Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

I searched CMI's engine and looked through articles to see how many organisms there are that are identical to today's in the fossils. In brackets is the approximate age of the modern organism's first fossil. Each article usually shows a picture of the earliest fossil next to a modern form, and they are clearly all identical.



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)

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)

Snails (500 million years)

Seed Plants (5 million years)

Pollen Spores (500-600 million years)


To quote CMI in regards to amber-finds;

"(and even identifiable microbes in the insect’s gut1), flowers, moss, snails, lizards, bird feathers and mammal hair."


This is a LOT of none-evolution, and to think they would have us believe an ape-like ancestor evolved into a human in 5 million years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, these are all organisms that have reproduced according to their kinds, and have not changed in millions of supposed evolutionary years.

 

This is only my own list. The true list of unchanged animals will probably be twice the size of this list.

 

So when they find a snail in the Cambrian, and they compare it to a modern snail, it is supposed that 500 million years have passed, and yet the snail-fossil looks basically the same as a "modern" snail.

 

(Of course in reality, the fossil-snail was likely buried by the flood, so both the fossil snail and live-snail are both, "modern" in actual fact, IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, these are all organisms that have reproduced according to their kinds, and have not changed in millions of supposed evolutionary years.

 

This is only my own list. The true list of unchanged animals will probably be twice the size of this list.

 

So when they find a snail in the Cambrian, and they compare it to a modern snail, it is supposed that 500 million years have passed, and yet the snail-fossil looks basically the same as a "modern" snail.

 

(Of course in reality, the fossil-snail was likely buried by the flood, so both the fossil snail and live-snail are both, "modern" in actual fact, IMHO).

 

Evolution does not predict that species must change drastically over time or that they must continually change ecological niches. If they have landed on a body plan that is well-adapted to its environment (and other environments), then there may be no driver for drastic change.

 

BTW, the title of your thread is somewhat misleading, e.g., "zero evolution." I just looked up two from your list - bats and turtles - and their earliest fossil records show anatomical differences from today's species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the title of your thread is somewhat misleading, e.g., "zero evolution." I just looked up two from your list - bats and turtles - and their earliest fossil records show anatomical differences from today's species.

 

Just a friendly reminder that when creationists use the word "zero evolution" or "no evolution since million years", this doesn't imply that the species didn't change at all, but implies that no new functions are visible. For example, please take a look at the following picture: http://www.harunyahya.com/image/atlas_of_creation_v1_1/yarasa.jpg

 

This fossil, of a bat, is supposed to be 54 to 37 million years old, yet we don't see any new functions visible in the current bat compared to the fossil. The point of this is that, changes surely occur, but they are limited in a way that they will not make the bat randomly develop a new function. In other words, the point is that no genetic information is added to the gene pool that pushes the species into further complexity.

 

If you notice any such thing, that points to a new function or increased complexity, I'm sure that we will be all happy to have a look at them; including the anatomical differences of course. Please publish if you have any.

 

Side note: in case you require a definition for "genetic information":

 

genetic information: the genetic potential carried in the base sequence of an organism's DNA/RNA according to set of rules by which information encoded in the DNA/RNA is translated into proteins by living cells.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

StormanNorman: Evolution does not predict that species must change drastically over time or that they must continually change ecological niches.

 

I know. The usual terms used by evolutionists is either normalized selection or evolutionary stasis. But you won't get every creature on the planet from one common ancestor, by evolutionary stasis.

 

The point is, when we have a whole range of all kinds of animals from every environment, and the list is tremendously long, then that's an awful lot of evidence that animals haven't changed over time.

 

Logically, it's an important point because if the claim is Molecules-to-man, then this huge induction of evidence if anything, is showing that animals stay the same, and that micro-evolution hasn't led to macro evolution.

 

You can't have it both ways or your theory is unfalsifiable. You seem to imply if there is change, it's macro-evolution, and if there is no change it is macro-evolution. If that is the case, then how do we falsify evolution when you don't allow any circumstance by which it may be falsified? You are protecting both outcomes.

