Creation

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

You are of course correct.

What I should have said is: Human after all, maybe?, I do believe it is the case.

It goes to show thou that people should not be so quick to classify a find as a new species....

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Life Influences Dating Method 01/22/2008
The rate of calcium carbonate precipitation can double if microbes are present, says an article in PhysOrg. Scientists studying hot spring deposits in Yellowstone made this “surprising discovery about the geological record of life and the environment.” The article adds, “Their discovery could affect how certain sequences of sedimentary rock are dated, and how scientists might search for evidence of life on other planets.”
The travertine terraces at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone can grow millimeters per day. The precipitation can actually “more than double” when microbes are present, the article said. Calcium carbonate is the most abundant mineral in the rock record.
The scientists believe that inferences about the presence of life can be drawn from studying the rate of deposition. “Separating biologically precipitated calcium carbonate from non-biologically precipitated calcium carbonate is difficult,” however. Inferences about life would also require independent knowledge about the rate of deposition. They believe they can tease this information out from the chemistry, based on “the environmental and ecological context of the rock being studied.”

The important observation here is that previous trusted assumptions about most common sedimentary rock were off by more than a factor of two. What other assumptions are still unquestioned that will be ovewithin the next decade? How can they rightfully infer the presence of rturned in the future? Other questions: What will this do to cave formation dating methods? Will they change the textbooks life from a precipitation rate on a planet where no life has been foundwhen other unknown factors could influence the rate? How come geologists never apologize for the misinformation they spread?
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm

article in PhysOrg: http://www.physorg.com/news120228971.html

This is interesting, dates overstated by a factor of two or more. One could argue that in some cases the fact may not be as much, and that maybe the case. Also even thou the factor is over 2, this does not still get the numbers anywhere near creation dates. While they would be a lot closer, they would still be along way away. However this shows that these dates based on this dating method are wrong, and others maybe also, but one could point out that this may not be the case.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Horseshoe Crabs Unchanged Since Ordovician 01/28/2008
A fossil horseshoe crab has been discovered in Canada that pushes back their origins at least 100 million years in the evolutionary timetable. The previous record placed these marine arthropods in the Carboniferous (350 million years BP in the geologic column); others were known from the Jurassic. “Both the Carboniferous and the Jurassic fossil discoveries indicate the ancient horseshoe crabs greatly resembled their modern-day counterparts,” said Live Science.1
The article contains photos of the two nearly-complete specimens, which look like tiny versions of modern horseshoe crabs. From head to tip of the tail, these are 1.5" long. Modern ones can grow to 20". The discoverers put it into a new genus, Lunataspis aurora, but were not sure if the small specimens were juveniles or adults.
How do evolutionists deal with this example of extreme stasis, or lack of evolution, for hundreds of millions of years? Comments in the article revealed the reaction: surprise, yet no loss of confidence in evolution or the timeline.

“We wouldn’t necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that’s exactly what they look like,” [David] Rudkin [Royal Ontario Museum] 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.”
And whereas major extinction events have wiped even the mightiest, non-avian [sic] dinosaurs from our planet, this primitive-looking organism has come out unscathed.
“The horseshoe crab, the lowly little animal that crawls out of the sea every once in a while to mate, it’s survived for at least 445 million years in more or less the same form,” Rudkin said.


The specimens were so finely preserved, even the compound eyes and flexible chitin coating were visible. “Chitin degrades over time,” the article states. “For that reason, ancient specimens of horseshoe crabs have been sparse.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An article from National Geographic News in 2002 (reported here 06/21/2002) claims that horseshoe crabs go back 500 million years, but did not cite any specific fossils. If true, it pushes the horseshoe crab into the Cambrian. Horseshoe crabs possess many similarities to those icons of the Cambrian explosion, the trilobites.

