

 

[qayak]

The bonehead science is in supporting Evolution theory with I.D. sounding claims.

I think this was just in your mind.

Uh- we exist.

Ummmm. . . this doesn't support your claim, Scooter, try again.

The majority of mutations are harmless or too subtle to be noticed. Only a very, very severe and limiting mutation will cause a creature to not survive and be unable to pass on the mutation. What you said was complete and utter garbage. Had what you said was true, we would have hardly any of the vastly varied and diverse genetic differences that we do.

And out of the infinite number of possible changes, we have a very limited number of successful ones. There are a lot more extinct species than thriving ones.

So the environment determines what mutations take place? Very interesting hypothesis. Wrong, though.

Grade school level reading comprehension is something you should strive for. If you could actually hold one thought in your head while you read and considered another, you would know you are making this stuff up.

Let me type slowly so you have a chance of grasping this: The mutation happens prior to the change in environment not as a result. The environment however, has a lot to say about which mutations survive. For instance, frogs in Canada have the ability to survive being frozen solid every winter. The environment (freezing winter conditions) did not make the frogs mutate but it certainly killed off the ones that didn't and thus environment was the decider in which mutations survived. Just think of all the mutations those frogs could have had yet only the one right mutation allowed for survival.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Not quite.

Now you're doing it to me?

Repeat after me:

"Same, yet, different". Do I need a lecture on equivalence classes before you realize you're disagreeing with a fiction?

Let's say it's "same", where "same" is defined as the number beside the shade of meaning listed in the dictionary.

 

[Neverfly]

Now you're doing it to me?

Repeat after me:

"Same, yet, different". Do I need a lecture on equivalence classes before you realize you're disagreeing with a fiction?

No.
I am pointing out what Farah Said.

Are you trying to claim that Farah was being scientific and understood the difference that you are talking about?

I think not.

 

[Neverfly]

I think this was just in your mind.

No, it really isn't.
It's about promoting good science. Not fluffy b.s.

And out of the infinite number of possible changes, we have a very limited number of successful ones. There are a lot more extinct species than thriving ones.

Much of that is climatic.
Your statement was wrong and unscientific. It is not up to me to support that.
YOU are the one who claimed that most Mutations cause death.
Support your claim or retract it.

Grade school level reading comprehension is something you should strive for. If you could actually hold one thought in your head while you read and considered another, you would know you are making this stuff up.

Irrelevant ad hom noted and moving along...

Let me type slowly so you have a chance of grasping this: The mutation happens prior to the change in environment not as a result. The environment however, has a lot to say about which mutations survive. For instance, frogs in Canada have the ability to survive being frozen solid every winter. The environment (freezing winter conditions) did not make the frogs mutate but it certainly killed off the ones that didn't and thus environment was the decider in which mutations survived. Just think of all the mutations those frogs could have had yet only the one right mutation allowed for survival.

Qayak, it is quite clear that I understand evolution and genetics much better than you do. Please save the condescending tone. You can type as fast as you like, but until you actually do some research, I will not pretend that you have typed sound and solid science just to make you feel good about yourself.

 

[yy2bggggs]

No.
I am pointing out what Farah Said.

Okay. Let's see what Farah said:

And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus – complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.

In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn't evolved – not one tiny bit.

So "it seems, the octopus hasn't evolved" meaning "complete with eight legs, rows of suckers, and even traces of ink."

But as long as macro-evolution is taught like a religion in our schools and universities, ...

I offer this up as well, due to the presence of that most wonderful of terms... "macro-evolution". So, what sort of "change" do you think Farah is looking for?

Yes.

Something other than eight legs, rows of suckers, and "even" traces of ink.

That sounds pretty much like what Fuchs says. Read from the other source I linked to.

Are you trying to claim that Farah was being scientific and understood the difference that you are talking about?

No.

ETA: (meta... inserting "ETA" to clarify portions added for clarity since the reply below)

There were no difference I was talking about. These 5 new species of octopi that Fuchs identified did have all of the morphology of the modern octopus, and lacked particular morphologies of more primitive octopi.

So, the octopi were the same (but different) as modern octopi, yet different (and different) from the more primitive octopi.

Doesn't matter that Farah's a nut. Fuchs was talking about the same similarities Farah was.

 

[fromdownunder]

And out of the infinite number of possible changes, we have a very limited number of successful ones. There are a lot more extinct species than thriving ones.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that most species went extinct because of unsuccesful/harmful genome changes (which BTW, only occur in INDIVIDUALS and not entire species)?

Did the carrier pigeon go extinct because of unsiccesful genome changes, or because people simply started blowiing them out of the air with guns? Are guns now a "harmful mutation?

Ditto with the Dodo. Oh, and the Kakapo isn't almost extinct because of feral cats, it's because of genetic change? (Is a feral cat a harmful mutation?)

What about Dinosaurs? Genome change or a cataclysmic event? There alone is quite a few species that did not die due to a harmful mutation.

Norm

 

[Neverfly]

Okay. Let's see what Farah said:

So "it seems, the octopus hasn't evolved" meaning "complete with eight legs, rows of suckers, and even traces of ink."

