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

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

 

1) One of the YEC favorites is along the lines of "Why don't we see a half-wolf and half-bear." We don't see something like that because it is not expected in evolution. this would, if fact, falsify evolution.

2) Discovery of modern human remains in pre-cambrian strata.

3) Positive proof the universe is only a few thousand years old as YEC claims.

 

1. Strawman

2. Creationists wouldn't expect to see this either.....strawman

3. I can't give you 'positive proof' that the universe is only a few thousand years old but you can't give me 'positive proof' that the universe is 14.6 billion years old either. So.....completely intellectually dishonest of you to even ask such a thing.

 

 

 

 

Another problem for evolution would have been had there been rapid evolution of those organisms that lived in a highly stable environment.

 

OK....I can give you that. According to your religion fish, which lived in a 'highly stable environment', eventually 'evolved' into amphibians. That's some pretty rapid evolution from organisms that lived in a highly stable environment. There. Done and done. HUGE problem for evolutionary theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch;

 

...." half-wolf and half-bear."

 

 

1. Strawman

2. Creationists wouldn't expect to see this either.....strawman

 

 

 

Exactly. Like the 'crocoduck' thing. We don't expect them to produce such 'evidence.' But the truth is that they can't produce ANY of the stages between one organism and a completely different organism on any level.

 

Here's my favorite example: EvolTheo-11.gif

 

So we find fossils of bats and we find fossils of rodents....but nothing in between. The images between the bat and the rat is merely artwork. But that's the best they can do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. I can give you two or three examples that would falsify evolution:

1) One of the YEC favorites is along the lines of "Why don't we see a half-wolf and half-bear." We don't see something like that because it is not expected in evolution. this would, if fact, falsify evolution.

2) Discovery of modern human remains in pre-cambrian strata.

3) Positive proof the universe is only a few thousand years old as YEC claims.

1. Strawman

2. Creationists wouldn't expect to see this either.....strawman

3. I can't give you 'positive proof' that the universe is only a few thousand years old but you can't give me 'positive proof' that the universe is 14.6 billion years old either. So.....completely intellectually dishonest of you to even ask such a thing.

1) Not a strawman as I have had YEC propose such mixed animals as what they think evolution should produce. Fortunately, the YEC here are considerably more knowledgeable, but that doesn't mean all YEC are.

2) Whether or not creationists would expect to see it is irrelevant. You claimed evolution cannot be falsified and I produced an example that would falsify evolution. If you think the example would not falsify evolution, explain why.

3) Poorly stated by me. I should have said: "Direct observational evidence." There is direct observational evidence the universe is billions of years old, there is no direct observational evidence the universe is only a few thousand years old. (See the "Matter of Time" thread.)

 

So, I have produced three examples that would falsify evolution and you claim it is "completely intellectually dishonest." Yet you asked for peer reviewed papers and when one was provided you did not address the fact that it DID point out that we EXPECT to see creatures in a stable environment evolve little if at all.

 

 

Another problem for evolution would have been had there been rapid evolution of those organisms that lived in a highly stable environment.

OK....I can give you that. According to your religion fish, which lived in a 'highly stable environment', eventually 'evolved' into amphibians. That's some pretty rapid evolution from organisms that lived in a highly stable environment. There. Done and done. HUGE problem for evolutionary theory.

1) My religion is Roman Catholicism. It says nothing at all about fish evolving into amphibians.

2) Fish do not always live in a highly stable environment. Shallow pools, streams, and lakes are a far cry from the deep ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK....I can give you that. According to your religion fish, which lived in a 'highly stable environment', eventually 'evolved' into amphibians. That's some pretty rapid evolution from organisms that lived in a highly stable environment. There. Done and done. HUGE problem for evolutionary theory.

 

Why do you argue against claims that the people you're arguing against not only haven't made, but have explicitly denied ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do you argue against claims that the people you're arguing against not only haven't made, but have explicitly denied ?

 

Then tell him what fish DID evolve into and give observable evidence for it and quit fooling around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1) My religion is Roman Catholicism. It says nothing at all about fish evolving into amphibians.

2) Fish do not always live in a highly stable environment. Shallow pools, streams, and lakes are a far cry from the deep ocean.