Friends, you have just witnessed ideology driving belief to the point of absurdity. This is why evolution gets falsified over and over and over again, and its adherents still refuse to admit defeat. And this is not the worst example. Remember the fossil ctenophores that look identical to modern ones, but were found fossilized in Cambrian strata 540 million years old? (04/03/2007). The whole fossil record is replete with similar stories of extreme stasis (e.g., 12/26/2006, 11/15/2007 bullet 6, 04/23/2006).
Notice that these specimens were already fully-equipped horseshoe crabs. They were not primitive, transitional forms. An evolutionist would have to infer that their ancestors existed far earlier, probably back in the Cambrian or before. It’s probably only a matter of time that a Cambrian horseshoe crab will be discovered. Trilobites, similar complex arthropods with jointed appendages and compound eyes, are well known Cambrian animals. In any case, these fully-formed horseshoe crabs appear abruptly in the Ordovician strata without ancestors, with soft parts fossilized and undisturbed. If they are juveniles, they could well be identical to modern species.
The only explanation is that the millions of years in the evolutionary timetable are complete fiction. These specimens are not hundreds of millions of years old. That would be obvious to any impartial jury hearing all the evidence. To admit that, though, would be tantamount to reclassifying Darwin’s little book from the science section to the storybook section – a fate too horrible for the Darwinists to imagine, so the faith goes on.
But faith it is. What shameless credulity allows these people to believe that delicate fossils like these sat in rocks half a billion years only to show up now, unchanged from living counterparts? Think about how many generations that is (in their timeline). There was ample opportunity for the inexorable forces of evolutionary change we are forced to learn about in school to have modified these spider-like animals – to have given them harder armor, lungs, snorkels, water wings or something to show for all that time.
The claim that they invented a good body plan and stayed with it half a billion years is so ludicrous, all sensible people should rise up and laugh the Darwinists to shame. If this were the only case it would be sufficient, but critics have been pointing out these anomalies since Darwin’s day, and nothing ever changes.
So strong is the grip of the Darwin Party on institutional science, theirs is the only belief system too sacred to criticize. By force of decree it has been labeled the “scientific” view of the world. It and it alone is permitted to be taught as “science.” All other explanations must be relegated to the religion class, where the pseudoscientists and clowns hang out. Something is really rotten in this regime.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm

Yes it is obvious to me that these specimens are not hundreds of milions of years old.

The millions of years in the evolutionary timetable are complete fiction! :!:

No evolution here ether!

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
If a coelacanth can still be around after all those years, then why not a Dinosaur?
There are no fossils of Latimera chalumnae . The article gives the impression that that same species is several hundred million years old. This is not the case. However, if anyone has a reference which shows that Latimera chalumnae is found in the fossil record (Not just any coelacanth, but the specific species, L. chalumnae, I'd like to see it.
Is it still a coelacanth? Yes… Has it evolved in to anything else? No… I call this adaptive change…
"Coelacanth" is not a *species*, so that's not a problem either. "Adaptive change" sounds like evolution.

Dark Knight wrote:[
Another point, even *if* a living dinosaur, pterosaurs, Mososaurs, or any other organism or species currently thought to be extinct, is discovered, that's not really a problem for evolution. It would merely reflect that there's more to the world than we currently have knowledge of.

Let's say that a hypothetical "Lost World" is discovered with living representatives of dinosaurs. How, exactly, is that a problem for the ToE? Aside from the "Oooh Aaah!" factor, the only real question would be "How did they survive?",

Well over that period, that 65 million years, a whole lot of other animals are meant to have evolved. This then challenges those claims, in that we don’t see them the dinosaurs as evolving into anything else…
There is nothing in the ToE that makes change an absolute rule. If the environment remains essentially unchanged, then the selective pressure is not sufficient for natural selection to give rise to new species.

Dark Knight wrote:[
unless the representative species were *exactly the same species that lived over 65 million years ago* That would be a *challenge* for the ToE, but would not damage it, as such.
If they turn out to be exactly the same species, then this would show that over that whole period they did not change, and the random mutations, that are meant to be reasonable for evolution had no effect…
Again, there is no rule that states species *have* to evolve if they live in a stable environment. But the reality is that environments change through time, so the odds of finding a "lost world" populated by dinosaur species *identicle* to those from 65 million years ago would be very slim. On the other hand, sharks (or the coelacanth), for example live in an environment that is essentially unchanged, which explains why their lineages are long lived and appear unchanged.

(that applies to horseshoe crabs and brachiopods, too)

Incidentally, a few weeks ago, I read an article which showed that the limb bones of the modern coelacanth actually are slightly different than those of extinct, though related, species.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Did I say Welcome back? Welcome back Boikat to this topic!

lets see I wrote a very long reply in "MS works" , so I will now try to cut it down a bit here goes:
Boikat wrote:"Coelacanth" is not a *species*, so that's not a problem either. "Adaptive change" sounds like evolution.
Doesn’t sound like it to me, adaptive change is in the creation model too!
Boikat wrote:There is nothing in the ToE that makes change an absolute rule. If the environment remains essentially unchanged, then the selective pressure is not sufficient for natural selection to give rise to new species.
but you point out that environments do change, so a lost world of identical dinosaurs would then be a probably, yes?, well I will later mention some other animals, some covering longer periods than dinosaurs…>>
Boikat wrote:Again, there is no rule that states species *have* to evolve if they live in a stable environment. But the reality is that environments change through time, so the odds of finding a "lost world" populated by dinosaur species *identicle* to those from 65 million years ago would be very slim. On the other hand, sharks (or the coelacanth), for example live in an environment that is essentially unchanged, which explains why their lineages are long lived and appear unchanged.

(that applies to horseshoe crabs and brachiopods, too)
So you are say the environments stay the same even thou the continents are meant to have broken up and moved all around over that same period? Well I suppose they stayed in the water…

I suppose that applies to this too:
An international team studying early Cambrian fossil beds in China found a comb jelly embryo essentially identical to those alive today.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070403a

How old?: 540 million years – the base of the Cambrian period.

And the sea turtle?
The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”1
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,” Discovery reports.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... urtles.asp

Does it apply? are you saying the environment did not change? for 100 million plus years?

A leaf insect:
.... Here we report the first fossil leaf insect, Eophyllium messelensis gen. et sp. nov., from 47-million-year-old deposits at Messel in Germany. The new specimen, a male, is exquisitely preserved and displays the same foliaceous appearance as extant male leaf insects. Clearly, an advanced form of extant angiosperm leaf mimicry had already evolved early in the Eocene. We infer that this trait was combined with a special behavior, catalepsy or “adaptive stillness,” enabling Eophyllium to deceive visually oriented predators. Potential predators reported from the Eocene are birds, early primates, and bats. The combination of primitive and derived characters revealed by Eophyllium allows the determination of its exact phylogenetic position and illuminates the evolution of leaf mimicry for this insect group. It provides direct evidence that Phylliinae originated at least 47 Mya.... This fossil leaf insect bears considerable resemblance to extant individuals in size and cryptic morphology, indicating minimal change in 47 million years. This absence of evolutionary change is an outstanding example of morphological and, probably, behavioral stasis.
From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061226a date:12/26/2006

Did the environment of this insect stay the same over 47 million years? I don’t think so!

And what of this insect:
Extraordinarily, insects earlier thought to have been extinct for millions of years have been found thriving on a stony mountain top in Namibia.
Nicknamed ‘Gladiators’ because of their ‘fearsome’ appearance and the armour that covers them as nymphs, the insects were first noted from specimens fossilized in amber (preserved transparent tree resin), ‘dated’ at 45 million years.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... diator.asp

And the platypus:
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.
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 143811.htm

That’s over a 100 million years!
Boikat wrote:Incidentally, a few weeks ago, I read an article which showed that the limb bones of the modern coelacanth actually are slightly different than those of extinct, though related, species.
Thanks for the info, but that does not sound like munch of a change to me.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Dark Knight wrote:Did I say Welcome back? Welcome back Boikat to this topic!

lets see I wrote a very long reply in "MS works" , so I will now try to cut it down a bit here goes:
Boikat wrote:"Coelacanth" is not a *species*, so that's not a problem either. "Adaptive change" sounds like evolution.
Doesn’t sound like it to me, adaptive change is in the creation model too!
That is really beside the point. *Any* new species that resides within the classification of "Coelacanth", is still going to be a coelacanth.

Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:There is nothing in the ToE that makes change an absolute rule. If the environment remains essentially unchanged, then the selective pressure is not sufficient for natural selection to give rise to new species.
but you point out that environments do change, so a lost world of identical dinosaurs would then be a probably, yes?, well I will later mention some other animals, some covering longer periods than dinosaurs…>>
No, since the environment (The ecological system the dinosaurs lived in) has changed, mainly due to a large impact, the probability is actually low. If there had been no impact, or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was, then there would likely still be non-avian dinosaurs around.
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:Again, there is no rule that states species *have* to evolve if they live in a stable environment. But the reality is that environments change through time, so the odds of finding a "lost world" populated by dinosaur species *identical* to those from 65 million years ago would be very slim. On the other hand, sharks (or the coelacanth), for example live in an environment that is essentially unchanged, which explains why their lineages are long lived and appear unchanged.

(that applies to horseshoe crabs and brachiopods, too)
So you are say the environments stay the same even thou the continents are meant to have broken up and moved all around over that same period? Well I suppose they stayed in the water…
The continents "breaking up" is a slow process, not a catastrophic one, in the short term (tens of thousands of years, or even millions of years). As far as the oceans go, open water sharks probably wouldn't even notice that North and South America are drifting apart from Europe and Africa.

Dark Knight wrote:I suppose that applies to this too:
An international team studying early Cambrian fossil beds in China found a comb jelly embryo essentially identical to those alive today.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070403a

How old?: 540 million years – the base of the Cambrian period.
Comb Jellies are relatively simple critters, how different should they be?
Dark Knight wrote:And the sea turtle?
The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”1
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,” Discovery reports.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... urtles.asp
"Basically the same" does not mean *the same*. Besides, if the phenotype works and the environment remains relatively stable, again, there's no pressure for any radical change.
Dark Knight wrote:Does it apply? are you saying the environment did not change? for 100 million plus years?
Apparently not to a significant amount for the sea turtle.
Dark Knight wrote:A leaf insect:
.... Here we report the first fossil leaf insect, Eophyllium messelensis gen. et sp. nov., from 47-million-year-old deposits at Messel in Germany. The new specimen, a male, is exquisitely preserved and displays the same foliaceous appearance as extant male leaf insects. Clearly, an advanced form of extant angiosperm leaf mimicry had already evolved early in the Eocene. We infer that this trait was combined with a special behavior, catalepsy or “adaptive stillness,” enabling Eophyllium to deceive visually oriented predators. Potential predators reported from the Eocene are birds, early primates, and bats. The combination of primitive and derived characters revealed by Eophyllium allows the determination of its exact phylogenetic position and illuminates the evolution of leaf mimicry for this insect group. It provides direct evidence that Phylliinae originated at least 47 Mya.... This fossil leaf insect bears considerable resemblance to extant individuals in size and cryptic morphology, indicating minimal change in 47 million years. This absence of evolutionary change is an outstanding example of morphological and, probably, behavioral stasis.
From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061226a date:12/26/2006

Did the environment of this insect stay the same over 47 million years? I don’t think so!

"Considerable resemblance" does not mean identical, or that is is the same species. It may also represent a case of convergent evolution.

Dark Knight wrote:And what of this insect:
Extraordinarily, insects earlier thought to have been extinct for millions of years have been found thriving on a stony mountain top in Namibia.
Nicknamed ‘Gladiators’ because of their ‘fearsome’ appearance and the armour that covers them as nymphs, the insects were first noted from specimens fossilized in amber (preserved transparent tree resin), ‘dated’ at 45 million years.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... diator.asp
Again, this is not really a problem. Though the extant species currently lives on a "stony mountain top" in Namibia, is there any reason to preclude a wider range in the past?
Dark Knight wrote:And the platypus:
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.