So, what sort of "change" do you think Farah is looking for?

Yes.

Something other than eight legs, rows of suckers, and "even" traces of ink.

That sounds pretty much like what Fuchs says. Read from the other source I linked to.

No.

Yes. You even quoted him.
In Bold:

In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn't evolved – not one tiny bit.

Farah is WRONG.

He is claiming that the octopus has not evolved in 95 million years and that the fossil of of the same species as we can observe today.

Farah is doing so because he is highly motivated to try to undermine a solid theory in order to justify his faith in theism.

Are you claiming that Farah is being scientific and is unbiased? Are you claiming that Farah presented the facts?

His science was not only wrong- but downright goofy and had ne real relation to actual science.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes. You even quoted him.
In Bold:


Farah is WRONG.

Not what I'm talking about. We have people here using the word "change". That's what the fuss is about.

In fact, didn't you quote me and say not quite?

 

[Neverfly]

Not what I'm talking about. We have people here using the word "change". That's what the fuss is about.

In fact, didn't you quote me and say not quite?

No. I used the words "not quite" of my own will as an address to your point.


The changes referred to by Farah in the OP are used by Farah in an attempt to "disprove" evolution theory.
Farah uses it to claim that the Octopus has not evolved at all in 95 million years.
Now, I may have misunderstood you, but when you were saying that Farah was not claiming that the octopus has not evolved- your statement was incorrect. Farah IS claiming that.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Now, I may have misunderstood you,

I think you did. See posts 84, 86, 87. Ironically, my entire point is that people are choking on semantics, but I have a ray of hope--people here aren't stupid.

 

[Neverfly]

I think you did. See posts 84, 86, 87. Ironically, my entire point is that people are choking on semantics, but I have a ray of hope--people here aren't stupid.

Yes, I read those.

TrueThat made a valid point- One that you correctly and helpfully addressed and provided clarity.

However, it was after that that you then seemed to be saying that Farah was referring to subtle or genetic changes.

Farah was not. At all.
You then cherry picked and quotemined Farah and I have no idea why.
Farah was saying exactly what Truethat was trying to point out as wrong- Farah was claiming that the octopus remained unchanged- did not evolve- over the past 95 million years.

ETA: In Farah's case- it is not an argument of semantics.

 

[shadron]

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?

The OP is about whether evolution occurred or not - the referenced article makes the claim that since the fossil is nearly identical to today's octopus, then evolution is a crock. Fine.

You came in and state - demand, rather, that we recognize that 95 million years has to have changed the benthic environment. Some one asks you to prove it. You reply that it must have changed; why can't we see that? The process coninues.

Then you come along and start wailing that we aren't being fair because we're using a double standard - we haven't criticized the person who first told you that your bald assertion that 95 million years must have changed the octopus, is wrong.

So - The OP says evolution is a crock, you support it with an unfounded statement of fact (in support, apparently, of your own theory of why its a crock), you're criticized and then you whine when us evolutionists don't defend you. Is that a fair summation? I responded that you are certainly entitled to stomp on this practice when ever and where ever you see it occur, but that doesn't make the original assertion about the octopi correct. The article in the OP is as wrong as ever, regardless of the possible existence of some double standard.

Where did I mention size?

Please refer to post 35 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4560553&postcount=35) which refers to post 7 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4560553&postcount=7) where you say even sharks change in size.

I dont' understand your comments at all.

Ma'am, you are half of this conversation. If you cannot follow it, then ... what? I'm not here o disparage your conduct but there has to be a reason you aren't understanding it. I do use proper American English, I believe.

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

*sigh* OK, let's start over. Prove that it was erroneous. Why cannot a biological family create member species that don't evolve very much in an almost unchanging environmental niche in which said family is comfortable?

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.

Because you have to prove what you assert, or take the punishment. Whether you are an IDer or E. O. Wilson. Or me, or even truethat.

The truth of the situation is that the article, which states that no differences or nearly none, were found is likely wrong. Comparing a stone replica to the real thing leaves a lot to be desired (as you yourself have said above), he simply has no proof of his claim. On the other hand, it is also true that the benthic environment has not changed much on Earth since the Cretaceous, so it is not hard to accept in evolution that the creatures inhabiting it haven't changed much either. Between the two improbabilities the truth lies, and that region is covered by evolution. Of course, it's also covered by Creationism, but what isn't?

 

[Neverfly]

No, Shadron.

You are completely misunderstanding. Your assumptions are wrong. You're analysis is incorrect.

And it's getting tiring.

He made a very valid point. I will put it in a clarified form and in bold. Think about it before going into attack mode:
We need to be very clear and careful in presenting science in a scientific way. We must present valid facts.

Now, when Truethat asked about this, he was being honest in saying that he did not understand how something that sounds very much like a lame excuse could be valid.
Which is completely understandable. As presented- it sounded unscientific- it sounded terrible.

If we are going to present valid science, we must do so in a scientific and informative manner. We can't just expect people to up and understand everything as if they have a degree on the subject- true... But all the same, we can avoid using terminology that sounds like faith or I.D.