 

This list on the other hand, is strong confirmation evidence of biblical kinds, because logically, we would expect kinds to reproduce their own kinds, and we would expect them to not change barring superficial changes of adaptation. So much for, "no evidence" of creation. Why, here is only about half the list of empirical evidence for unchanged kinds.

 

Now if you want to believe by faith that Snails only became snails over the same period of time that fish became amphibians and amphibians, reptiles, and reptiles mammals.

 

It just doesn't fit with the theory, you can give excuses like stasis, but in the face of such facts, this is just a poor, "out" for evolution. It would be like me stating this, "I can fly like superman", and then people show evidence that I've only ever WALKED and I say in response to this; "Ahh, but I didn't say I MUST fly now, did I?" (poor, "out")

 

Would that then convince you I am superman? Of course not! Well, in the same way, none-evolution doesn't convince us of evolution, even if you give it an evolutionary name-tag, such as, "evolutionary stasis"

 

Evolutionary? Lol! I suppose I could call my walk the, "superman-walk" if I can't fly like him. think.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Evolution does not predict that species must change drastically over time or that they must continually change ecological niches. If they have landed on a body plan that is well-adapted to its environment (and other environments), then there may be no driver for drastic change.

 

 

Hey SN,

 

First of all, "evolution" can't predict anything because it's not alive....it's an alleged "Process", it can't read/write or speak; Ergo, this is a Reification (Fallacy).

 

Second, Scientists using the alleged "Process" can't Predict anything by any of it's tenets.....

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

 

If you can't make predictions...you can't formulate Valid Hypotheses; Ergo...No Hypothesis-ee, No Science-ee.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now if you want to believe by faith that Snails only became snails over the same period of time that fish became amphibians and amphibians, reptiles, and reptiles mammals.

 

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory ... and that's all that it is. It's not a religion; and it doesn't require faith. Either it happened (and the theory is true) or it didn't happen (and the theory is false). The physical evidence, mainly the fossil record, shows us that life on has transformed and branched outward over long periods. And evolution is a scientific model that attempts to explain this and other observations. And, like I said, either it is right or it's wrong; and if it is wrong, then hopefully we will figure that out ..... and move onto the next model.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a friendly reminder that when creationists use the word "zero evolution" or "no evolution since million years", this doesn't imply that the species didn't change at all, but implies that no new functions are visible. For example, please take a look at the following picture: http://www.harunyahya.com/image/atlas_of_creation_v1_1/yarasa.jpg

 

This fossil, of a bat, is supposed to be 54 to 37 million years old, yet we don't see any new functions visible in the current bat compared to the fossil. The point of this is that, changes surely occur, but they are limited in a way that they will not make the bat randomly develop a new function. In other words, the point is that no genetic information is added to the gene pool that pushes the species into further complexity.

 

Evolution does not necessarily predict that every species will evolve into a more complex species. Most scientists believe that bacteria were among the first life forms on earth, yet, we still have bacteria. A species will only become more complex if it is net beneficial to do so. And if there is still an ecological niche to be filled, then it will be filled independent of complexity......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The physical evidence, mainly the fossil record, shows us that life on has transformed and branched outward over long periods.

 

What it shows is the list I shown in this topic, and a whole bunch of extinct complete-osaurs. I appreciate that is your belief, that it shows that life branched out, but the absence on every level, of the branches, means I don't see that. I don't see why you see it after being shown only HALF the list of unchanged organisms. I appreciate that you see it in a reasonable manner when you say this:

 

 

 

StormanNorman: Either it happened (and the theory is true) or it didn't happen (and the theory is false)

 

That's fair enough. But obviously we believe the best explanation is Creation/Design, when we look at the evidence all together.

 

 

 

StormanNorman: And, like I said, either it is right or it's wrong; and if it is wrong, then hopefully we will figure that out ..... and move onto the next model.

 

 

I have a question, I am not debating you, I just hope you appreciate the question. Do you as clearly an intelligent person that is reasonable and we naturally agree to disagree, do you as that person, in all honesty, believe that if God has created the universe, that they would NOT have come up with scientific answers for the universe?