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 143811.htm

That’s over a 100 million years!


Same *family* is not the same *species*. Another point that should not be overlooked is that , in general, all theories in science are provisional, meaning that they are subject to change with additional data. So the previous theory concerning the the age of the platypus being shown to be wrong is not a problem for the theory, rather the theory was expanded to take into account the new data.

Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:Incidentally, a few weeks ago, I read an article which showed that the limb bones of the modern coelacanth actually are slightly different than those of extinct, though related, species.
Thanks for the info, but that does not sound like munch of a change to me.
As opposed to "unchanged"? How much of a change would you like?
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:"Coelacanth" is not a *species*, so that's not a problem either. "Adaptive change" sounds like evolution.
Doesn’t sound like it to me, adaptive change is in the creation model too!
That is really beside the point. *Any* new species that resides within the classification of "Coelacanth", is still going to be a coelacanth.
Yes I know that, I did not say otherwise, as far as I know!
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:There is nothing in the ToE that makes change an absolute rule. If the environment remains essentially unchanged, then the selective pressure is not sufficient for natural selection to give rise to new species.
but you point out that environments do change, so a lost world of identical dinosaurs would then be a probably, yes?, well I will later mention some other animals, some covering longer periods than dinosaurs…>>
No, since the environment (The ecological system the dinosaurs lived in) has changed, mainly due to a large impact, the probability is actually low. If there had been no impact, or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was, then there would likely still be non-avian dinosaurs around.
Largely unchanged?

would there be a problem if we find identical dinosaurs today since the environment changed?

The large impact as far as I know is largely debated, and you say “or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was,”. I would question that there ever was some dooms day event.
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:I suppose that applies to this too:
An international team studying early Cambrian fossil beds in China found a comb jelly embryo essentially identical to those alive today.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070403a

How old?: 540 million years – the base of the Cambrian period.
Comb Jellies are relatively simple critters, how different should they be?
Given that they have had 540 million years one could think that they could have evolved into complex creatures over that time and be very different.

Are we not meant to have evolved from simple creatures, if the simple critters stay simple how'd we get here?
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:And what of this insect:
Extraordinarily, insects earlier thought to have been extinct for millions of years have been found thriving on a stony mountain top in Namibia.
Nicknamed ‘Gladiators’ because of their ‘fearsome’ appearance and the armour that covers them as nymphs, the insects were first noted from specimens fossilized in amber (preserved transparent tree resin), ‘dated’ at 45 million years.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... diator.asp
Again, this is not really a problem. Though the extant species currently lives on a "stony mountain top" in Namibia, is there any reason to preclude a wider range in the past?
No
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:And the platypus:
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.

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 143811.htm

That’s over a 100 million years!


Same *family* is not the same *species*.
Okay got that thanks. However it is still the same family....
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:Incidentally, a few weeks ago, I read an article which showed that the limb bones of the modern coelacanth actually are slightly different than those of extinct, though related, species.
Thanks for the info, but that does not sound like munch of a change to me.
As opposed to "unchanged"? How much of a change would you like?
I don’t know something radical :wink:

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

And what of this tree?
The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pine as a "tree from the Dinosaur Age," a "living fossil" that has been "missing for 150 million years." To evolutionary botanists the origin of the Wollemi pine remains an evolutionary enigma. How could this tree go missing for 150 million years when its relative sits fossilized less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) away from the living survivors?

From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2707

I suppose that virtually identical is not identical enough. And that in 150 million years the environment did not change a significant amount for this tree? Well lets look at how much it changed:
The canyons in which the Wollemi pines are found were eroded into Triassic sandstones of the Sydney Basin, which was once a southeasterly extension of the Great Artesian Basin. However, the Sydney Basin was cut off from Great Artesian Basin by the Cretaceous, when earth movements began to uplift the Great Dividing Range (the continental divide along the western edge of the Sydney Basin) and the Blue Mountains Plateau (figure 1). It was not until the late Tertiary that the canyons now home to the Wollemi pines were rapidly eroded into the Blue Mountains Plateau. So at least 130 million years separates the burial of Agathis jurassica and the erosion of the canyons in which the Wollemi pines became established. No wonder this living fossil's survival is a mystery to evolutionists.
From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2707

It would say that is a lot of change!

