Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Destroy Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:03 AM

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

This is just but one of the many mistakes that evolutionists have made concerning their theory but they have made it so elastic in nature that it can be stretched to 'explain' away any error made by the devotees of Darwin.

There are hundreds of examples of 'living fossils' such as,

Posted Image

The lowly lobster. But when one makes comparisons to search for the transition between one class of organism into another we come up empty. There is no such transition.

Posted Image

more to come:

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:19 AM

More examples of fossils compared to their living descendants that reveal no evolutionary change:

Posted Image

and...

Posted Image

Then this;

Posted Image

compared with...

Posted Image

Then we have fossil fern and a living fern compared.

Posted Image

Where is the evolutionary change? And where is the stage by stage development of such organisms in the fossil record? Fact: There are none.

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:30 AM

Still more:

Posted Image

One species of ground lizard compared to another but the differences between them are almost undetectable. Again we ask, 'Where are the transitional stages between one organism and another classifiably, identifiably different organism?

Posted Image

The dragonfly. Compare it to its living offspring:

Posted Image

The mosquito hasn't changed in 'millions of years' either:

Posted Image

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 08:55 AM

I'll give a few more among the hundreds of examples I could give:

Check out this shark with its offspring:

Posted Image

And this octopus:

Posted Image

Where is the evolutionary change after supposedly millions of years?

Then we have...

Posted Image

If, like the others, this creature EVER evolved from anything where is the step-by-step evidence of such change in the fossil record? And why hasn't it evolved since then?

Has the alligator evolved? If so, from what?

Posted Image

What about the Katydid?

Posted Image

There is one thing for certain about this comparison that 'Katy didn't': evolve from one one type of organism into a classifiably different one.

All the examples on this page are from Dr. Carl Werners book, "Living Fossils: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2" from New Leaf Press.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 February 2011 - 09:55 AM

'Katy didn't' LOL

Stasis in the fossil record isn't the only problem for evolution; Stasis only refutes gradualism. The fact that these organisms appear without any transitionals (gradualist or not) that is the most telling.



Enjoy.

#6 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 24 February 2011 - 01:23 PM

Brilliant post, thank you. I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time. Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 03:03 PM

Brilliant post, thank you.  I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time.  Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

View Post


That is one of the things I wish it did but does so rarely. But it does give the age (Cretaceous, Ordovician, etc) on occasion. However one can look up almost any of them quickly on Wikipedia.

I obtained it at the Creation Museum bookstore which has perhaps the greatest wealth of creationist literature in the world.

Thanks and best wishes.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 February 2011 - 04:46 PM

Brilliant post, thank you.  I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time.  Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

View Post


Here you can find hundreds of them.



Enjoy.

#9 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 24 February 2011 - 06:19 PM

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

View Post


So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much. How does that destroy evolution?

#10 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:07 PM

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much.  How does that destroy evolution?

View Post


Not just that alone. You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. Do you think if I posted all the hundreds of examples of living fossils compared to their ancestors that reveal no evolutionary changes that it might make an impression on you?

P.S. the coelacanth hadn't evolved any.

#11 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 24 February 2011 - 10:17 PM

You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. Do you think if I posted all the hundreds of examples of living fossils compared to their ancestors that reveal no evolutionary changes that it might make an impression on you?

P.S. the coelacanth hadn't evolved any.

View Post


My query would be the same if you showed ten examples of species that hadn't evolved (much or at all) or if you showed a hundred examples: were a species already sufficiently adapted or didn't face new environmental pressures then what would natural selection select against? Natural selection is a bias toward what works and an already sufficiently adpated population need not necessarily change. Evolution has no prescribed direction, Darwin and Wallace theorized the processes by which change and speciation could happen not that it was a necessity.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 February 2011 - 11:55 PM

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much.  How does that destroy evolution?

View Post


Prediction of it being extinct was wrong.

Also if the fossil record was actually a record and not dead life sorted by the flood. It would have the colecanth in every layer above it's original one showing it did not change. But yet not one living fossil is found between the layers of it's find until present day.

Sorting would just sort, and that's what we see.

A record of time of living things would support what is found. Colecanth found in one layer and alive. And no other layer means it's not a record as it's called.

Another example is the Sea Pen. It's found in the "lowest layer" of the column.

Posted Image

And also found alive.

Posted Image

Yet not found in "any" layer in between.

What destroys the column support for evolution, destroys evolution itself. This is because it destroys what is suppose to be a recorded history of how everything evolved. A flawed record is not a record. If you don't think so, then show the proof of living fossils being in any other layer than the one it's found in.

