Discovery of a New Living Fossil

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on December 12, 2011 at 9:56am

Thomas---I am not going to start something up different than what I already have perviously discussed before, but just to talk about the Galapagos...in context with this forum topic.....

For me there is nothing any different than Madagascar which has Island endemics, of which many are of the same "kind",

But just to go in a different direction, recently while studying insects of South America (I am not anentomologist) but what I realized, in one night in South America (Brazil) a white sheet with a light was put up.  That night something like thousands of insects were collected,within the vian of that collections there were leaf hopper looking insects of many types all differnt that were identified but while part of the leaf hopper family, they indeed were catalogued as different species.  They look similar but does one assume this is a micro evolutionary change in leaf hoppers, or like threropods, lemurs and raptors a varation in the diversity due to creation (that would for me).  

Now why do I say this or bring this point up?  The Galapagos has many species too, but I ask you , where is the the connection between land and sea iguanas, and other tortoises as similar species?  We know from the fossil record that the original creation diversity in Dinosaurs alone was tremendous.  I propose to you, without any proof of ancestry, or linkage in the fossil record, or even just plain inference from science, where is the quantifiable proof that this diversity is a result of micro-evolution?  When sequencing is done, small amounts of DNA are sequenced and conclusions are drawn based on scientific inferences with respect to the DNA. Sequencing disregards habits or morphology completely, this is one reason why there is a schism in herpetology, as sequence people are saying that there is only one specie of Collared lizard for instance, which is ridiculous.  One very small section of DNA is sequenced and "new" conclusions are drawn as to the heritage of Collared lizards.  Because this science is new, I believe there is a long way to go.  So what I am saying is that the sequencers could well take samples of iguanas on Galapagos and find a match, disregard habitat, habits, morphology (what I call God's Design) and many other factors and "claim" a single heritage?  I would reject this out right.  God's design does not lie. It is no accident that the entomologists, Paleontologists, and herpetologists find the nuance differences in design, habit, and type from fossil records, actual animals,  there is great diversity, and similarity does not infer ancestry but I believe that many of these similar species are part of the original creation diversity of "types" plain and simple.  Now where there is a fossil record, the fossil record has factually proven out, as well as amber encased insects lizards and frogs....    

My point again is this Thomas--how far back in the fossil record if there is one, for any of these animals do they go?  (flood?)  Now when the time of Peleg, there is some belief continents changed, certainly if that happened the water levels also were affected.  If you look at national Geographic or other articles on the Galapagos you'll find that they had a larger area of island underneath the water. Also like Madagascar, if Iguanas and other lizards could hybridize then they would have produced offspring that possibly could mate and this would have caused a new arrival, such as "Goodes Horned Lizard", but I must ask this---where is the proof that there was hybridization that took place?  Also the algae eating marine iguanas have a whole different morphology and habits than the cactus eating land iguanas.  I believe that such a hybridization would have left some example of a intermediate specie.

Humbly its hard for people who illicit evolution or even micro-evolution which neither is a "fact" but an inference based on scientific approaches all based on an evolutionary oriented format.  I humbly say, can't this array of animals simply be the result of Gods creative acts in the beginning? Lastly don't you think its interesting that all marine iguanas and all land iguanas are separate in there mating habits?  We have distinct groups on a small isolated island this is following Gods design we observe everywhere in the animal kingdom.  So I am not arbitrary in my approach to this subject, there are many reasons--biblically as well as scientific that make me think these inferences or ideas about micro-evolutionary change should be or could be challenged.

Humbly if I am right about this--the the fossil record "is" evidence.  THe observed animals kingdom "is" evidence, the diversity "is" evidence.  It seems to me the laws of God are such that 2 + 2 = 4, so you can't have diversity reflecting design in one area and disregard this in another because of a small island or large island.  Look at Madagascar or Australia? 

We see a diversity in the monitor species in Australia, we see the lemur population as very diverse - extremely so--so did hybridization take place with respect to lemurs?  Animals cannot be influenced to change physically or coloration or other points of interest due to outward changes in the environment. If you believe this where is your proof? If I train a cat to eat in the kitchen and use a door to go out and potty, through its whole life, arte these changes in natural cat habits going to be passe down to its offspring?  NO!!!!  IF the earth goes up 10 degrees wil the cat pass on losing hair to its members? Such a change in morphology with respect to hair etc. means that DNA information must be changed.  Since DNA information is outside of nature, such a change is inferred as possible, but observable animal kingdom shows the opposite.

If the earth goes up 10 degrees and all the ice melts (God forbid) I ask you would all Polar bears adapt?  I say they may be able to exist, but then they also may just die off due to the change, but to say within some short period of time the polar bear linage would adapt is bunk.  We don't know what killed off many of the dinosaurs, it certainly wasn't the same for all, but they all have the same skeletal remains left in the fossil record, they did not change.  Living fossils Thomas are the same today as they were thousands of years ago, the earth has changed and yet animals have died off for some reason (bison) we can see the animals that have existed and died off, they did not adapt?????  Why because they were created in a  certain mode for a certain eco-system, when that system is changed radically, the animal wis either stretched to the limit and continues to live or dies out.  Probably one reason some animals distribution were over many continents have shrunk to live in certain areas that allow for them to live according to their original design.  THe animal kingdom has a design which includes its eco-system.  Humbly I propose to you that adaptation is not proof, it is an inference.  Read back to my response to the stickleback fish.... God's diversity was great and mighty indeed, and similarity (like monitors) does not infere any adaptation.  Again as I made a point previously, in the US there are three species of fringe-toed sand lizards, they are so close in coloration and looks that they are almost indistinguishable by the average person, however they do not mate or interbreed.  Yet in Africa and Australia there are counter part species with the shovel heads, live on sand dunes, dig int he ground when hot, have fringe toes and even have black bars under the tail, and there are other similarities in body design...again there is no adaptation that developed this design in continents thousands of miles from one another, this is a result and I believe is "evidence" of Gods design. and we see this in monitors from South America and Australia--I know there is a lot to take in as to what I have said, but the observable animal kingdom and Gods creative acts is so clear and these evidences are clear as well.....  WHile this approach is new to some and they will not accept anything outside of scientific inferences, there is total science with in the scope of this approach, and I do not reject science, but I believe science and the bible do blend very well if one can get a hold of Gods creative acts and the amount of diversity that exists and has existed previously, this is no mistake nor result of adaptation...not at all. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on December 12, 2011 at 8:54pm

You ask for a connection between land and sea iguanas: marine iguanas are interfertile with land based iguanas in the galapagos.  We don't know which dinosaurs were interfertile with other dinosaurs, because they are dead; if all we had were skeletons of dogs (and incomplete ones at that), we might not know they were all one species.  Still, I am not the one to argue with you about the differences between species.  Actually, Dr. Georgia Purdom, who specializes in Genetics and such things, will be the expert come January.  You might want to get your questions planned out for the "Ask the Expert" forum in your spare time. 
 
Lou Hamby said:

Thomas---I am not going to start something up different than what I already have perviously discussed before, but just to talk about the Galapagos...in context with this forum topic.....

For me there is nothing any different than Madagascar which has Island endemics, of which many are of the same "kind",

But just to go in a different direction, recently while studying insects of South America (I am not anentomologist) but what I realized, in one night in South America (Brazil) a white sheet with a light was put up.  That night something like thousands of insects were collected,within the vian of that collections there were leaf hopper looking insects of many types all differnt that were identified but while part of the leaf hopper family, they indeed were catalogued as different species.  They look similar but does one assume this is a micro evolutionary change in leaf hoppers, or like threropods, lemurs and raptors a varation in the diversity due to creation (that would for me).  

Now why do I say this or bring this point up?  The Galapagos has many species too, but I ask you , where is the the connection between land and sea iguanas, and other tortoises as similar species?  We know from the fossil record that the original creation diversity in Dinosaurs alone was tremendous.  I propose to you, without any proof of ancestry, or linkage in the fossil record, or even just plain inference from science, where is the quantifiable proof that this diversity is a result of micro-evolution?  When sequencing is done, small amounts of DNA are sequenced and conclusions are drawn based on scientific inferences with respect to the DNA. Sequencing disregards habits or morphology completely, this is one reason why there is a schism in herpetology, as sequence people are saying that there is only one specie of Collared lizard for instance, which is ridiculous.  One very small section of DNA is sequenced and "new" conclusions are drawn as to the heritage of Collared lizards.  Because this science is new, I believe there is a long way to go.  So what I am saying is that the sequencers could well take samples of iguanas on Galapagos and find a match, disregard habitat, habits, morphology (what I call God's Design) and many other factors and "claim" a single heritage?  I would reject this out right.  God's design does not lie. It is no accident that the entomologists, Paleontologists, and herpetologists find the nuance differences in design, habit, and type from fossil records, actual animals,  there is great diversity, and similarity does not infer ancestry but I believe that many of these similar species are part of the original creation diversity of "types" plain and simple.  Now where there is a fossil record, the fossil record has factually proven out, as well as amber encased insects lizards and frogs....    

My point again is this Thomas--how far back in the fossil record if there is one, for any of these animals do they go?  (flood?)  Now when the time of Peleg, there is some belief continents changed, certainly if that happened the water levels also were affected.  If you look at national Geographic or other articles on the Galapagos you'll find that they had a larger area of island underneath the water. Also like Madagascar, if Iguanas and other lizards could hybridize then they would have produced offspring that possibly could mate and this would have caused a new arrival, such as "Goodes Horned Lizard", but I must ask this---where is the proof that there was hybridization that took place?  Also the algae eating marine iguanas have a whole different morphology and habits than the cactus eating land iguanas.  I believe that such a hybridization would have left some example of a intermediate specie.

Humbly its hard for people who illicit evolution or even micro-evolution which neither is a "fact" but an inference based on scientific approaches all based on an evolutionary oriented format.  I humbly say, can't this array of animals simply be the result of Gods creative acts in the beginning? Lastly don't you think its interesting that all marine iguanas and all land iguanas are separate in there mating habits?  We have distinct groups on a small isolated island this is following Gods design we observe everywhere in the animal kingdom.  So I am not arbitrary in my approach to this subject, there are many reasons--biblically as well as scientific that make me think these inferences or ideas about micro-evolutionary change should be or could be challenged.

Humbly if I am right about this--the the fossil record "is" evidence.  THe observed animals kingdom "is" evidence, the diversity "is" evidence.  It seems to me the laws of God are such that 2 + 2 = 4, so you can't have diversity reflecting design in one area and disregard this in another because of a small island or large island.  Look at Madagascar or Australia? 

We see a diversity in the monitor species in Australia, we see the lemur population as very diverse - extremely so--so did hybridization take place with respect to lemurs?  Animals cannot be influenced to change physically or coloration or other points of interest due to outward changes in the environment. If you believe this where is your proof? If I train a cat to eat in the kitchen and use a door to go out and potty, through its whole life, arte these changes in natural cat habits going to be passe down to its offspring?  NO!!!!  IF the earth goes up 10 degrees wil the cat pass on losing hair to its members? Such a change in morphology with respect to hair etc. means that DNA information must be changed.  Since DNA information is outside of nature, such a change is inferred as possible, but observable animal kingdom shows the opposite.

If the earth goes up 10 degrees and all the ice melts (God forbid) I ask you would all Polar bears adapt?  I say they may be able to exist, but then they also may just die off due to the change, but to say within some short period of time the polar bear linage would adapt is bunk.  We don't know what killed off many of the dinosaurs, it certainly wasn't the same for all, but they all have the same skeletal remains left in the fossil record, they did not change.  Living fossils Thomas are the same today as they were thousands of years ago, the earth has changed and yet animals have died off for some reason (bison) we can see the animals that have existed and died off, they did not adapt?????  Why because they were created in a  certain mode for a certain eco-system, when that system is changed radically, the animal wis either stretched to the limit and continues to live or dies out.  Probably one reason some animals distribution were over many continents have shrunk to live in certain areas that allow for them to live according to their original design.  THe animal kingdom has a design which includes its eco-system.  Humbly I propose to you that adaptation is not proof, it is an inference.  Read back to my response to the stickleback fish.... God's diversity was great and mighty indeed, and similarity (like monitors) does not infere any adaptation.  Again as I made a point previously, in the US there are three species of fringe-toed sand lizards, they are so close in coloration and looks that they are almost indistinguishable by the average person, however they do not mate or interbreed.  Yet in Africa and Australia there are counter part species with the shovel heads, live on sand dunes, dig int he ground when hot, have fringe toes and even have black bars under the tail, and there are other similarities in body design...again there is no adaptation that developed this design in continents thousands of miles from one another, this is a result and I believe is "evidence" of Gods design. and we see this in monitors from South America and Australia--I know there is a lot to take in as to what I have said, but the observable animal kingdom and Gods creative acts is so clear and these evidences are clear as well.....  WHile this approach is new to some and they will not accept anything outside of scientific inferences, there is total science with in the scope of this approach, and I do not reject science, but I believe science and the bible do blend very well if one can get a hold of Gods creative acts and the amount of diversity that exists and has existed previously, this is no mistake nor result of adaptation...not at all. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on December 12, 2011 at 10:26pm

Thomas said:

You ask for a connection between land and sea iguanas: marine iguanas are interfertile with land based iguanas in the galapagos.  We don't know which dinosaurs were interfertile with other dinosaurs, because they are dead; if all we had were skeletons of dogs (and incomplete ones at that), we might not know they were all one species.  Still, I am not the one to argue with you about the differences between species.  Actually, Dr. Georgia Purdom, who specializes in Genetics and such things, will be the expert come January.  You might want to get your questions planned out for the "Ask the Expert" forum in your spare time. 
 

That should be interesting....Thomas actually we have millions of complete fossils, my point is complete or not Paleontologist for instance immediately identify the bones of Pterosaurs and other partial skeletal remains. The whole argument from my perspective is they haven't changed from when ever they show up in the fossil record.  If we have millions of identifiable animals ancient (flood) that have lived into modern times, and these animals have not changed, then there is a dilemma, either they have or they haven't?  My point proves out in that, while these iguanas do not breed, the point is that specific animals of the same "kind" while they have similarities, they also are a result of Gods creative acts, and I don't get a connection between micro-evolution which is inferred in many writings of Christian and non-Christians from a science point of view. The connection for me would take proof, and I see no linage or ancestral line that one would be able to point out as positive proof that such a change is taking place especially when it relates to the the last 3,500 years from the flood. In order for their change, DNA has to change.  

Man's tampering with lizard specie colors, plants, snakes, dogs, cats horses etc. are all products of "change" due to mans tampering.  Hybridization does happen very rarely in nature. But as a general rule, animals are as the bible itself says "of its kind through time".  This what we observe in nature and also in the fossil record, of which there are millions of fossils in the museums across the world.  Variation in color is not a new species.  Different morphology, habits, eco-requirements etc.

If you remember my example of the white sands lizards that all have very light white skin, they also have a counter part with regular skin color found outside the dunes. So is this coloration adaptation? How long has this white sand lizard existed?  Could this be part of God's creative act?  I think so, there are many other examples similar in nature.  If an animal such as these is going to "change its colors" what was the onus for such a change, who changed the DNA information in this lizards code to become white instead of its twin brother who is brown? I think these are a product of Gods creative acts, and there is no evidence of an intermediary between the two.....    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on December 13, 2011 at 2:25pm

We do have complete fossils.  However, a lot of fossil remains that are called complete are really just comparatively complete remains.  A dinosaur skeleton, for example, is complete if 70% of half of the skeleton is preserved.  Then we have to remember how few dinosaur skeletons are actually considered complete.  Even prominent paleontologist Jack Horner believes that Many ceratopsian dinosaurs are just Triceratops at different ages, and many Pachycephalosaurs (dracorex, pachycephalosaurus, etc.) are just one species.  Now, I don't think anybody believes that velociraptor was a baby T. Rex, but I don't see why Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus should not be considered subspecies instead of separate species.
 
Lou Hamby said:

Thomas said:

You ask for a connection between land and sea iguanas: marine iguanas are interfertile with land based iguanas in the galapagos.  We don't know which dinosaurs were interfertile with other dinosaurs, because they are dead; if all we had were skeletons of dogs (and incomplete ones at that), we might not know they were all one species.  Still, I am not the one to argue with you about the differences between species.  Actually, Dr. Georgia Purdom, who specializes in Genetics and such things, will be the expert come January.  You might want to get your questions planned out for the "Ask the Expert" forum in your spare time. 
 

That should be interesting....Thomas actually we have millions of complete fossils, my point is complete or not Paleontologist for instance immediately identify the bones of Pterosaurs and other partial skeletal remains. The whole argument from my perspective is they haven't changed from when ever they show up in the fossil record.  If we have millions of identifiable animals ancient (flood) that have lived into modern times, and these animals have not changed, then there is a dilemma, either they have or they haven't?  My point proves out in that, while these iguanas do not breed, the point is that specific animals of the same "kind" while they have similarities, they also are a result of Gods creative acts, and I don't get a connection between micro-evolution which is inferred in many writings of Christian and non-Christians from a science point of view. The connection for me would take proof, and I see no linage or ancestral line that one would be able to point out as positive proof that such a change is taking place especially when it relates to the the last 3,500 years from the flood. In order for their change, DNA has to change.  

Man's tampering with lizard specie colors, plants, snakes, dogs, cats horses etc. are all products of "change" due to mans tampering.  Hybridization does happen very rarely in nature. But as a general rule, animals are as the bible itself says "of its kind through time".  This what we observe in nature and also in the fossil record, of which there are millions of fossils in the museums across the world.  Variation in color is not a new species.  Different morphology, habits, eco-requirements etc.

If you remember my example of the white sands lizards that all have very light white skin, they also have a counter part with regular skin color found outside the dunes. So is this coloration adaptation? How long has this white sand lizard existed?  Could this be part of God's creative act?  I think so, there are many other examples similar in nature.  If an animal such as these is going to "change its colors" what was the onus for such a change, who changed the DNA information in this lizards code to become white instead of its twin brother who is brown? I think these are a product of Gods creative acts, and there is no evidence of an intermediary between the two.....    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on December 13, 2011 at 6:18pm

Lou's response to Thomas:

Thomas said:  Now, I don't think anybody believes that velociraptor was a baby T. Rex, but I don't see why Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus should not be considered subspecies instead of separate species.

Lou said:

When it comes to taxonomy, agreed, one can easily see the field is open for interpretation.  As mentioned before ther comparative taxon and names given certain discoveries of living fossils puts them in a different class than there exact counter part, so it make sit confusing especially , when I think honest scientists say that the coelacanths found in different areas are indeed the same animal, yet some have given them a new designation, because of course they don't want to infer any issues surrounding a "living fossil".....:0)

Thomas I will try and chime in on the forum and see what the good doctor might say in January.....

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page