 

That is to say - let's say for the sake of argument, we all knew and could prove technically to 110% of a degree, that God did create the universe. Now - the question is, wouldn't they come up with a methodologically naturalistic answer, anyway?

 

You are a clever person - you surely now the answer is a resounding, "YES".

 

So they were always going to try and explain everything with science. But obviously that's when strong classical science, shows up those weak sciences. That is because science just can't answer some things.

 

Yes you can have as many theories until your brains crack with frustration, but the obvious answer is the one that always fitted all of the facts, that on every level be it genetic, anatomic or univeral (maths and physics), clearly there is an Intelligent Designer behind it all.

 

I mean, when you look at a tree, or a butterfly or a Jellyfish, this is what I don't get, why doesn't your jaw drop, because of their design? For me, I just can't understand that. In prayer last night I started to think about some of the wonders that exist and I just had to start praising God, because I was awestruck when I think of the living miracles such as the Jellyfish, or a Seahorse.

 

You can read some of the amazing facts about these creatures. I myself, "collect" animals, I collect information about them. Here is some of my fave reads, and notice these are only the amazing and true facts:

 

(The Seahorse is the only vertical fish and has no lineage)

 

http://creation.com/sea-horse

 

http://creation.com/giraffes-animals-that-stand-out-in-a-crowd (my fave is the Giraffe, because some of the designs you read here will blow your mind.)

 

Please take the time, even if you don't come to my view, you will enjoy reading some amazing facts about their clear design.

 

I like the way the fellow finishes the Seahorse article too:

 

 

 

CMI:Too often we become so blinded by the human quest for knowledge that we forget to enjoy the world which God has made.

 

Please read them, they are fantastic articles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a LOT of none-evolution, and to think they would have us believe an ape-like ancestor evolved into a human in 5 million years.

 

Hi Mike

 

This is the same misconception as asking why all of the chimpanzees haven't evolved into humans. Successful organisms remain even as they give rise to genetically divergent offspring.

 

Something else to consider is that we have yet to discover a huge % of the species that exist in the world today.

 

"In spite of 250 years of taxonomic classification and over 1.2 million species already catalogued in a central database, our results suggest that some 86% of existing species on Earth and 91% of species in the ocean still await description."

 

Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21886479?dopt=Abstract

 

How many millions of species have existed on earth and how many do we know about? I would expect there to be gaps in our knowledge. Evolutionary stasis shows that a successful genotype is not selected against and not that the process isn't happening.

 

 

I appreciate that is your belief, that it shows that life branched out, but the absence on every level, of the branches, means I don't see that.

 

What should a branch look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution does not necessarily predict that every species will evolve into a more complex species. Most scientists believe that bacteria were among the first life forms on earth, yet, we still have bacteria. A species will only become more complex if it is net beneficial to do so. And if there is still an ecological niche to be filled, then it will be filled independent of complexity......

 

May I ask you when is it "net beneficial" for a species to become more complex? I'm just asking for an explanation from your point of view on when and how exactly does a species become more complex or what is required for that to happen. Do you think, according to Darwinism, that 30+ millions of years is not enough for a bat to develop a new function while an ape-like organism developed the functions necessary to become a human within 5 million years? or does it mean that the bat from 30+ millions of years ago didn't need new functions in order to adapt to the environment, as opposed to what usually happens from this hypothesis' point of view? I'm also beginning to think that you misunderstand the point, you cannot be comparing modern bacteria to Darwinism, because that's not what it teaches; or are you trying to say that the modern bat has evolved 30+ million years ago and didn't give rise to new functions since? If that's the case, don't you think that 30 millions of years is enough time for nature to change forcing the species to evolve into more complexity? I consider this response as a cop out since it goes against what Darwinism actually teaches: it's thought that microevolution leads to macroevolution when given enough time, but your response implies that microevolution didn't even happen at all in order to move to macroevolution which then pushes the species into further complexity; surely this cannot be the case as we can notice that bat species regularly arise, not to mention that mutations must happen at least once during this long time frame. Please elaborate......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, please read post #5, I gave the answers there in that post, seems you didn't read it, when you read that post you will see there is no misconception. Just because I don't accept what the theory of evolution says, doesn't mean there is a misconception. But in actual fact it just means I don't accept those theoretics. Just because you don't know what a conjectural ad-hoc excuse is, doesn't mean I am the one with the misconception. Just because you value an ad-hoc rescue device, doesn't mean I'm the confused one, if anything you are for accepting conjecture over empirical facts that point to your theory being all wrong, babe.

