Headlines How do you explain the celocanth?

[ferengi]

Scientists have found fossils of a fish called a celocanth that they claim to be millions of years old. They all claimed that the fish was extinct. Well, it must have been quite a surprise when they discovered that people have been catching them for years off the coast of Madagascar. My question to evolutionists is this: how do you explain the celocanth and other "living fossils" that have been discovered around the world?



This isn't meant to turn into a debate on evolution vs. creation, I was merely curious as to how evolutionists explain why this particular fish never "evolved."

 

[dull_bullet]

some animals just plain don't "evolve" look at the shark, and the alligator and crocidile. they've remained the same for millions of years.

 

[Brain Spout]

no need. although it is true that species can evolve despite it not being necesary, this species has survived that long without any change necesary. if for example a certain bread of them had a characteristic that made them immune to a disease and then the disease spread throught eh population that could cause evolution. they have probably not encountered any significant changes that have killed a certain part of their population. chances are there are changes int he population.

 

[ferengi]

no need. although it is true that species can evolve despite it not being necesary, this species has survived that long without any change necesary. if for example a certain bread of them had a characteristic that made them immune to a disease and then the disease spread throught eh population that could cause evolution. they have probably not encountered any significant changes that have killed a certain part of their population. chances are there are changes int he population.

Going by that explanation... how likely is it that over a period of millions of years, not a single anomoly came along to cause some sort of change to be necessary, when supposedly almost every single species on the planet was forced to evolve to better suit themselves to changes in their environment? That's one resilient little fish

 

[bnccoder]

It might have migrated to a differant climate at some time that way it never had to evolve.

 

[Rebel89]

It might have migrated to a differant climate at some time that way it never had to evolve.

More or less.....it may have evolved in a smaller way. To evlolve doesnt mean it has to be a dramatic change.

 

[conman03]

Maybe nuthin EVER evolves? Did we really evolve from primapes?no. do fish evolve? apparently not. Sharks? no. cocaroaches?no no no NO. This just proves that scientist dont know SHIT. Who are they to try and thwart god's purpose with there 'superior knowledge'?

THEY CANT EVEN TELL WHEN A DAMN FISH IS DEAD OR NOT!!!

 

[dull_bullet]

Maybe nuthin EVER evolves? Did we really evolve from primapes?no. do fish evolve? apparently not. Sharks? no. cocaroaches?no no no NO. This just proves that scientist dont know SHIT. Who are they to try and thwart god's purpose with there 'superior knowledge'?

THEY CANT EVEN TELL WHEN A DAMN FISH IS DEAD OR NOT!!!

i'm guessing you're very religious....


"their



but really, respect other peopls opinions, you came on too strong

EDIT: actually, before you start judging do like someone said on this site earlier...and take all these biology course and etc. before you start badmouthing the scientists. they look at everything strictly from a controlled enviroment, meaning that god "doesn't" exist

 

[WILD]

THEY CANT EVEN TELL WHEN A DAMN FISH IS DEAD OR NOT!!!

Oh NoEZ!!!!!Wait what?
Edit: How can you not tell when a fish is dead?

 

[UberSkippy]

Going by that explanation... how likely is it that over a period of millions of years, not a single anomoly came along to cause some sort of change to be necessary, when supposedly almost every single species on the planet was forced to evolve to better suit themselves to changes in their environment? That's one resilient little fish

Evolution doesn't strictly mean physical changes. Evolution could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease or the adaptation to a new diet. We've seen the fossiles but those don't tell us much. From them we can guage size, shape and sometimes the diet (based on the teeth). So we don't really know much about them from millions of years ago. Evolution doesn't just mean growing a third leg or a set of wings. It's just simply an adaptation of a species to environmental changes.

The Celocanth of today could have next to nothing in common with the fossilized celocanths of yesteryear except they look the same.

The sad thing is we know so very little about our oceans. We've explored less than 5%. Who knows what else is lurking down there?

 

[conman03]

Contrary to popular belief... I am athiest. It just angers me when people stop drinking diet caffine free pepsi because a scientist HYPOTHESISED it could cause cancer.5 yrs later, it turns out he was dead WRONG! Scientists know some "things" for certain and yet they still realease information that they themselves aren't even certain about, to society. Citizens of the world base thier daily decisions upon such statments. If these "facts" are wrong then our society rides on the back of non-existant hopes and dreams while theses scientists DESICRATE those with higher expectations, while misleading the non-belivers. This misleading conduct does neither party any good.Acts such as specified, can no longer be ignored. If they are going to announce theroys such as "The Big Bang Theroy", they damn well better be certiain of what they are stating. Science is powerful and misuse is morally wrong.

On the flip side, people pin all of ther hopes on the slimmest of doubts, god may or may not to exist to exist...thefore he must exist.

I brought this up in the first place, because The thought of being brought into the future, by people who can't tell if a FISH is extinct...scares me to death!

 

[UberSkippy]

Contrary to popular belief... I am athiest. It just pisses me off how many people stopped drinking diet caffine free pepsi because a scientist HYPOTHESISED it could cause cancer...5 yrs later? It turns out he was dead WRONG! Scientists dont know anything for certain and yet our whole society changes and evolves(if you will) based on scientifc research. If these "facts" are wrong then our society rides on the back of non-existant hopes and dreams while theses scientists DESICRATE others hopes of a higher power while misleading the non-belivers. It does nither party any good. These acts can no longer be ignored. If they are going to crush someone with the 'big bang theory' They better be damn well be certain of it.

On the flip side, people pin all of ther hopes on the slimmest of doubts, god may or may not to exist to exist...thefore he must exist.

I brought this up in the first place, because The thought of being brought into the future, by people who can't tell if a FISH is extinct...scares me to death!

You fail to realize that without science we have a society living in huts hunting with rocks. Yes, scientists make mistakes. But you know, it's the media that take those mistakes and spin them into something that society screws up.

As far as them not knowing the fish was extinct, how do you expect them to know? They had fossiles that were millions of years old and had no current living example. Of course once a living example was found they promptly did come out and say "Hey, check it out. We were wrong. Turns out this one aint dead."

Again, we've explored very very little of our world. Hell, a few years ago in NYC they found an entirely new species of insect. IN the damn city. This world is so complex that biologists can't possibly know the current status of every living species.

It's important to remember that there are different types of science. The guys who missed the non-extinct status of this fish are not the same guys who brought us the light bulb, flight, the X-Ray or the computer. There are thousands of fields and making a blanket statement against science based on the oversight of some stupid fish is ignorant.

Which would you rather have? A fallable group of men who are trying to better humanity or a group of men doing who believe they are infallible doing whatever the fuck they want?

 

[conman03]

I apologize for the stereo typical staement, yes I agree that it is a definate plus that scientists have the balls to publicliy admit a mistake(which is much more then i can say for the church if you know what i mean) But what scares me is, that these are people that we look to for answers, that there are so many unanswered questions, and most of all so many mistakes. But in the eyes of the christian Your life is fulfilled from the moment you are born and batized to the moment you die. Weather you hunt with rocks or a double barrel heat seeking laser beam. But scientists never fulfill there lives. You know how the saying goes 'a learners work is never done' and if a scientists life work is to learn...their lives can NEVER be fulfilled. Noramaly i wouldnt giva a damn. but its because every new development brings us further and further from god. So these scientists, the fulfilment in their lives is to impede on someones pure, good, fullfiled life is sick and wrong, imoral and disgusting. The Big deal is that if the scientists were as knowledgable as they say, Then there would be no need of god. And a world without god isnt a world at all.

 

[RedOctober]

Gosh... If a certain species hasn't been found yet, it doesn't mean it isn't somewhere over there...
It is rare, but every year plants and animals are found, that haven't been spotted before. That doesn't mean they popped up from nothing, as if a god created them.

We human beings, have too much self esteem thinking we know all land and seas. In fact we know very little about the seas.
I've been there as a sailor. The Navy comes where no other human vessels come. And believe me, the oceans are very big!
It's more than likely that there are lots of undiscovered animals out there.

And another thing.. I have a Metasequoia Glyptostroboïdes in my garden.
Discovered in China in 1949. So it's no big deal to discover living fossiles.

 

[Brain Spout]

Contrary to popular belief... I am athiest. It just angers me when people stop drinking diet caffine free pepsi because a scientist HYPOTHESISED it could cause cancer.5 yrs later, it turns out he was dead WRONG! Scientists know some "things" for certain and yet they still realease information that they themselves aren't even certain about, to society. Citizens of the world base thier daily decisions upon such statments. If these "facts" are wrong then our society rides on the back of non-existant hopes and dreams while theses scientists DESICRATE those with higher expectations, while misleading the non-belivers. This misleading conduct does neither party any good.Acts such as specified, can no longer be ignored. If they are going to announce theroys such as "The Big Bang Theroy", they damn well better be certiain of what they are stating. Science is powerful and misuse is morally wrong.

On the flip side, people pin all of ther hopes on the slimmest of doubts, god may or may not to exist to exist...thefore he must exist.

I brought this up in the first place, because The thought of being brought into the future, by people who can't tell if a FISH is extinct...scares me to death!

yeh, you're right cause you know the notion of evolution is like a new diet fad found by a doctor or even a fidning by a doctor. it's very recent, it isn't a theory over 100 years old that has been accepted by the scientific community and proven countless times. you know what, newton was wrong, in a couple of years they are going to come and tell me that we were all idiots that he is wrong. do you even know the findings of darwin or how he came to his conclusions. id quote your other posts, but quoting one that long is good enough. id suggest closing your mouth cause right now all your doing is changing feet.

 

[UberSkippy]

I apologize for the stereo typical staement, yes I agree that it is a definate plus that scientists have the balls to publicliy admit a mistake(which is much more then i can say for the church if you know what i mean) But what scares me is, that these are people that we look to for answers, that there are so many unanswered questions, and most of all so many mistakes. But in the eyes of the christian Your life is fulfilled from the moment you are born and batized to the moment you die. Weather you hunt with rocks or a double barrel heat seeking laser beam. But scientists never fulfill there lives. You know how the saying goes 'a learners work is never done' and if a scientists life work is to learn...their lives can NEVER be fulfilled. Noramaly i wouldnt giva a damn. but its because every new development brings us further and further from god. So these scientists, the fulfilment in their lives is to impede on someones pure, good, fullfiled life is sick and wrong, imoral and disgusting. The Big deal is that if the scientists were as knowledgable as they say, Then there would be no need of god. And a world without god isnt a world at all.

You know, for an "atheist" you certainly do seem to think highly of a being that you don't think exists. You do talk about God an awful lot.

Here's the thing: A Christian's life is fulfilled by being a good God fearing person, having children, propogating their beliefs and generally not being an evil fuck.

A scientist's life is fullfilled by studying and trying to answer the unanswered, looking for new ways to do things, or to generally further humanities knowledge. (Of course this assumes that scientists live only for science and have no lives elsewhere.)

Oddly enough, there's a lot of Christains who happen to be Scientists and vice versa.

Once again: Science doesn't fuck up. The news media takes a scientific theory and fucks up. Science is essentially a hypothesis followed by expirementation to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Scientific scares happen when someone in the media gets ahold of a hypothesis and either states it as a fact, or overstates the situation.

 

[RedOctober]

That's allways the problem when dumbfucks read something in the newspaper. I wonder what this bla bla has got to do with the subject.

 

[Icarus]

The celocanth could be just like the human. It doesn't need to evolve, so it never will (in the forseeable future). It's fairly simple.

 

[RedOctober]

The celocanth could be just like the human. It doesn't need to evolve, so it never will (in the forseeable future). It's fairly simple.

Hmmm... I don't agree with that. We don't know if there have been minor changes in the species in different moments in time.

Even man has small adaptations in different regions.
It's a fact that Northern Europeans are able to drink far more milk of cows than Southern Europeans, before getting sick of it. That is an adaptation that must have developed during the last 3000 years.
It's the production of some enzyme, that processes the milk so it is digested better.

 

[Icarus]

Of course I don't mean that we (or the celocanth) haven't changed at all, just that nothing major has happened.