 

My thinking on this, Pi, is that it actually goes beyond whether or not an ecosystem is stable; instead, for a given species (or subset thereof), the question is ... is it net beneficial to switch or jump ecological niches. Now, instability in an ecological niche (environmental change, increased competition, etc.) can certainly force the answer to that question to be a definitive yes. But, I could see it happening even if a species is in a stable environment and not under stress. When the first fish species came out of the water, the terrestrial environment was wide open for the taking with lots of plants, etc ... and such a move was probably net beneficial independent of these guys coming from a stable or unstable environment.

 

So, why didn't all fish follow those first guys, e.g, why do we still have fish? At some point, it no longer became net beneficial for them as those terrestrial niches were now full of competitors, predators, etc. This is why we still have bacteria and other lower forms of life; they continue to occupy viable ecological niches and the niches above them are no longer open for the taking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... fish, which lived in a 'highly stable environment', eventually 'evolved' into amphibians. That's some pretty rapid evolution from organisms that lived in a highly stable environment. There. Done and done. HUGE problem for evolutionary theory.

2) Fish do not always live in a highly stable environment. Shallow pools, streams, and lakes are a far cry from the deep ocean.

My thinking on this, Pi, is that it actually goes beyond whether or not an ecosystem is stable; instead, for a given species (or subset thereof), the question is ... is it net beneficial to switch or jump ecological niches. Now, instability in an ecological niche (environmental change, increased competition, etc.) can certainly force the answer to that question to be a definitive yes. But, I could see it happening even if a species is in a stable environment and not under stress. When the first fish species came out of the water, the terrestrial environment was wide open for the taking with lots of plants, etc ... and such a move was probably net beneficial independent of these guys coming from a stable or unstable environment.

That is correct. The peer reviewed paper that was referenced by the article cited by Calypsis in his other thread said this:

Here's a peer reviewed paper that shows significant evolution is NOT expected in a stable environment:

 

Source: http://www.pnas.org/...1/27/1419241112

Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution—if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged. (Emphasis Pi's)

 

The paper points out that not only must the ecosystem be stable, but that the organisms should be "well-adapted."

 

So, why didn't all fish follow those first guys, e.g, why do we still have fish? At some point, it no longer became net beneficial for them as those terrestrial niches were now full of competitors, predators, etc. This is why we still have bacteria and other lower forms of life; they continue to occupy viable ecological niches and the niches above them are no longer open for the taking.

Not all fish live full time in the water. For example, there are "walking cat fish" living in south Florida that are able to breathe air and move across dry land from one area of water to another. Sure looks to me like they are evolving toward living on land. However, whether they are or not, it is clear they have found a beneficial niche in the ability to move on land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then tell him what fish DID evolve into and give observable evidence for it and quit fooling around.

 

That isn't the claim I was referring to but thanks for trying.

Trying to get engagement with what I actually say and not whatever people imagine I say isn't "fooling around", I find it a rather vital prerequisite to any useful discussion actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. I can give you two or three examples that would falsify evolution:

1) One of the YEC favorites is along the lines of "Why don't we see a half-wolf and half-bear." We don't see something like that because it is not expected in evolution. this would, if fact, falsify evolution.

2) Discovery of modern human remains in pre-cambrian strata.

3) Positive proof the universe is only a few thousand years old as YEC claims.

 

There are more, but just ONE is sufficient to show evolutio is not "completely unfalsifiable." What does NOT falsify evolution is discovery of something we EXPECT to see ..... as little evolutionary change in an extremely stable environment. Now, if those life forms had been found in an environment subject to rapid change and they had not evolved to accomodate those changes, that would be a problem.

 

#### edit ####

Another problem for evolution would have been had there been rapid evolution of those organisms that lived in a highly stable environment.

#### end edit ####

 

 

And when peer reviewed papers are provided, you just go back to "Heads I win, tails you lose." Nice EQ. Just brilliant .... and very arrogant.

 

 

 

I would add the discovery of the fused 23rd pair of chromosomes in humans. Had there been no indication of fusion and with all other apes having 24 chromosome pairs, evolution (at least for humans) would have had some serious issues.