 

In message #5 I think I clearly show that there is certainly no misconception just because I won't see it in the way evolutionists want me to see it.

 

I know the theoretics, but they are not as impressive as direct, empirical facts. Please read about the, "superman-walk" in that message, and read all that message carefully. message #5 in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Will:How many millions of species have existed on earth and how many do we know about?

 

I don't buy into the, "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

It should also be noted, just how many MORE species would be on my list had they NOT gone extinct and had lived until today.

 

The "missing links" (all of them, in the diagram in this link)

 

http://creation.com/did-plants-evolve

 

like it says - all evolutionary history on that tree, all of the links, are fictitious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read this message, Will:

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6229&p=115621

 

(This post explains in full the importance of defining evidence, in a logical context, but it must be read in full, and thought about until you, "get" the logic. You won't understand it fully unless you study it several times.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What it shows is the list I shown in this topic, and a whole bunch of extinct complete-osaurs. I appreciate that is your belief, that it shows that life branched out, but the absence on every level, of the branches, means I don't see that. I don't see why you see it after being shown only HALF the list of unchanged organisms. I appreciate that you see it in a reasonable manner when you say this:

 

 

That's fair enough. But obviously we believe the best explanation is Creation/Design, when we look at the evidence all together.

 

Will is correct when he states that we probably have yet to discover the majority of species that once lived on earth. Fossilization is a rather rare. Moreover, we only discover fossils within sediments that have been exposed at or near the surface by environmental and/or geological forces (and, of course, the fossil needs to have at least partially survived those forces). Even so, the current fossil and geological records paint a broad, but clear mosaic of the history of life on earth and its transformation. The first multicellular life forms appear in the pre-Cambrian, then (many millions of years later) we see vertebrates, then fish and jawed fish. Again, millions of years later we see the first amphibian tetrapod land-dwellers followed by reptiles, and eventually birds and mammals. There is a clear progression over many, many millions of years. As you said, some of the current species first appear in the fossil record millions of years ago; however, many (like most today's mammals including humans) only appear very recently geologically speaking.

 

To be honest, Mike, I just don't see Creation / ID as being a very good scientific explanation for the fossil / geologic records described above.

 

 

I have a question, I am not debating you, I just hope you appreciate the question. Do you as clearly an intelligent person that is reasonable and we naturally agree to disagree, do you as that person, in all honesty, believe that if God has created the universe, that they would NOT have come up with scientific answers for the universe?

 

That is to say - let's say for the sake of argument, we all knew and could prove technically to 110% of a degree, that God did create the universe. Now - the question is, wouldn't they come up with a methodologically naturalistic answer, anyway?

 

You are a clever person - you surely now the answer is a resounding, "YES".

 

So they were always going to try and explain everything with science. But obviously that's when strong classical science, shows up those weak sciences. That is because science just can't answer some things.

 

Yes you can have as many theories until your brains crack with frustration, but the obvious answer is the one that always fitted all of the facts, that on every level be it genetic, anatomic or univeral (maths and physics), clearly there is an Intelligent Designer behind it all.

 

I mean, when you look at a tree, or a butterfly or a Jellyfish, this is what I don't get, why doesn't your jaw drop, because of their design? For me, I just can't understand that. In prayer last night I started to think about some of the wonders that exist and I just had to start praising God, because I was awestruck when I think of the living miracles such as the Jellyfish, or a Seahorse.

 

You can read some of the amazing facts about these creatures. I myself, "collect" animals, I collect information about them. Here is some of my fave reads, and notice these are only the amazing and true facts:

 

(The Seahorse is the only vertical fish and has no lineage)

 

http://creation.com/sea-horse

 

http://creation.com/giraffes-animals-that-stand-out-in-a-crowd (my fave is the Giraffe, because some of the designs you read here will blow your mind.)

 

Please take the time, even if you don't come to my view, you will enjoy reading some amazing facts about their clear design.

 

I like the way the fellow finishes the Seahorse article too:

 

 

Please read them, they are fantastic articles.

 

 

Science is a tool that measures the natural world; it is not geared to measure the supernatural world. Now, that is NOT the same as saying that science concludes that there is no such thing as the supernatural .... as there are plenty of scientists who are also religious. But, as scientists, they will always look for a natural explanation to any observed phenomena. That's what science does .... an if the phenomena was due to the supernatural, then science will never be able to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May I ask you when is it "net beneficial" for a species to become more complex? I'm just asking for an explanation from your point of view on when and how exactly does a species become more complex or what is required for that to happen. Do you think, according to Darwinism, that 30+ millions of years is not enough for a bat to develop a new function while an ape-like organism developed the functions necessary to become a human within 5 million years? or does it mean that the bat from 30+ millions of years ago didn't need new functions in order to adapt to the environment, as opposed to what usually happens from this hypothesis' point of view? I'm also beginning to think that you misunderstand the point, you cannot be comparing modern bacteria to Darwinism, because that's not what it teaches; or are you trying to say that the modern bat has evolved 30+ million years ago and didn't give rise to new functions since? If that's the case, don't you think that 30 millions of years is enough time for nature to change forcing the species to evolve into more complexity? I consider this response as a cop out since it goes against what Darwinism actually teaches: it's thought that microevolution leads to macroevolution when given enough time, but your response implies that microevolution didn't even happen at all in order to move to macroevolution which then pushes the species into further complexity; surely this cannot be the case as we can notice that bat species regularly arise, not to mention that mutations must happen at least once during this long time frame. Please elaborate......

 

First, let me say, G, that I'm not a biologist or a scientist, but I'll give you my best take on it. Added complexity may provide a species additional capability that aids it in its survival / reproduction; however, complexity usually comes with a cost, e.g., requires more calories, more susceptible to injury/disease, etc. which is detrimental to survival and reproduction. So, the question is when do the positives outweigh the negatives. Of course, the answer is highly dependent on the situation and the circumstances, e.g., the environment, does the added complexity push the species into a less or more competitive ecological niche, etc.

 

A good example is the human brain. Most scientists believe that our brains tripled in size in the last 3 million years or so. Why? Our brains take up about 20 to 25% of our calorie intake. That's a lot !!! That's very expensive .... and it better make up for it by providing us the capability to feed it and the rest of our body. Again, most scientists believe that our large brain provided us (a relatively weak and slow predator) an advantage in hunting large animals .... hunting strategies, communication, etc. Why isn't it even bigger? Maybe it's still evolving and getting bigger; then again, maybe it has already reached an optimal size in terms of the positives and negatives that go with it.

 

On the other hand, while our brain was increasing in size, most scientists believe that our digestive system shrunk and simplified as our diet transformed from tough vegetation to raw meat and, eventually to cooked meat. Turkana Boy (Homo Erectus from about 1.8 million years ago) showed evidence of a noticeably larger gut than us. But, as our diet transformed, we no longer needed a large digestive system capable of digesting roots and other tough vegetation ..... so, according to the theory, we shed much of it. Why keep it when it's not needed? It just takes up calories.

 

As far as bats go, I don't know. If there are no net survival / reproductive advantage for them to develop (or lose) complexity, then they probably won't. But, again, evolution doesn't predict that all species will undergo significant change nor does it predict that they will necessarily become more complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me say, G, that I'm not a biologist or a scientist, but I'll give you my best take on it. Added complexity may provide a species additional capability that aids it in its survival / reproduction; however, complexity usually comes with a cost, e.g., requires more calories, more susceptible to injury/disease, etc. which is detrimental to survival and reproduction. So, the question is when do the positives outweigh the negatives. Of course, the answer is highly dependent on the situation and the circumstances, e.g., the environment, does the added complexity push the species into a less or more competitive ecological niche, etc.

 

...