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote: Doesn’t sound like it to me, adaptive change is in the creation model too!
That is really beside the point. *Any* new species that resides within the classification of "Coelacanth", is still going to be a coelacanth.
Yes I know that, I did not say otherwise, as far as I know!

Then the modern species is not a "challenge" to the ToE, then, is it?

Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote: but you point out that environments do change, so a lost world of identical dinosaurs would then be a probably, yes?, well I will later mention some other animals, some covering longer periods than dinosaurs…>>
No, since the environment (The ecological system the dinosaurs lived in) has changed, mainly due to a large impact, the probability is actually low. If there had been no impact, or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was, then there would likely still be non-avian dinosaurs around.
Largely unchanged?
Largely unchanged dinosaurs, or the environment?
Dark Knight wrote:would there be a problem if we find identical dinosaurs today since the environment changed?
It would depend on the species of dinosaur. One of the wonderful thing about life is that some species are "generalists", and can survive in a wide range of environments.
Dark Knight wrote:The large impact as far as I know is largely debated, and you say “or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was,”. I would question that there ever was some dooms day event.
It's not as largely debated as some would like you to think. The data supports the impact theory, *but*, there are competing theories concerning vulcanism, and then there's the middle ground that says "both".

But, again, all theories are provincial, subject to being changed or discarded when new data or a more logical interpretation of the data is uncovered or expounded. That there is a large crater in the southern Gulf of Mexico, at about the right geological age, is a fact
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:I suppose that applies to this too:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070403a

How old?: 540 million years – the base of the Cambrian period.
Comb Jellies are relatively simple critters, how different should they be?
Given that they have had 540 million years one could think that they could have evolved into complex creatures over that time and be very different.
Why? How has the open ocean or near shore marine environment changed in any significant way that would put selective pressure on the comb jelly? Besides, the article mentions "embryos", which does not say that the adult comb jelly would be nearly identical to the modern adult comb jelly.
Dark Knight wrote:Are we not meant to have evolved from simple creatures, if the simple critters stay simple how'd we get here?
It's totally possible for a segment of a population to branch off, usually due to environmental factors, and diverge into a new species, while the parent population remains unchanged. That's the usual case, any way.
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:And what of this insect:
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... diator.asp
Again, this is not really a problem. Though the extant species currently lives on a "stony mountain top" in Namibia, is there any reason to preclude a wider range in the past?
No
Then it's not a problem for the ToE.
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:And the platypus:

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 143811.htm

That’s over a 100 million years!


Same *family* is not the same *species*.
Okay got that thanks. However it is still the same family....
Not a problem for the ToE, then.
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote: Thanks for the info, but that does not sound like munch of a change to me.
As opposed to "unchanged"? How much of a change would you like?
I don’t know something radical :wink:
"radical" is a relative term. :)
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Dark Knight wrote:And what of this tree?
The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pine as a "tree from the Dinosaur Age," a "living fossil" that has been "missing for 150 million years." To evolutionary botanists the origin of the Wollemi pine remains an evolutionary enigma. How could this tree go missing for 150 million years when its relative sits fossilized less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) away from the living survivors?

From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2707

I suppose that virtually identical is not identical enough. And that in 150 million years the environment did not change a significant amount for this tree? Well lets look at how much it changed:
The canyons in which the Wollemi pines are found were eroded into Triassic sandstones of the Sydney Basin, which was once a southeasterly extension of the Great Artesian Basin. However, the Sydney Basin was cut off from Great Artesian Basin by the Cretaceous, when earth movements began to uplift the Great Dividing Range (the continental divide along the western edge of the Sydney Basin) and the Blue Mountains Plateau (figure 1). It was not until the late Tertiary that the canyons now home to the Wollemi pines were rapidly eroded into the Blue Mountains Plateau. So at least 130 million years separates the burial of Agathis jurassica and the erosion of the canyons in which the Wollemi pines became established. No wonder this living fossil's survival is a mystery to evolutionists.
From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2707

It would say that is a lot of change!
How so? The article does not say specifically how much the *living* environment of the tree in question changed. Also, the general gist of the article seems to hype that point that scientist don't know exactly how this plant survived, or why there is not fossil of the Wollemi pines for a large gap in the geological record, and so on. So?* Nobody that I know of makes the claims that science has nailed down *all* the answers. Even so, enclaves of species surviving unchanged for tens of millions of years is not too unusual, though usually, that applies to plants. Such may be the case of the Wollemi pines (Soon to appear in the Garden Section of a Wal-Mart near YOU!).

*Note: Gaps in one theory does not equate to support of an alternate theory. Pointing out that mainstream science has a few gaps in the understanding of some aspect of the ToE does not validate "Creationism". This goes to the very nature of science, any science.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Well I don't think we are going to get anywhere here, but I will press on so to speak
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote: That is really beside the point. *Any* new species that resides within the classification of "Coelacanth", is still going to be a coelacanth.
Yes I know that, I did not say otherwise, as far as I know!

Then the modern species is not a "challenge" to the ToE, then, is it?
The point I was make was that it was still a "Coelacanth", and not anything else, it had not changed into anything else, that was my point all along. Since you don’t see this as a problem for the ToE, then I suggest that we agree to disagree on this point because we are really getting nowhere. Maybe you are right and there is no problem here....
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote: No, since the environment (The ecological system the dinosaurs lived in) has changed, mainly due to a large impact, the probability is actually low. If there had been no impact, or whatever the ultimate "dooms day for the dino's" event was, then there would likely still be non-avian dinosaurs around.
Largely unchanged?
Largely unchanged dinosaurs, or the environment?
Dinosaurs

More in next post>>>>

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Well I am not going to answer in order, but you should be able to follow along>>>
Boikat wrote:*Note: Gaps in one theory does not equate to support of an alternate theory. Pointing out that mainstream science has a few gaps in the understanding of some aspect of the ToE does not validate "Creationism". This goes to the very nature of science, any science.


Wow thanks for telling me that!

This has been brought up before, and I knew it back then, and I still know it now. And more to the point, now you know that I know. :wink:

Every point or article I post here is not meant to validate "Creationism". They are here to info the people here as to what is going on out there.
Boikat wrote: How so? The article does not say specifically how much the *living* environment of the tree in question changed. Also, the general gist of the article seems to hype that point that scientist don't know exactly how this plant survived, or why there is not fossil of the Wollemi pines for a large gap in the geological record, and so on. So?*
So, I think that they are thinking that there is a problem here due to the large gap in the fossil record, that they are thinking that there should be more fossils over this period, and note this is just a stab, as I don’t know the thinking of the writers.

They are also trying to I would think promote the gap in knowledge as a problem for ToE, but just because there is a gap, this does not mean that there is a problem here.
Boikat wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Boikat wrote: Comb Jellies are relatively simple critters, how different should they be?
Given that they have had 540 million years one could think that they could have evolved into complex creatures over that time and be very different.
Why? How has the open ocean or near shore marine environment changed in any significant way that would put selective pressure on the comb jelly? Besides, the article mentions "embryos", which does not say that the adult comb jelly would be nearly identical to the modern adult comb jelly.
Due to the length of time, it has had time to change into something complex, all that I am saying is that it has had time. I am not saying that there where any significant changes in the environment over that time.
Boikat wrote:But, again, all theories are provincial, subject to being changed or discarded when new data or a more logical interpretation of the data is uncovered or expounded. That there is a large crater in the southern Gulf of Mexico, at about the right geological age, is a fact
Is it a fact?

That there is a large crater in the southern Gulf of Mexico is a fact, but I am not agreeing to it’s age as being fact. The age of this crater could change when new data comes out.

Post Reply