Jump to content


Photo

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

#381 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 02:52 PM

I had read this years ago, finally found it...
 
Andrew Snelling PhD Geology:
 
Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution.
Andrew Snelling PhD; The Revised Quote Book 1990
 
And this one lol...
 
Michael Behe (Professor Biochemistry Lehigh University)...
 
4) Coyne complains the book is "heavily larded" with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don’t know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants?
 
 
That's where I'll leave it

  • gilbo12345 and Giovanni like this

#382 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 02:54 PM

Why are you using his quote and saying stuff like "HE SHALL BE HEARD as a Subject Matter Expert!" in the first place if you think he has no idea what he's talking about?

 

He's a Subject Matter Expert in his Field...not in "Beliefs".

 

Case Closed.



#383 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 05 September 2015 - 03:07 PM

He's a Subject Matter Expert in his Field...not in "Beliefs".
 
Case Closed.

What is in question, however, are the ways we interpret the evidence given to us by fossils. It’s not that fossils don’t provide us with primary evidence for evolution as a fact, because they plainly do so. What is at stake is a common misreading of evolution that flatters our prejudices: that we are the pinnacle of creation, and the various stages toward this manifest destiny can and should be discernible in the fossil record. The picture of a simple, linear evolution, with each species of human being succeeded by a more sophisticated form, “culminating in Man,” can only be extremely inaccurate, and also misleading.

Gee, Henry (2013-10-15). The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution (pp. 104-105). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Why should we listen to him when he says something about what fossils can't prove, but not when he says something about what fossils can/do prove?

#384 Bmaxdlux

Bmaxdlux

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern Oregon

Posted 05 September 2015 - 03:10 PM

 

I had read this years ago, finally found it...
 
Andrew Snelling PhD Geology:
 
Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution.
Andrew Snelling PhD; The Revised Quote Book 1990
 
And this one lol...
 
Michael Behe (Professor Biochemistry Lehigh University)...
 
4) Coyne complains the book is "heavily larded" with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don’t know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants?
 
 
That's where I'll leave it

 

 

LOL That's a classic. :gigglesmile:

 

Thanks for posting that Enoch.

 

I just wish this site would allow me to "like" more posts per day than it does.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)



#385 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 September 2015 - 03:23 PM

As you like quotes so much Enoch, do you like this one ? (from Todd Wood PhD, Creationist, Baraminologist)

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"....

He goes on to say he rejects evolution because of faith....
  • Goku likes this

#386 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 04:03 PM

As you like quotes so much Enoch, do you like this one ? (from Todd Wood PhD, Creationist, Baraminologist)

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis." 

 

Correction...evolution is not a Scientific Theory to begin with...is probably the reason.

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

It is not teetering on the verge of collapse.

 

 

Well Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies) are collapsed Inherently by their own tenets.

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

It has not failed as a scientific explanation. 

 

 

It doesn't have any "Scientific Explanations" is probably the reason.

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.

 

 

Well first: define the theory of evolution.....?

 

Then

 

Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a Scientific Theory.....?

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. 

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power.

 

 

Name One....?

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. 

 

 

 

Well duh, because it isn't a Scientific Theory.  (SEE above to refute)

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

It works, and it works well.

 

 

How so....?

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.

 

 

Please VALIDATE.  SEE: Scientific Method 1/ea

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure.

 

 

Thanks for the Colorful Anecdote.

 

And...Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

 

 

Well until you Define it and Provide ONE Formal Hypothesis.... then, Science and evolution are Mutually Exclusive.

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

(Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"....

 

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

He goes on to say he rejects evolution because of faith....

 

 

Well Good, because Biblical Faith is....

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

 

Thanks for Posting his "Opinions"...they were Riveting.

 

 

It's also quite obvious that you have a difficulty discerning between "Scientific Claims" and "Claims, that Scientists make."

If you need me to "Lift The Fog" for you...just ask.



#387 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 September 2015 - 05:30 PM

Thanks for your "Opinion"


Wasn't stating my opinion (even though I agree with it). If you don't hold Todd Wood's opinions in high regard, why do you choose to flash Henry Gee's in neon lights at every opportunity ? I'm just trying to show you that its pointless simply disgorging quotes as if that forms some sort of argument. Only creationists seem to do that, why ?



#388 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 06:02 PM

Wasn't stating my opinion (even though I agree with it). If you don't hold Todd Wood's opinions in high regard, why do you choose to flash Henry Gee's in neon lights at every opportunity ?

 

 

I wasn't thanking you for "your" Opinion, I was Thanking..... Todd Wood PhD, Creationist, Baraminologist, for his.

 

 

why do you choose to flash Henry Gee's in neon lights at every opportunity ?

 

 

Because Dr. Gee wasn't stating his "OPINION"...he was stating KNOWN FACTS.  Whereas "Todd" was stating Ambiguous Sweeping Baseless "bare" Assertion Philosophical Ideologue Mantra (Fallacies)

 

 

 

I'm just trying to show you that its pointless simply disgorging quotes as if that forms some sort of argument.

 

 

:shock:   THANKS!!  That's what I always say, just let them post....it's like giving them a Hammer for the c4 Fire:

 

It's a variation of Parenthetical Citation. Heard of it? It's practiced everyday from 3rd Grade to the Supreme Court and is USED EXTENSIVELY in Scientific Literature in SUPPORT of Claims. Irrespective that this format isn't conducive to posting "Works Cited" pages.... I don't want to have my posts longer than War and Peace, so I post "Quotes" with the appropriate CITATION attached minus a Works Cited or Bibliography. 
By the mere fact that you brought this up, is alone a Screaming Testimony that you've never reviewed Scientific Literature!!!! :laugh_point:
You wouldn't know what "actual" Science was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.
Thanks for Illustrating this FACT for us.
 
 Only creationists seem to do that, why ?

 

 

:rotfl3:



#389 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:17 AM

Cyara, you have provided NO SUPPORT the quote in question is out of context, instead you only showed the author doesn't like to be quoted out of context! This is evo-babble nonsense and you've been warned. If you can't see why you are wrong then this really isn't the place for you because we just don't put up with this kind of nonsense.

 

Fred Williams



#390 cyara

cyara

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:please delete this account
  • Interests:please delete this account
  • Age: 99
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • please delete this account

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:22 AM

Cyara, you have provided NO SUPPORT the quote in question is out of context, instead you only showed the author doesn't like to be quoted out of context! This is evo-babble nonsense and you've been warned. If you can't see why you are wrong then this really isn't the place for you because we just don't put up with this kind of nonsense.

 

Fred Williams

 

this is my last post here: moderators, I ask you to delete my account.

 

 

 

Goodbye then.

 

This has convinced me that creationists are not interested in holding honest debates, and that the moderators support this bull (word filtered). I will leave you to your hobbies.



#391 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:30 AM

For those who have never seen my EvoPercher alert page, in this case see item #3.  

 

In cyara's case, it seems she really might actually believe she's done nothing wrong. It shows just how bad and effective the brainwashing is out there. Some people just don't want to come out of the matrix.



#392 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:33 AM

this is my last post here: moderators, I ask you to delete my account.

 

 

 

Goodbye then.

 

This has convinced me that creationists are not interested in holding honest debates, and that the moderators support this bull (word filtered). I will leave you to your hobbies.

 

Cyara... Making claims isn't the same as making supported claims... You need to DEMONSTRATE what you claim, this is why I prefer this forum because the mods here put the onus on the speaker to back up their statements... (Just like how yours here are unsupported... like most of your others)...

You may be used to forums which allow you to say whatever you want and not support your statements, but here we really do want an HONEST debate about the issues. In order to do this you need to support your claims, not just argue and say you are correct, we value evidence and logic over opinions.

 


  • Enoch 2021 and Giovanni like this

#393 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:51 AM

For those who have never seen my EvoPercher alert page, in this case see item #3.  

 

 

That's a very good link, first I've seen it.  10 years ago...seems like not much has changed  ;)

 

 

In cyara's case, it seems she really might actually believe she's done nothing wrong. It shows just how bad and effective the brainwashing is out there. Some people just don't want to come out of the matrix.

 

 

I'm thinking that your Assessment.... is "Spot On".

 

 

Sorry to bother you but I was hoping somebody would eventually "REPORT" a "QUOTE MINING" charge....this Baseless "Bare" Assertion (Fallacy) runs rampant on forums and it's about time Somebody has evaluated and said "enough is enough".

 

Understood that each incident has to evaluated and assessed on it's own merit.

 

 

But let me just say this, "Quote Mining" Baseless "bare" Assertion Claimers:  just fyi, ....

 

 

I have personally "VETTED" every single "QUOTE"/CITATION that I POST  !!!!!!  ...Down to the Bone Marrow.

 

 

So then the Question for you becomes:   Do I feel Lucky?  Well do Ya....

 

 

regards



#394 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 September 2015 - 12:00 PM

I just want to say that everyone who studies evolution professionally is trivially aware that the fossil record is full of holes. Quoting an evolutionary scientist saying as much is not quote mining. But, it does become dishonest when you then use the quote to say or imply that evolutionary scientists somehow think the evidence for evolution is flimsy, and/or that evolutionary scientists have doubts about the validity of evolution - they don't. 



#395 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 September 2015 - 12:13 PM

I just want to say that everyone who studies evolution professionally is trivially aware that the fossil record is full of holes. 

 

Yes, the BIGGEST HOLE being....... it's not Science.

 

 

 

Quoting an evolutionary scientist saying as much is not quote mining.

 

 

Yes....I Know:

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

 

But, it does become dishonest when you then use the quote to say or imply that evolutionary scientists somehow think the evidence for evolution is flimsy

 

 

Since this is a Scientific Discussion....what someone "THINKS" is Painfully Irrelevant.  It's only what they can CONFIRM/VALIDATE via the Scientific Method that is of consequence here.

 

If you "think" what somebody else "thinks" carries sway.....Find a Philosophy Forum.

 

 

.... and/or that evolutionary scientists have doubts about the validity of evolution - they don't. 

 

 

Who cares?  Find a Philosophy Forum or "Who's Favorite Color is the BEST" Forum to ply your wares.

 

 

oy vey



#396 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 06 September 2015 - 01:43 PM

Since this is a Scientific Discussion....what someone "THINKS" is Painfully Irrelevant.  It's only what they can CONFIRM/VALIDATE via the Scientific Method that is of consequence here.

Do you have evidence that Henry Gee has confirmed/validated what he says in your quote via the scientific method, and that he hasn't done so for any of the times he says the evidence supports evolution?

#397 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 September 2015 - 01:57 PM

Yes....I Know:

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

I have not read his book, but depending on what he means by "lineage", then that is correct. However, evolutionary science is not concerned with direct lineage per se; if you look at how the term transitional fossil is used by evolutionary scientists you will find that a transitional species is not required to be an exact intermediary between an older and newer species. For example archeopteryx is considered a transitional species between dinosaur and bird, yet the general consensus is that archeopteryx is not a direct ancestor to modern birds. The same is true of most of the fossils dealing with human evolution. 

 

If you think he is saying evolution itself is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested then I do not think you understand the quote you are using. 

 

Since this is a Scientific Discussion....what someone "THINKS" is Painfully Irrelevant.  It's only what they can CONFIRM/VALIDATE via the Scientific Method that is of consequence here.

 

If you "think" what somebody else "thinks" carries sway.....Find a Philosophy Forum.

 

 

Who cares?  Find a Philosophy Forum or "Who's Favorite Color is the BEST" Forum to ply your wares.

 

 

oy vey

 

I'm just saying you are toeing the line between using those quotes to say here are facts about the subject which I (you) then interpret/explain through my (your) paradigm, and giving off the impression that scientists have massive doubts about the validity of evolution. One is not being dishonest (although purposefully omitting key facts is a tacit form of dishonesty, so be careful on that front), and one most certainly is. 



#398 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 September 2015 - 02:31 PM

I have not read his book, but depending on what he means by "lineage", then that is correct. 

 

He means this...

 

Lineage -- a :  descent in a line from a common progenitor.  http://www.merriam-w...tionary/lineage

 

 

However, evolutionary science....

 

 

I Object!!!  This is like saying: "However, Married Bachelors...."  To refute...

 

1.  Define the theory of evolution.....?

 

2.  Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a viable Scientific Theory.....?

 

 

 is not concerned with direct lineage per se; if you look at how the term transitional fossil is used by evolutionary scientists you will find that a transitional species is not required to be an exact intermediary between an older and newer species. For example archeopteryx is considered a transitional species between dinosaur and bird, yet the general consensus is that archeopteryx is not a direct ancestor to modern birds. The same is true of most of the fossils dealing with human evolution. 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't chase downstream Begging The Question Fallacies conjured by demonstrable Pseudo-Scientists.

 

 

If you think he is saying evolution itself is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested then I do not think you understand the quote you are using. 

 

 

"He's" saying that Fossils and Extrapolations thereof is not SCIENTIFIC !!  Of which, he is correct.

 

 

"I'm" saying, IRRESPECTIVE OF DR. GEE, that evolution isn't even remotely in the Universal ZIP CODE of Science...it's neither an: Observation, Hypothesis, or Theory!!!!!

 

If you care to refute, then....

 

1.  Define the theory of evolution.....?

 

2.  Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a viable Scientific Theory.....?

 

 

I'm just saying you are toeing the line between using those quotes to say here are facts about the subject which I (you) then interpret/explain through my (your) paradigm, and giving off the impression that scientists have massive doubts about the validity of evolution. One is not being dishonest (although purposefully omitting key facts is a tacit form of dishonesty, so be careful on that front), and one most certainly is. 

 

 

Do you have an Abacus or something that I need to use to de-CODE this "implied" mess?

 

Just come out and Plainly Say what you wanna say....?

 

 

And btw...

 

everyone who studies evolution professionally...

 

 

Who are these people?  "scientists"?


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#399 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 March 2017 - 05:28 AM

UPDATE:

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years. (the below picture shows the fossil compared to a live one;
 
Attached File  ray.jpg   35.12KB   0 downloads
 
 
The point in showing the shovelnose is that it's obviously a distinguishable Ray, which it would seem, had fully diverged from others, even 150 million years ago. Examples of specialized creatures throws tomatoes in the face of the reasoning that says you will only find more ancient specimens by example. But no matter how far you push back organisms in time, even the modern ones are identical and fully diverged.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users