 

As far as bats go, I don't know. If there are no net survival / reproductive advantage for them to develop (or lose) complexity, then they probably won't. But, again, evolution doesn't predict that all species will undergo significant change nor does it predict that they will necessarily become more complex.

 

That's understandable, SN, but I find it hard to believe that a bat will not need to become more complex within 30 million years while a supposed ape-like evolved to a human during 5 millions of years. I mean, surely the bat needed to become more complex, right? Perhaps; my point is that even the mutations should at least assist with this even with a small percentage, since microevolution leads to macroevolution anyways. Perhaps "I don't know" can be taken as a valid answer too in this case, or yet a better certain answer is: no evolution (rise of new functions) occurred (the main point of this topic). Surely this doesn't endanger Darwinism, but with 40+ fossils revealing stasis, I think it would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

StormanNorman: The first multicellular life forms appear in the pre-Cambrian, then (many millions of years later) we see vertebrates, then fish and jawed fish. Again, millions of years later we see the first amphibian tetrapod land-dwellers followed by reptiles, and eventually birds and mammals. There is a clear progression over many, many millions of years.

 

I've highlighted in red, the assumptions that are not proven but only stated by you. The last highlighted part of your post is a non-sequitur, which means logically it doesn't follow that you can infer such a strong conclusion from such a tenuous impression. It has been shown and explained as to why there is a trend of animals. It is also NOT a progression, the mathematics is all wrong, because between the pre-cambrian forms and the cambrian forms, the explosion does not match, "evolution", and diametrically opposes it. There is nothing gradual or explainable about the huge difference.

 

This is not an impressive story, as a conjecture, it is a weak house of cards, that is easily refuted.

 

 

 

StormanNorman:Science is a tool that measures the natural world

 

You didn't address my points.

 

My point is, even if for arguments sake, God did create the universe, as overtly He did, then they would still try to explain it without him.

 

So my point is that it doesn't matter if you have a methodologically naturalistic version of history, as there is bound to be one, because people WANT the answer to be scientifi. You can, only because it happened in history, so it plays on our ignorance.

 

Logically this PROVES that an evolutionary answer is not automatically correct just because it fits with MN.

 

:think: You need to think more about the importance of that point. Science can't answer for the universe's clear creation, but it still tries to give us the answers, and those answers are poor, because science is going BEYOND it's abilities.

 

Just because you state it can be explained by science, that logically does not mean that it's the correct answer. Think about it, you can form, by imagination, any plausible scenario, but that does not mean you have explained it. Evolution can't explain the clear design of creation, it is a lame answer, to those who study it critically, it is clear that it is the methodologically natural answer to a problem that is not methodologically natural.

 

You conflated, "nature" with, "methodologically natural". That's equivocation.

 

Example: I could win the lottery 175 times in a row. This would be a natural event, but it wouldn't be naturally explainable. Logically it's at least possible to have a natural event, with a none-natural explanation. At the very least, you don't know if it's not possible.

 

 

 

StormanNorman: But, as scientists, they will always look for a natural explanation to any observed phenomena.

 

I know - that's the problem, some things are clearly not explainable by methodological naturalism. You prove my point, even if we argue God certainly created by special creation, they would still give a natural explanation of it. It's obvious that Intelligent Design is factual, yet they still try an explain it with the tenuous theory of evolution.

 

Notice science within it's range is far stronger, it gives us the knowledge of Germs, exotic air, Biogenesis, Gravity and so forth, but when they pretend they can explain everything, that's when human reason and imagination, are passed off as truth because they seem like plausible scenarios.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've highlighted in red, the assumptions that are not proven but only stated by you. The last highlighted part of your post is a non-sequitur, which means logically it doesn't follow that you can infer such a strong conclusion from such a tenuous impression. It has been shown and explained as to why there is a trend of animals. It is also NOT a progression, the mathematics is all wrong, because between the pre-cambrian forms and the cambrian forms, the explosion does not match, "evolution", and diametrically opposes it. There is nothing gradual or explainable about the huge difference.

 

This is not an impressive story, as a conjecture, it is a weak house of cards, that is easily refuted.

 

 

They are not assumptions, Mike; they are inferences from the current data at hand. Also, Mike, science doesn't typically use the word "prove." I'm a mathematician and we do prove things, but scientists typically don't. They make logical inferences based on the data and observations currently at hand. And they understand that those inferences can change based on new discoveries. For example, if we find the bunny rabbit in the Cambrian tomorrow, then those inferences I listed above would obviously have to be adjusted. But, until that time, those inferences are the most logical inferences based on the current data at hand .... like it or not.

 

And I'm not sure of your claim that the Cambrian Explosion diametrically opposes evolution.

 

 

 

You didn't address my points.

 

My point is, even if for arguments sake, God did create the universe, as overtly He did, then they would still try to explain it without him.

 

 

 

Well, that depends on how overt it is. I'm sure that a certain level of overtness would even convince me. And, I don't agree with your statement that science tries to just explain things without God. I've heard many religious scientists claim that they believe God created the natural laws of universe and it went from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's understandable, SN, but I find it hard to believe that a bat will not need to become more complex within 30 million years while a supposed ape-like evolved to a human during 5 millions of years. I mean, surely the bat needed to become more complex, right?

 

It depends heavily on the circumstances. And, again, bats would only become more (or less) complex if their survival depended on it. If on the other hand, they occupy a very stable ecological niche, then there may be no need.

 

According to the geology and the theory, East Africa went from dense rain forests to grass lands forcing the apes there down from the trees and changes were necessary to survive.

 

Perhaps; my point is that even the mutations should at least assist with this even with a small percentage, since microevolution leads to macroevolution anyways. Perhaps "I don't know" can be taken as a valid answer too in this case, or yet a better certain answer is: no evolution (rise of new functions) occurred (the main point of this topic). Surely this doesn't endanger Darwinism, but with 40+ fossils revealing stasis, I think it would?

 

 

But, I don't think you can claim that bats have undergone no micro-evolution. We don't know that and their fossil record is pretty weak. There are thousands of species of bat; I'd be curious when and if those species show up in the fossil record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, please read post #5,

 

Yes I read msg 5. Do you understand that the ToE does not require a parent species to die out? I suppose that you can disagree with it but you shouldn't misrepresent it. Stasis is not an ad hoc explanation.

 

 

I don't buy into the, "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

Why not? We don't even know what species are alive on the planet today. Why should you think that we would have a complete fossil record?

 

 

It should also be noted, just how many MORE species would be on my list had they NOT gone extinct and had lived until today.

 

That's funny. Animals that go extinct do not make the list of successful genotypes because they went extinct. Are you sure that you understand the theory?

 

I'll ask again what you think that a branch in the evolutionary tree would look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will: Why should you think that we would have a complete fossil record?

 

Evolutionists don't even have a single complete chain of fossils that reveal any stage-by-stage development of one type/classification to a completely different organism. In fact, they don't even have a nearly complete scenario. Yet we are expected to believe that EVOLUTION of living organisms has been going on for over a billion years on this planet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

StormanNorman: For example, if we find the bunny rabbit in the Cambrian tomorrow, then those inferences I listed above would obviously have to be adjusted

 

Lol, the bunny is back. do you think I haven't heard this before Norman/Will? Sheesh, this stuff is so OLD.

 

I wrote a blog discussing this, in August.

 

http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/more-about-fossil-order.html

 

I discussed some of this type of thing in the above blog, I'm not going through it all again. You can lead a horse to water....

 

You see we don't need a bunny in the Cambrian, as I explained, because a bunny is not a marine-organism, so it's a strawman of the creation position.

 

The true problem is, the evolutionists are ignorant of our arguments, and what we claim the fossil record represents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will, stasis is conjecture of the evolution theory.

 

 

 

Will:That's funny. Animals that go extinct do not make the list of successful genotypes because they went extinct. Are you sure that you understand the theory?

 

I don't debate people that use these tactics, any more, because they're designed to be a red-herring that takes the focus OFF discussion. It's rhetorical because it makes it seem like the only thing we are discussing is the understanding of evolution.

 

But that was not the original discussion. I know how the hypothetics of evolution work.

 

Your point about phenotypes is a moot-point, logically, showing you didn't understand what I meant. My point wasn't in reference to an understanding of evolution theory, my point was a hypothetical, imagined scenario, we sometimes call an analogy.

 

I was making the logical point, (nothing to do with "understanding" evolution) that if animals had not gone extinct, we can imagine they would be unchanged today. for example, for a long time they thought the coelacanth fish was an archaic and extinct creature, until they found it alive and unchanged. this happens all of the time, recently they found the Gladiator-Insect and the Pelican spider. The discoverers said something like this, "I thought I was in Jurassic park or something", (or some such words).

 

Any further ad-hominem allusions about my character, and understanding the theoretical conjecture of evolution, should be deemed to be a highly rhetorical and devious tactic. So far you are the one who has not understood the points I've made - just because you want to bring everything back to an understanding of evolution, as though that is the debate, doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid enough to let you commit that red-herring fallacy, of trying to make out the issue is about my ignorance of evolution.

 

that's very dishonest, I shown I was aware of the conjecture of evolution by describing it as normalized selection or evolutionary stasis. If I had not understood, I wouldn't understand or know about such terms. Please no further ad-hominem allusions, they are fallacious debate-tactics designed to put the focus on, "understanding evolution".

 

This is the number one ad hominem red-herring with evolutionists, you should avoid such obtuse ignorance at all costs or I shall ignore you henceforth.

 

Stick to the topic, which isn't an understanding of evolution, but an understanding of the importance of empirical evidence that points to biblical kinds being true. I see no evidence you read and understood the logical points I made, thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Correct sound statements are highlighted blue, fallacious non-sequiturs are highlighted in red.)

 

StormanNorman, if you are a mathematician, please read the unavoidable mathematics in message #19.

 

Good luck refuting those mathematics, mathematician.

 

You see it doesn't bother me if you are Einstein, because I can also refute Einstein, because I don't need a qualification in cleverness, so try to avoid arguing Ipse Dixit by appealling to your own authority. (Google, Ipse Dixit,)

 

If scientists don't claim proof, why did you make those statements as though they are true - as though they prove evolution?

 

If a general progression from Pre-Cambrian to Cambrian, shows certain types of evolution to your mind, or you think this evidences simple to complex life, then even evidence wouldn't mean it was true, as that would be Affirmation Of The Consequent. That fallacy means that you take the consequent, having accepted the conditional implication of the antecedant, and you then affirm the consequent incorrectly. (X then P, P then X)

 

For example, we find that coelacanths lived at the same time as whales, as Coelacanths go way back, yet we don't find them fossilized together with many creatures they must have lived with at the same time.

 

So we could infer a non-sequitur, that "ergo this shows a progression".

 

Similarly, if we don't find a bunny with the cambrian fossils, logically this does not prove that bunnies did not live at the same time. That would be an ARGUMENT-FROM-SILENCE fallacy.

 

Maybe as a mathematician, you might know that this type of argument is called, an Argument-From-Silence.(Denial of the antecedant)

 

(If coelacanths and whales are preserved together then they lived at the same time.

We do not find them preserved together therefore they didn't live at the same time. FALLACIOUS - denial of antecedant. INCORRECT. (If X then P, NOT X ERGO NOT P)

 

So as you can see - the reasoning you offer can be regarded as sophistry. (Sophistry is the type of reasoning that seems to make sense until we dig into the reasonings behind it.)

 

That reasoning was, you argued, that fossils show a progression. Such reasoning would DEPEND on arguing from silence because the correct conditional implication is to say that if they are found together, then they lived at the same time, not to say that if they aren't found together, they didn't. (non-sequitur, as shown by the coelacanth/whale example).

 

 

This tells me that such findings don't have anything to do with any evolutionary progression, as we know it's possible that preservations of certain types of animal, says nothing about a progression.

 

It's also common knowledge that the cambrian's mathematics doesn't make, "evolutionary-sense". I wrote about the basic maths of the numbers, in this following blog-entry:

 

http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-evidence-contradicts-darwins-tree.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms