If it ain’t broke: Lamprey unchanged after 360 million years

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2011

stasis}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This blast from the past is still a source of ruinous commercial fish losses.

Because lampreys do not have bone or any substantial cartilage, they are extremely rare as fossils. This fossil not only reveals a nearly complete soft tissue impression, but it also pushes back their fossil record another 35 million years.

File under: Someone contact the guy who says “Evolution must happen.

Comments

Just my off-topic $.02 - this is one of the best threads I've read in a while.ScottAndrews_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, what do you personally think is the most convincing piece of evidence there is for neo-Darwinian evolution??? The one piece of evidence that I would have to be absolutely bonkers not to accept the conclusion of! Let's honestly look at that piece of evidence out in the open, and see if it is nearly as solid as you think it is!! If you want I will reciprocate with what I feel is the most irrefutable piece of evidence for ID in molecular biology, though evidence for ID is everywhere.bornagain77_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

BA77: :-) I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that! Anyway, off to a swimming birthday party. Whee!!ellazimm_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, you state; 'You have made me relook at my interpretation of the evidence.' Well ellazimm since there is no evidence for neo-Darwinism that withstands scrutiny, this could not possible have been reassuring for your confidence in the truthfulness of your interpretation! :)bornagain77_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

BA77: I know you're not trying to score points, it's just my way of saying: you're right! You have made me relook at my interpretation of the evidence. I just haven't changed my mind yet. Anyway, I hope you consider it worthwhile to make sure I understand what ID is saying. I know a lot of ID proponents complain that their view is frequently misinterpreted and I'd like to NOT do that. If you're only talking to me because there's a chance I will change my mind then I'm afraid you're probably going to be disappointed. And I have no desire or intention or hope of changing your mind. Not because I think you're foolish or blinded. I think you have thought long and hard about your interpretation and I seriously doubt I'm clever enough to dissuade you from it even if I wanted to which I don't. Which is fine I think.ellazimm_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, I'm not looking to 'score points' against you so much as I'm wanting you yourself to question the basic assumptions you have made for the truthfulness, but more importantly, the plausibility of neo-Darwinism. It does no good for me to point out the fatal flaws of neo-Darwinism if you personally refuse to even question the premises yourself!bornagain77_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

BA77: Umm . . . nope! :-) I see your point, very clearly. I used the word rationale in deference to you, thinking about how you would view it. Acknowledging that we would disagree. But you definitely get two points for that! You all have got me to look more closely at my views, it's true. I haven't changed them yet. But I do understand yours better and for that I am grateful.ellazimm_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, thanks for agreeing I was not off topic, yet, despite your honesty on that point, you also state this; 'BA77: If a creature is very good at exploiting its niche environment then most mutations will be deleterious and the creature will not change much even over many, many generations. Creatures like that tend to get locked into their habitat and when that habitat changes they die out. This sort of situation happens a lot in the deep ocean where conditions do not change much. And, mutations occur randomly so it’s not possible to predict when and how much change will occur. I’m sure you’ve heard that rationale before but I just thought I’d put it on the thread.' Watch out ellazimm, when you said 'rationale' you got very, very, close to saying the truth of what you were actually doing,,, 'rationalization' Rationalization In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation. It often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29 So ellazimm would you care to have another moment of honesty within yourself and tell me exactly why what you said is not scientific, but is merely rationalization???bornagain77_{May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Mung: Capitulation, in this case, was admission that I had wandered off topic (as we are doing now) and had nothing to do with the validity of my points. On this particular thread I thought the generalisation to other species was valid but I don't mind the way threads here get wild and wooly. Anyway, I'm glad you're having a good time! :-)ellazimm_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Mung: My, you are in a mood! I've been out to prove a point, yes. Does that point involve a prior history with BA77? Absolutely. Does that prior history invalidate the point? No. You were gracious in admitting that you'd gone off topic. In fact, after you capitulated, no further comments ensued. capitulation Does that invalidate the points you raised?Mung_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

BA77: If a creature is very good at exploiting its niche environment then most mutations will be deleterious and the creature will not change much even over many, many generations. Creatures like that tend to get locked into their habitat and when that habitat changes they die out. This sort of situation happens a lot in the deep ocean where conditions do not change much. And, mutations occur randomly so it's not possible to predict when and how much change will occur. I'm sure you've heard that rationale before but I just thought I'd put it on the thread. Mung: My, you are in a mood!ellazimm_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