#13 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 25 February 2011 - 05:57 AM

My query would be the same if you showed ten examples of species that hadn't evolved (much or at all) or if you showed a hundred examples:  were a species already sufficiently adapted or didn't face new environmental pressures then what would natural selection select against?  Natural selection is a bias toward what works and an already sufficiently adpated population need not necessarily change.  Evolution has no prescribed direction, Darwin and Wallace theorized the processes by which change and speciation could happen not that it was a necessity.

View Post

Since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed." You can argue that it survived despite staying the same because of natural selection, but it would be the same as using the "God of the gaps" argument that atheists always accuse Creationists of using.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 February 2011 - 04:02 PM

The geological column supports the flood more than evolution for 2 reasons:

1) Living fossils are only found in one layer, when they should be found in several layers.
2) The Bible says: The fountains of the deep were broken up during the flood. Which means the burying from sediments process started on what lives at the bottom of the ocean.

Posted Image

And that is what we see. Bottom dwellers first. Then it works up from there until land animals get buried.

gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

So if the process starts at the bottom of the ocean (fountains of the deep), what is going to get buried first?

So living fossils show that the column was sorted and not made over time.

#15 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 25 February 2011 - 06:30 PM

Since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed." You can argue that it survived despite staying the same because of natural selection, but it would be the same as using the "God of the gaps" argument that atheists always accuse Creationists of using.

View Post


Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population. Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work upon allowing for the development of the population should these new traits be selected. Should a species already be sufficiently adapted then its phenotypes would not be selected against in favour of newer traits and the gene pool wouldn’t evolve. For natural selection to change a population there needs to be sufficient variety of phenotypes to work upon and sufficient environmental pressure - oil-degrading bacteria do not appear to have evolved at all over billions of years. I don’t see the comparison with “God of the gaps”.

#16 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 25 February 2011 - 06:36 PM

So living fossils show that the column was sorted and not made over time.

View Post


Living fossils are species once thought to have gone extinct but then found alive and not having had evolved much.

A flood would have left specimens deposited chaotically and in no particular order. Instead, we observe an order consistent with the relationships in the tree of life. Lines are not observed in layers lower than the layer in which earlier ancestors first emerge (e.g. birds are not observed in layers lower than the first appearance of reptiles) - were such contradictions observed the TOE would be falsified.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:31 PM

Living fossils are species once thought to have gone extinct but then found alive and not having had evolved much.

A flood would have left specimens deposited chaotically and in no particular order.  Instead, we observe an order consistent with the relationships in the tree of life.  Lines  are not observed in layers lower than the layer in which earlier ancestors first emerge (e.g. birds are not observed in layers lower than the first appearance of reptiles) - were such contradictions observed the TOE would be falsified.

View Post


Can you prove your claim of specimens being deposited chaotically? If you are going to debunk the flood and the column being made by the flood. Then you need to come up with tests that were done that shows without doubt that a flood could "never" lay anything in order. I have yet to see one evo do this. All I see are claims.

#18 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:43 PM

Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population.  Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work upon allowing for the development of the population should these new traits be selected.  Should a species already be sufficiently adapted then its phenotypes would not be selected against in favour of newer traits and the gene pool wouldn’t evolve.  For natural selection to change a population there needs to be sufficient variety of phenotypes to work upon and sufficient environmental pressure - oil-degrading bacteria do not appear to have evolved at all over billions of years.  I don’t see the comparison with “God of the gaps”.

View Post

You used the argument that I predicted in my previous post. In fact, your explanation proves my point. Natural selection is the evo god. Natural selection is your god of the gaps. It's funny that every time I make this point evolutionists explain the basic principles of natural selection, in which I am aware of.

Natural Selection just happens, but for it to work in the evo model you need to demonstrate not only an increase of the information on the genome, but you will need novel information as well. Your version of natural selection is conjecture unless you can provide evidence of this sort of change happening on the genome.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 February 2011 - 05:50 PM

Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population. Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work.


The point is that phenotypes appear abruptly and don't change or go extinct. How is dinosaur extinction an example of NS and mutations weeding out less adaptive phenotypes? What did they evolve from or into?

Posted Image




Enjoy.

#20 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 26 February 2011 - 07:12 PM

You used the argument that I predicted in my previous post. In fact, your explanation proves my point. Natural selection is the evo god. Natural selection is your god of the gaps. It's funny that every time I make this point evolutionists explain the basic principles of natural selection, in which I am aware of.


The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations. God is a supernatural entity and has not been observed. Using an observed process as an explanation of past processes is not comparable to invoking the supernatural.

Natural Selection just happens, but for it to work in the evo model you need to demonstrate not only an increase of the information on the genome, but you will need novel information as well. Your version of natural selection is conjecture unless you can provide evidence of this sort of change happening on the genome.

View Post


Would a duplicated gene one copy of which has mutated not amount to novel and increased information on the genome? Natural selection has been observed and is more than conjecture.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users