 

I would add confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That isn't the claim I was referring to but thanks for trying.

Trying to get engagement with what I actually say and not whatever people imagine I say isn't "fooling around", I find it a rather vital prerequisite to any useful discussion actually.

 

All you're doing is talking. If you want us to believe in evolution then you better start providing observed or observable evidence either from the lab or from the fossil record. You haven't done either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All you're doing is talking. If you want us to believe in evolution then you better start providing observed or observable evidence either from the lab or from the fossil record. You haven't done either.

 

Wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good picture of the bats Calypsis. It's the same for Pterodactyls and Pterosaurs, both them, and bats, appear abruptly in the fossil record, with no ancestors.

 

Is it enough to have faith in evolution, that it would solve many problems and leave no ancestors? We see no ancestors for turtles, nor any showing how their scapular girdle evolved to the inside of their ribs.

 

The list of organisms that appear abruptly in the fossil-record, outnumbers the list for unchanged organisms. A seahorse is a vertical fish with independent moving eyes and a kind of bubble in it's gut so it can't topple, the only vertical fish, a monophyletic organism as with the starfish.

 

I've only highlighted SOME organisms that appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. Of course, all of them do, if we dismiss evolutionary-conjecture. For example if we dismissed the tenuous case for whale evolution, Ambulocetus, etc. ...the cambrian itself contains most of the crown-forms for every type, and there aren't any preceding ancestors.

 

Once again the only way around this seems to be to use 100% conjecture, and create a long, rambling story about how evolution keeps evolution secret from us, apart from at the branch-tips.

 

But like you see - first prove there is a tree, and then we will listen concerning the branch-tips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow

 

Don't just say, 'wow'? Do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'm going to make this real simple. Here's why stasis is a huge problem for evolution.

 

Organisms undergo mutations in their genomes ALL the time. We humans pass on 60-100 new mutations to our children with every generation. Here's the kicker. Our genomes mutate regardless of the environment. We KNOW empirically that even when 'environmental pressures' are NOT present our genomes suffer mutations anyways. Now very few of these are beneficial, some are deleterious and most are neutral. The issue is, regardless of what kind of mutations occur........they occur.

 

So here's the crux of the problem for evolution. Even if the organism is in a 'stable environment' it will still undergo mutations to its genome. If the last statement is not true then the evo must show that the genome stays in a complete state of stasis in these 'stable environments'. and the evo must also give a mechanism for this steady state and show WHY the genomes don't change.

 

So are you all catching on now? In 2 BILLION years why do these organisms show little, if no, change at all? Mutations should still have been happening to their genomes for the past 2 BILLION years and such should have provided SOME kind of change to the organism. Mutations are random. You can't claim that change didn't occur because of the organisms 'stable environment' because it should still have 'evolved' in some way anyways. I mean how many mutations would have occurred in a 2 billion year span irregardless of the 'stable environment' the organism was supposedly in?

 

So there's your problem. Actual empirical science shows that mutations occur even if an organism is in a 'stable environment'. With this being the case there's no reason to believe we should find things 2 billion years old that haven't changed at all in that amount of time. Only ad hoc rationalizations like "well....things wouldn't be predicted to change in a 'stable environment'" can't cover up this glaring problem for evolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'm going to make this real simple. Here's why stasis is a huge problem for evolution.

 

Organisms undergo mutations in their genomes ALL the time. We humans pass on 60-100 new mutations to our children with every generation. Here's the kicker. Our genomes mutate regardless of the environment. We KNOW empirically that even when 'environmental pressures' are NOT present our genomes suffer mutations anyways. Now very few of these are beneficial, some are deleterious and most are neutral. The issue is, regardless of what kind of mutations occur........they occur.

 

So here's the crux of the problem for evolution. Even if the organism is in a 'stable environment' it will still undergo mutations to its genome. If the last statement is not true then the evo must show that the genome stays in a complete state of stasis in these 'stable environments'. and the evo must also give a mechanism for this steady state and show WHY the genomes don't change.

 

So are you all catching on now? In 2 BILLION years why do these organisms show little, if no, change at all? Mutations should still have been happening to their genomes for the past 2 BILLION years and such should have provided SOME kind of change to the organism. Mutations are random. You can't claim that change didn't occur because of the organisms 'stable environment' because it should still have 'evolved' in some way anyways. I mean how many mutations would have occurred in a 2 billion year span irregardless of the 'stable environment' the organism was supposedly in?

 

So there's your problem. Actual empirical science shows that mutations occur even if an organism is in a 'stable environment'. With this being the case there's no reason to believe we should find things 2 billion years old that haven't changed at all in that amount of time. Only ad hoc rationalizations like "well....things wouldn't be predicted to change in a 'stable environment'" can't cover up this glaring problem for evolution.

 

That's true, E .... mutations occur at predictable rates independent of the environments. The big difference, however, is the probability and rate at which those mutations permeate throughout an entire population. When there are forcing functions for change (species survival is at risk leading to declining populations, etc.), then logically those changes that enhance survival will permeate throughout a population must faster and with a much higher probability. However, if there is no forcing function or instead there are actually drivers against change (like changes that take a species to a more competitive niche), then one would logically conclude that change would occur at a much slower pace and confine or eliminate drastic changes all together.

 

In short, evolution has both random and non-random components that drive the speed and degree of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. I'm going to make this real simple. Here's why stasis is a huge problem for evolution.

 

Organisms undergo mutations in their genomes ALL the time. We humans pass on 60-100 new mutations to our children with every generation. Here's the kicker. Our genomes mutate regardless of the environment. We KNOW empirically that even when 'environmental pressures' are NOT present our genomes suffer mutations anyways. Now very few of these are beneficial, some are deleterious and most are neutral. The issue is, regardless of what kind of mutations occur........they occur.

 

Completely agreed, I even said as much somewhere in this thread.

 

 

 

So here's the crux of the problem for evolution. Even if the organism is in a 'stable environment' it will still undergo mutations to its genome. If the last statement is not true then the evo must show that the genome stays in a complete state of stasis in these 'stable environments'. and the evo must also give a mechanism for this steady state and show WHY the genomes don't change.

 

This would be true if we had any evidence of genomes not changing, but we don't. Fossils only show us an organism's phenotype, not its genome. And in fact we have evidence that genomes change even when there's stasis - for example, look at jellyfish or alligators in that list. If morphological similarity such as we see between living species and fossils meant unchanged genomes, then different jellyfish or alligator species that looked as alike to each other as they do to those fossils should have identical genomes - and they don't. See here for example for a discussion of crocodilian genomes:

http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/1/415

And scyphozoan jellyfish, the class that has a fossil representative in the Cambrian:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/436.short

(while they don't explicitly give gene differences in that abstract, it's clear that they didn't find those genes to be identical, or even surprisingly similar for a 500 million-year-old clade; if they had that would have been the headline. Compare to a similar study on cycads, where they did find that the genomes were surprisingly similar and it made the title of the paper :

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/796.abstract )

 

 

 

So are you all catching on now? In 2 BILLION years why do these organisms show little, if no, change at all? Mutations should still have been happening to their genomes for the past 2 BILLION years and such should have provided SOME kind of change to the organism. Mutations are random. You can't claim that change didn't occur because of the organisms 'stable environment' because it should still have 'evolved' in some way anyways. I mean how many mutations would have occurred in a 2 billion year span irregardless of the 'stable environment' the organism was supposedly in?.

 

Quite a lot I'd guess, and the neutral mutations would definitely lead to changes in the genome - those aspects of it that don't affect phenotype at least (there's always synonymous mutations if nothing else). But neutral mutations by definition wouldn't change the organism's phenotype much if at all. Harmful mutations wouldn't spread down the generations as organisms with harmful mutations leave fewer offspring on average. Beneficial mutations that affected the phenotype so as to leave more offspring on average would spread in the population down the generations, and lead to the adaptation of the organism to its environment, but at some point the organism is going to be as adapted as it can get - it optimization terms it will have reached a local optimum. At that point as long as the environment doesn't change the only beneficial mutations will be the mutations that keep it exactly as it is, or in other words, no mutation will be beneficial anymore. You'll only get neutral and harmful mutations, both of which will spread randomly and get culled as they normally would. The net effect being an unchanging phenotype, and genome changes consistent with neutral drift.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you're doing is talking.

 

As opposed to everyone else here...

 

 

 

If you want us to believe in evolution then you better start providing observed or observable evidence either from the lab or from the fossil record. You haven't done either.

 

I really don't particularly care what you believe Calypsis; it's not even true I want people here to believe in evolution. If there's a meta-purpose I have here it would be to provide the scientific viewpoint on some scientific questions that get asked. But right now I just want to have an interesting and productive discussion that involves people addressing each other's arguments. Not so interested in the throwing around of random demands, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As opposed to everyone else here...

 

I really don't particularly care what you believe Calypsis; it's not even true I want people here to believe in evolution. If there's a meta-purpose I have here it would be to provide the scientific viewpoint on some scientific questions that get asked. But right now I just want to have an interesting and productive discussion that involves people addressing each other's arguments. Not so interested in the throwing around of random demands, sorry.

 

You've defended evolution on this website...for how long? Yet you can't come up with what should be the easiest thing for evolutionists to do: produce observable evidence for evolution...either from the lab or from the fossil record.

 

..." I just want to have an interesting and productive discussion that involves people addressing each other's arguments. "

 

For what? You have nothing to offer but opinions. Most of us aren't interested in opinions. We want the facts...(if there are any) that establish what you say you believe in.

 

Maybe you don't have a purpose in being here on EFF but we do. We want people to know that God is the Creator and that He offers salvation from hell to those who place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, the One who died for all of our sins upon the cross. I hope some day soon you will come to accept Him as Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Completely agreed, I even said as much somewhere in this thread.

 

 

 

 

This would be true if we had any evidence of genomes not changing, but we don't. Fossils only show us an organism's phenotype, not its genome. And in fact we have evidence that genomes change even when there's stasis - for example, look at jellyfish or alligators in that list. If morphological similarity such as we see between living species and fossils meant unchanged genomes, then different jellyfish or alligator species that looked as alike to each other as they do to those fossils should have identical genomes - and they don't. See here for example for a discussion of crocodilian genomes:

http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/1/415

And scyphozoan jellyfish, the class that has a fossil representative in the Cambrian:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/436.short

(while they don't explicitly give gene differences in that abstract, it's clear that they didn't find those genes to be identical, or even surprisingly similar for a 500 million-year-old clade; if they had that would have been the headline. Compare to a similar study on cycads, where they did find that the genomes were surprisingly similar and it made the title of the paper :

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/796.abstract )

 

 

 

 

Quite a lot I'd guess, and the neutral mutations would definitely lead to changes in the genome - those aspects of it that don't affect phenotype at least (there's always synonymous mutations if nothing else). But neutral mutations by definition wouldn't change the organism's phenotype much if at all. Harmful mutations wouldn't spread down the generations as organisms with harmful mutations leave fewer offspring on average. Beneficial mutations that affected the phenotype so as to leave more offspring on average would spread in the population down the generations, and lead to the adaptation of the organism to its environment, but at some point the organism is going to be as adapted as it can get - it optimization terms it will have reached a local optimum. At that point as long as the environment doesn't change the only beneficial mutations will be the mutations that keep it exactly as it is, or in other words, no mutation will be beneficial anymore. You'll only get neutral and harmful mutations, both of which will spread randomly and get culled as they normally would. The net effect being an unchanging phenotype, and genome changes consistent with neutral drift.

 

Beautifully explained Aelyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's your problem. Actual empirical science shows that mutations occur even if an organism is in a 'stable environment'. With this being the case there's no reason to believe we should find things 2 billion years old that haven't changed at all in that amount of time. Only ad hoc rationalizations like "well....things wouldn't be predicted to change in a 'stable environment'" can't cover up this glaring problem for evolution.

Quite a lot I'd guess, and the neutral mutations would definitely lead to changes in the genome - those aspects of it that don't affect phenotype at least (there's always synonymous mutations if nothing else). But neutral mutations by definition wouldn't change the organism's phenotype much if at all. Harmful mutations wouldn't spread down the generations as organisms with harmful mutations leave fewer offspring on average. Beneficial mutations that affected the phenotype so as to leave more offspring on average would spread in the population down the generations, and lead to the adaptation of the organism to its environment, but at some point the organism is going to be as adapted as it can get - it optimization terms it will have reached a local optimum. At that point as long as the environment doesn't change the only beneficial mutations will be the mutations that keep it exactly as it is, or in other words, no mutation will be beneficial anymore. You'll only get neutral and harmful mutations, both of which will spread randomly and get culled as they normally would. The net effect being an unchanging phenotype, and genome changes consistent with neutral drift.

I had always understood it made sense that organisms would reach a point of stasis in a stable environment but I had never bothered to figure out the details of the process. Frankly, the biology isn't my specific area of interest. I consider physics much more a problem for Genesis literalism than evolution could ever be. While a bit technical, that is an outstanding explanation of exactly how it works.

 

Putting this issue in perspective, how many species are as stable as these creatures or jellyfish? Dozens? Hundreds? There are millions of species on the planet today.... and something like 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. That would strongly suggest that conditions allowing such long term stasis are rare exceptions, not the norm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautifully explained Aelyn

 

Thanks ! But I suspect the last paragraph in particular would count as "story-telling" to EQuestions. There might be papers about the behavior of evolutionary algorithms near an optimum, maybe even as applied to bacteria, but I fear that might the kind of basic yet technical information you're most likely to get in a textbook. The Wikipedia pages on Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms are a lot better than I remembered though, with lots of good general links, so I'll try and find something there.

 

 

I had always understood it made sense that organisms would reach a point of stasis in a stable environment but I had never bothered to figure out the details of the process. Frankly, the biology isn't my specific area of interest. I consider physics much more a problem for Genesis literalism than evolution could ever be. While a bit technical, that is an outstanding explanation of exactly how it works.

 

Putting this issue in perspective, how many species are as stable as these creatures or jellyfish? Dozens? Hundreds? There are millions of species on the planet today.... and something like 99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. That would strongly suggest that conditions allowing such long term stasis are rare exceptions, not the norm.

 

I agree, though I don't know how the numbers would shake up if we took bacteria and very simple eukaryotes into account. Then again a whole lot of those are parasitic or symbiotic with other organisms, and that involves lots of change. Which gets to the other issue, which is that "pretty much looks the same to an onlooking human" is a terrible metric for "change". What it basically means is that changes in large, familiar organisms are over-emphasized and immense changes in small or unfamiliar organisms are ignored entirely. That's what gives you things like "but they're still bacteria !" when bacteria have waaay more genetic and metabolic diversity than eukaryotes do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article I just read sums up what I've been saying. "Heads I win, tails you lose." You evo's want it both ways and will come up with all kinds of stories and ad hoc rationalizations to find a way to always make evolution mean 'everything'.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/what_does_two_b093291.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article I just read sums up what I've been saying. "Heads I win, tails you lose." You evo's want it both ways and will come up with all kinds of stories and ad hoc rationalizations to find a way to always make evolution mean 'everything'.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/what_does_two_b093291.html

Just to be absolutely clear .... "evolutionnews.org" is not a scientific source. It is the internet news arm of the creationist Discovery Institute.... a political activist organization.

 

However, this from the article is interesting: ".... when I wrote about living fossils last year at ENV ("What Do 'Living Fossils' Mean for Evolution?"), I explained that they really don't have much to say for or against Darwinian theory..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't actually read the article did you piasan. Go figure. Still wrapped up in your own confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't actually read the article did you piasan. Go figure. Still wrapped up in your own confirmation bias.

Yes, I did. The article pointed out that the "evolution establishment" is pointing to this discovery as big news; that it really isn't big news; that it does not contradict evoluton; that it confirms a "trivial and unconsequential part" of evolution; and "that the public will view these "living fossils" as evidence against evolution" when it really isn't.

 

Do we know of anyone who points to these "living fossils" as evidence against evolution? (How about Calypsis, Mike, and yourself?) I'm sure I missed a couple.

 

I do enjoy it when creationists produce an article from creationists that refutes what they say.

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