BA77, I'll agree that you were no more off topic than was ellazimm. But your argument against ellazimm was that he/she had departed from the subject in the OP. So did you. And your excuse is? Why can you not forgive ellazimm rather than demand a strict adherence to the subject of the OP? I have to say, to me it seems like a double standard. You think you've "taken the legs out from underneath" DrREC's argument, but have you really? You posted 9 links, only one of which had anything to do with a lamprey, and that link only contained a picture of a fossil. Argument by quote and link is not argument at all. Argument by quote and link does not take the legs out of anything.
I hope this is all okay with you.
Obviously the tactic of flood with quotes and links and then retreat is not ok with me. I don't know why you would hope that it was.
But something tells me that nothing I do will ever be good enough for you.
Not true. I just expect consistency. Don't stifle discussion an the basis of lack of adherence to topic of he OP and then engage in the exact same behavior you had previously condemned.Mung_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Mung, thanks for your personal opinion, but I think I'll stick to taking the legs out from underneath DrREC's whole argument. And will defend that point with as much tenacity as the good Lord allows me!!! Plus, I don't think I am off topic in the least for DrREC would love to try to play all this off as a mere anomaly of the fossil record, as he is already trying to do somewhat in post 1 & 4, and I don't intend to let him get away with it. I hope this is all okay with you. But something tells me that nothing I do will ever be good enough for you.bornagain77_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Sorry BA, I thought this thread was about lamprey evolution (or lack thereof). I'm not convinced that posting links to a bunch of other material that has nothing to do with lampreys helps. And does this bring back any memories?
Yet the topic of the thread is; ‘The Spirituality of Physics’ So the whole point of this thread is to ‘discuss that issue’;
So please, can we discuss lampreys? Thanks p.s. For what it's worth, and you'll probably find it's not worth much, lol, but I can live with that. For me personally, all the cutting and pasting you do isn't much better than spam. Others may find the quotes and links interesting, I don't know. I'm sure they do have their place. But typically, they come in like a flood and it's difficult to see what point you're trying to make, if any, and whether they are even relevant to the topic. And again, I don't know about others, but I am just not inclined to follow all your links to see what they say and why you may think they somehow make a relevant point. I can't read your mind. I just did follow ALL the links in your post above and found 1 link of 9 that was relevant to lampreys. Let me put it another way. Someone posts a comment, and you respond with a flood of links, and little or no commentary of your own. It's like you're saying, here, don't argue with me, argue with all these links I'm posting. No one wants to debate an impersonal comment or link. Don't you think it would be better for you if you could put arguments into your own words? Again, just my opinion, but I do hope you'll consider what I've said.Mung_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Mung, though my links did not specifically focus on the stasis of lampreys, did any other pattern in my links happen to strike you as very antagonistic to neo-Darwinian thinking? Do you think that maybe perhaps that is the point that I was wanting to make so as to establish that lamprey stasis is by no means the only 'anomaly' of stasis in the fossil record but that stasis is in fact the overriding dominant pattern of the fossil record? Perhaps you could forgive me for trying to specifically establish such a esoteric point?bornagain77_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
No mention of lampreys.
The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium
No mention of lampreys.
Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles
No mention of lampreys.
Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp
No mention of lampreys.
Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years
No mention of lampreys.
“LIVING” FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES
No mention of lampreys.
THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM
A lamprey!
Fossils Without Evolution – June 2010
No mention of lampreys.
Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
No mention of lampreys. 9 links and 1 lamprey. Not a very good rate of return for someone following your links to see if there's anything relevant. Here's the one good link again, for anyone who is interested: lampreyMung_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

DrREC, I agree, but the whole lamprey connection thing needs to be covered up with a new name! Especially so that the 'unwashed masses' don't get misled by '360 million years' of evolutionary stasis! I'm sure you agree that it is a subtle point of 'variation within kind' that truly only fine discerning evolutionary minds can really appreciate the reasons for, and we mustn't ever let young minds get the wrong impression that Darwin was full of bull should we? "Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle," Richard Dawkins - River Out Of Eden pg. 83 Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles - November 9 2010 Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-oldest-fossil-shrimp-muscles.html Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp: http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/oldestfossil.jpg Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 "LIVING" FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES - unchanged for millions of years - (Pictures - Including a 500 million year old starfish specimen) http://www.hyahya.org/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_03.php THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010 Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Ygbornagain77_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

"Perhaps you should write them and suggest a new name to them..." Oh, I don't have to. The authors gave it a unique species name. Actually, the fossil is so different from modern Lampreys that they gave it a unique genus. http://www.taxonomy.nl/taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=987562 I don't understand the snark-I was just pointing out that the post title "Lamprey unchanged after 360 million years" seems at odds with the data. The lamprey seems quite changed.DrREC_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Lampreys evolving into lampreys is still evolution (pun intended- get it as in "stay still evoution"). :cool:Joseph_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Whew DrREC, amazing they were even able to classify it as a lamprey! Perhaps you should write them and suggest a new name to them so that people won't get the wrong idea that Darwin was full of bull! :)bornagain77_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Looks a lot different from modern lampreys: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/images/061025.lamprey2.jpg "A small lamprey differing from all other living and fossil lampreys in having a large oral disc, the diameter of which approximately equals the length of the branchial region, and accounts for around one-half of total head length." " Modern lamprey circumoral teeth usually display specialized shapes, and such teeth are often the largest of multiple series radiating to the oral disc perimeter. In Comparison, the circumoral teeth of Priscomyzon are very simple, and in this respect probably primitive." The body is short, fins extending from different places, and unlike modern lampreys.DrREC_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply