Macroevolution

lucaspa · #11 5th September 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by nephilimiyr

Thanks for starting this thread lucaspa

And again...MY HANDLE IS NOT NEPHILMEYER, IT'S

NEPHILIMIYR!!!

Please Saint Philip, if your going to object to anything that lucaspa says, do so in a more mature manner. It's hard enough for some of us to understand one another around here and much less when someone comes into the fold with an attitude like your's. There are correct ways on how to debate and saying something is just nonsense and leaving it at that is not one of them much less calling their evidence as an absurd joke.

My sincere apologies on misspelling your screen name.

As to Saint Philip, his postings are just signal reactions. He does this because he has no reasoned arguments. So he tries insults in hopes that I will simply get angry and engage in a flame war. That way his lack of knowledge and arguments won't be exposed. If he makes a point where you can impart knowledge by replying to him, then do so. That way the knowledge will be helpful to the rest of us. Otherwise, you have politely pointed out to him how devoid of content his post was. From now on, ignore him.

lucaspa · #12 5th September 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by nephilimiyr

Thanks for starting this thread lucaspa

You're welcome. In getting distracted by Saint Philip's rudeness, you overlooked answering what you meant by "something totally different".

We need to know this in order to satisfy your idea of macroevolution.

lucaspa · #13 5th September 2003, 01:56 PM

Let's look at part of the evidence Darwin had for macroevolution. We'll start with the worst -- the fossil record. Notice the data mentioned.

"Mr. Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent. In South America, a similar relationship is manifest, even to an uneducated eye, in the gigantic pieces of armour, like those of the armadillo, found in several parts of La Plata; and Professor Owen has shown in the most striking manner that most of the fossil mammals, buried there in such numbers, are related to South American types. This relationship is even more clearly seen in the wonderful collection of fossil bones made by MM. Lund and Clausen in the caves of Brazil. I was so much impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this “law of the succession of types,”—on “this wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.” Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World. We see the same law in this author’s restorations of the extinct and gigantic birds of New Zealand. We see it also in the birds of the caves of Brazil. Mr. Woodward has shown that the same law holds good with sea shells, but, from the wide distribution of most molluscs, it is not well displayed by them. Other cases could be added, as the relation between the extinct and living land shells of Madeira; and between the extinct and living brackish water shells of the Aralo-Caspian Sea.

Now what does this remarkable law of the succession of the same types within the same areas mean? He would be a bold man who, after comparing the present climate of Australia and of parts of South America, under the same latitude, would attempt to account, on the one hand through dissimilar physical conditions, for the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of these two continents; and, on the other hand through similarity of conditions, for the uniformity of the same types in each continent during the later tertiary periods. Nor can it be pretended that it is an immutable law that marsupials should have been chiefly or solely produced in Australia; or that Edentata and other American types should have been solely produced in South America. For we know that Europe in ancient times was peopled by numerous marsupials; and I have shown in the publications above alluded to, that in America the law of distribution of terrestrial mammals was formerly different from what it now is. North America formerly partook strongly of the present character of the southern half of the continent; and the southern half was formerly more closely allied, than it is at present, to the northern half. In a similar manner we know, from Falconer and Cautley’s discoveries, that Northern India was formerly more closely related in its mammals to Africa than it is at the present time. Analogous facts could be given in relation to the distribution of marine animals.

On the theory of descent with modification, the great law of the long enduring, but not immutable, succession of the same types within the same areas, is at once explained; for the inhabitants of each quarter of the world will obviously tend to leave in that quarter, during the next succeeding period of time, closely allied though in some degree modified descendants. If the inhabitants of one continent formerly differed greatly from those of another continent, so will their modified descendants still differ in nearly the same manner and degree. ...

It may be asked in ridicule, whether I suppose that the megatherium and other allied huge monsters, which formerly lived in South America, have left behind them the sloth, armadillo, and anteater, as their degenerate descendants. This cannot for an instant be admitted. These huge animals have become wholly extinct, and have left no progeny. But in the caves of Brazil, there are many extinct species which are closely allied in size and in all other characters to the species still living in South America; and some of these fossils may have been the actual progenitors of the living species." Origin of the Species, 6th Edition, pp 310-312 http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_11.html

Jet Black · #14 5th September 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

For we know that Europe in ancient times was peopled by numerous marsupials.

was it? I have never heard that before...

(edit: oops, CO area... well it's just a question, please forgive me)

lucaspa · #15 5th September 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

was it? I have never heard that before...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html
"Towards the end of the Late Cretaceous, marsupials start appearing in South America (Peru and Bolivia). In the Eocene marsupials radiated into Europe, North Africa and reached Asia by the Oligocene. However these groups rapidly became extinct."

http://51.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MARSUPIAL_MOLE.htm

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~riatran/paper.htm

Jet Black, it took me 30 seconds to find these on Google with "Europe marsupial fossl" as the search term.

fragmentsofdreams · #16 5th September 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider

Dear me. The most disruptive and disrespectful poster for some time comes and criticises evolutionists for posting in a forum on evolution.

Whatever next? Baptists only in the Inter-denominational dialogue forum?

Is there an ignore feature on this board?

Yes, in your control panel.