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

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

Ludlow:

 

What is "empirical evidence for thousands of years?"  The fact that something hasn't changed for millions of years?  Stasis is predicted by the Theory of Evolution under certain conditions.  Looks like empirical evidence for evolution to me.

 

 

There is no evolution. It doesn't exist and never did. The only thing that exists are the variations within the familial kind AND...extinction. There isn't anything else.
 

You believe "kind" is at the family level?  How did you determine that?

 

 

The same way that evolutionists determined classifications...by human observation and opinion. However,  no organism has EVER been observed to change from one familial type to another. Nor can modern science cause it to happen genetically without a massive failure in the effort.

 

Example:  da4eab8a96a1a02f.jpgmutant_fly-1.jpg

 

When the soviet atheist scientists sought to cross humans with apes in the early 20th century that likewise met with disaster even though humans and apes are supposed to be closest relatives. Why? Because it is a lie that apes are related to humans. They are not the same class/kind at all.

 

You seem to be at odds with the creationist and baraminology websites I have read.  Humans are classified as Hominidae which includes all the Great Apes.

 

 

 

That classification is wrong, both by observation of offspring and by genetics as I just mentioned above.

 

Quote: "Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was the first person to attempt to create a human–ape hybrid.[9] As early as 1910 he gave a presentation to the World Congress of Zoologists in GrazAustria, in which he described the possibility of creating such a hybrid by artificial insemination.

In the 1920s, Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/nonhuman ape hybrid. Working with human sperm and female chimpanzees, he failed to create a pregnancy." (Wikipedia).

 Most "creation scientists" or baraminologists will say "kind" could be at the Family or Genus level but it can even be at the level of Order or Species.  They leave the definition wide open for whatever interpretation is needed.  What criteria did you use to determine "kind" was at the Family level?

 

 

 

That isn't so.Almost every creationist I've ever read says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level. You did not document your statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the soviet atheist scientists sought to cross humans with apes in the early 20th century that likewise met with disaster even though humans and apes are supposed to be closest relatives. Why? Because it is a lie that apes are related to humans. They are not the same class/kind at all.

 

 

The same assumption was used for using chimp blood transfusions / organ donations.... The patients died quickly afterwards. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246856/

 

I find it amusing that we are able to assimilate porcine and bovine organ parts (heart valves), but not chimps... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same assumption was used for using chimp blood transfusions / organ donations.... The patients died quickly afterwards. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246856/

 

I find it amusing that we are able to assimilate porcine and bovine organ parts (heart valves), but not chimps... 

Porcine and Bovine hormones can also be used in humans as well, such as Thyroid hormone and Adrenal hormones.  Yet we can't use anything from chimps, kind of ironic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ludlow:

 

 

There is no evolution. It doesn't exist and never did. The only thing that exists are the variations within the familial kind AND...extinction. There isn't anything else.

 

 

The same way that evolutionists determined classifications...by human observation and opinion. However,  no organism has EVER been observed to change from one familial type to another. Nor can modern science cause it to happen genetically without a massive failure in the effort.

 

Example:  da4eab8a96a1a02f.jpgmutant_fly-1.jpg

 

When the soviet atheist scientists sought to cross humans with apes in the early 20th century that likewise met with disaster even though humans and apes are supposed to be closest relatives. Why? Because it is a lie that apes are related to humans. They are not the same class/kind at all.

 

 

 

That classification is wrong, both by observation of offspring and by genetics as I just mentioned above.

 

Quote: "Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was the first person to attempt to create a human–ape hybrid.[9] As early as 1910 he gave a presentation to the World Congress of Zoologists in GrazAustria, in which he described the possibility of creating such a hybrid by artificial insemination.

In the 1920s, Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/nonhuman ape hybrid. Working with human sperm and female chimpanzees, he failed to create a pregnancy." (Wikipedia).

 

That isn't so.Almost every creationist I've ever read says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level. You did not document your statement. 

 

"The biblical kind would be closer to the family level in many instances, but sometimes genus or even species level for others."  Bodie Hodge on June 25, 2010  https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/a-biblically-based-taxonomy/

 

 

"It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family."   Morris, H., The Genesis Record, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1976. p63.

 

Do you need more examples, Calypsis4?  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no organism has EVER been observed to change from one familial type to another. Nor can modern science cause it to happen genetically without a massive failure in the effort.

 

 

 

That's because it takes many thousands of years.  At least that is what is predicted by the ToE.  We don't expect to see it happen in just a few hundred years and that is as long as anyone has been studying this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because it takes many thousands of years.  At least that is what is predicted by the ToE.  We don't expect to see it happen in just a few hundred years and that is as long as anyone has been studying this. 

 

You do realise that you're admitting that evolution is beyond the bounds of the scientific method?... What do you think that means?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realise [sic] that you're admitting that evolution is beyond the bounds of the scientific method?... What do you think that means?...

 

 

 

Can you provide us with a coherent description of your understanding of what the scientific method is and state exactly why evolution is beyond the bounds you describe?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide us with a coherent description of your understanding of what the scientific method is and state exactly why evolution is beyond the bounds you describe?  

 

Simple...

 

The scientific method requires experimentation...

Experimentation is observed, since it is performed in real time and needs to be measurable.

You admit that evolution cannot be observed due to the time-frame involved.

 

Therefore evolution is beyond the bounds of the scientific method due to not being able to be experimented upon due to not being observed and thus not measurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You display a total lack of understanding of what science is and what scientific theories are.  I find it amazing you have made over 6,000 posts in this forum wasting your time arguing against something you don't even understand.  Could you have used your time more productively?  Do you have children?  A girlfriend or a wife who wants to spend more time with you?  My time here is limited because I have only come to show where you are wrong and you may accept it or reject it, it really doesn't matter to me.  I was invited to participate here.  What reason do you have for wasting all this time arguing against something you have conclusively demonstrated you lack even a basic understanding of?  Evolution goes on without you.  Evolution doesn't care a bit about how gilbo12345 rejects it.  

I feel sorry for you.... sort of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You display a total lack of understanding of what science is and what scientific theories are.  I find it amazing you have made over 6,000 posts in this forum wasting your time arguing against something you don't even understand.  Could you have used your time more productively?  Do you have children?  A girlfriend or a wife who wants to spend more time with you?  My time here is limited because I have only come to show where you are wrong and you may accept it or reject it, it really doesn't matter to me.  I was invited to participate here.  What reason do you have for wasting all this time arguing against something you have conclusively demonstrated you lack even a basic understanding of?  Evolution goes on without you.  Evolution doesn't care a bit about how gilbo12345 rejects it.  

 

I feel sorry for you.... sort of.  

 

Are you going to address the argument? Or attempt to blather on and ignore it?

 

Because what I can see is that you are dodging the issue.... Does this mean that my point had merit, since you refuse to address it?

 

 

You display a total lack of understanding of what science is and what scientific theories are. 

 

Demonstrate this point or retract it... However I find it interesting at how I could have a tertiary degree in science yet not understand science or scientific theories? Did I just fluke all my exams? All my practicals? And even my Honours research project?

 

Or are you attempting to dodge the issue and push your failures onto your opponent?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 Bill, : What reason do you have for wasting all this time arguing against something you have conclusively demonstrated you lack even a basic understanding of?  Evolution goes on without you.  Evolution doesn't care a bit about how gilbo12345 rejects it.  

 

 

Bill - you made a claim here - that Gilbo doesn't understand evolution. Have you any evidence to back this up? So far it seems to me that you have raised issues of evolution that we know more than you about. But this is a red-herring tactic also, because it puts the focus on your opponent and removes focus from you. What I usually do with this tactic, is ask the evolutionist accusing the creationist, a set of questions about evolution, so the evolutionist can demonstrate to me they understand evolution.

 

Here are the questions for you:

 

1. What would be beneficial in fighting malaria, the homozygous allele for sickled cells or the heterozygous allele?

2. How would fish regain eyes in an isolated population that lost them. Two words, fill in the blanks: "G--- ----"

3. What is a crocodilomorph, or more precisely, which theory would it belong to, pertaining to our avian friends?

4. Give examples of homoplastic features.

5. State the difference between acquired characteristics and epigenetics.

6. What would be the name for a trait prevailent in a great number of species and kinds of animals, that came from a common ancestor. Fill the blanks, "s----- ------- ---------------"

7. What is the difference between a monophyletic progeny and a polyphyletic progeny?

 

We await your expertise (preferrably quickly, so we know you aren't googling the answers). I should let you know that Mattias, a person with more science than you, could not answer my questions.

 

Anyone with HALF a knowledge of evolution, should know them all EASILY given I, the ignorant creationist, know the answers having invented the questions.

 

Evolution does not go on without Gilbo, because it never began. First you must show it began to say it "goes on" is called a question-begging-epithet. I suggest you mean that adaptation goes on, and so equivocate with the term, "evolution", but you have yet to show the node on your nested hierarchy, by showing us a progenitor for the coelacanth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because it takes many thousands of years.  At least that is what is predicted by the ToE.  We don't expect to see it happen in just a few hundred years and that is as long as anyone has been studying ..

 

 

mike the wiz: So I compared my friends superman-claims with the claims of evolution:

 

"If you are superman, why is there no evidence, why can't we detect you or record you flying?"

 
Ans: In fact I can only fly at one speed, which is instantaneous speed. No measure or device can detect me, it is not possible to ever give a demonstration.
evolution's answer: Evolution happens too slowly to be observed, over millions of years, it can't be observed.

 

The problem is Bill, "NOTHING" can also happen over a great distance of time. So if you are saying that, "NOTHING" is your best evidence for evolution, then my answer is: LOL!

 

Your reasoning is circular:

 

Evolution is true. It takes thousands of years so we can't see it, or measure it or show any of the transitionals that should be there, therefore evolution is true.

 

Superman is true, it takes super-nano seconds, we can't see his speed or agility by any device, and there is no evidence he exists, there superman exists.

 

Both lines of reasoning rely on, "NOTHING".

 

Think about it - how can anyone logically differentiate between evolution happening and it not happening, if time hides it? In other words, how can I falsify your statement that it is too slow to observe?

 

It is not possible to falsify it because if evolution is false, it would also be too slow to observe, but because it wouldn't exist. It's like saying, "if I am superman I will have many friends that I have secretly told about it". The problem is, you would also have many friends you told it to, if you were also lying, and were not superman.

 

You need to study basic logic Bill. 

 

Nevertheless you are quite wrong, and ignorant of evolution-studies, Bill, for they have manipulated fruit flies and bacteria for hundreds of thousands of fruit-fly years and bacteria-years. It seems you think that all lifeforms have the same rate of reproduction. Lol! Did you know that in 25 human years, if birds reproduce every year, that would be 25 generations of bird. Which means hundreds and hundreds of bacteria-generations have passe in the lab, and there is no sign of macro-evolution. No sign of a new method of flagella. Just the same microscopic anatomy that previously existed, with the rotary motor of flagella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The biblical kind would be closer to the family level in many instances, but sometimes genus or even species level for others."  Bodie Hodge on June 25, 2010  https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/a-biblically-based-taxonomy/

 

 

"It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family."   Morris, H., The Genesis Record, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1976. p63.

 

Do you need more examples, Calypsis4?  

 

 

 

 

No, but you are still wrong. Why don't you try telling us which of the nine definitions of 'species' that have been given by evolutionists since the time of Darwin that you subscribe to.

 

Quote; "Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages,[12] this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[13] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[14] and this is called the species problem.[15]Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species of concern.[15] (Wikipedia).

 

Your charge is like the pot calling the kettle black. I think you need to get your own house in order (definition wise) before you throw stones at us over the word 'kind'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You display a total lack of understanding of what science is and what scientific theories are.  I find it amazing you have made over 6,000 posts in this forum wasting your time arguing against something you don't even understand.  Could you have used your time more productively?  Do you have children?  A girlfriend or a wife who wants to spend more time with you?  My time here is limited because I have only come to show where you are wrong and you may accept it or reject it, it really doesn't matter to me.  I was invited to participate here.  What reason do you have for wasting all this time arguing against something you have conclusively demonstrated you lack even a basic understanding of?  Evolution goes on without you.  Evolution doesn't care a bit about how gilbo12345 rejects it.  

 

I feel sorry for you.... sort of.  

 

That statement tells us that you don't know what you're talking about. I have repeatedly seen Gilbo dismantle some of the most knowledgeable evolutionists I have ever seen on EFF and he didn't have a difficult time doing it. The usual scenario is that they try to toy with him at first, get frustrated by his scientific answers and then they lose it and begin insulting him before they either (1) get kicked off EFF for cursing at him or (2) they quit in utter frustration. Your arbitrary attack upon him notwithstanding, he knows whereof he speaks and he can back it up very well.

 

"Evolution doesn't care how gilbo12345 rejects it." You're right. That's because evolution doesn't exist in the first place.

 

Nothing you have posted here has impressed us in the slightest; it would be shallow for you think we haven't been confronted with such things many times before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Calypsis: Nothing you have posted here has impressed us in the slightest; it would be shallow for you think we haven't been confronted with such things many times before.

 

 

That really does get tedious, especially the old, "you don't understand how science works". Talk about an ad-nauseam P.R.A.T.T that never dies even though it is a Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

 

We've had fun over this before Cal.

 

Government: "we have this policy because we are fixing the mess left us by the previous government".

Opposing party: "we still think it's wrong for you to have a policy of eating children"

Government "  "we have this policy because we are fixing the mess left us by the previous government".

Opposing party: "so you think any policy is acceptable because of the previous actions of the previous government? Is it now okay to murder? shall we also create concentration camps?"

 "we have this policy because we are fixing the mess left us by the previous government".

 

P.R.A.T.T

 

(notice how they never die?) Lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill - you made a claim here - that Gilbo doesn't understand evolution. Have you any evidence to back this up?

 

Its interesting how often atheists claim "X doesn't know Y" without providing evidence of such... ;)

 

 

 

Your reasoning is circular:

 

Evolution is true. It takes thousands of years so we can't see it, or measure it or show any of the transitionals that should be there, therefore evolution is true.

 

Superman is true, it takes super-nano seconds, we can't see his speed or agility by any device, and there is no evidence he exists, there superman exists.

 

Both lines of reasoning rely on, "NOTHING".

 

Think about it - how can anyone logically differentiate between evolution happening and it not happening, if time hides it? In other words, how can I falsify your statement that it is too slow to observe?

 

Exactly!

 

Evolutionists assume causation. They cannot know what the cause of their observations is (or are) and thus are required to assume "evolution did it". Here is a thread by that very name, its a pretty long read and involves a few different topics but its pretty good.

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5485-evolution-did-it/

 

 Evolution doesn't care a bit about how gilbo12345 rejects it. 

 

Yes it doesn't since it isn't a conscious entity... And thus is incapable of caring....

 

Why do atheists keep trying to personify things?

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6411-half-baked-predictions/?p=123021

 

 

 

or (2) they quit in utter frustration. Your arbitrary attack upon him notwithstanding, he knows whereof he speaks and he can back it up very well.

 

Thanks Cal.

 

 

I'm predicting, (see I'm doing this for a future event, just so Bill can see an actual prediction ;) ), that Bill will do this quite soon considering his previous response and how he has completely ignored the argument given.

 

However I'd like him to prove me wrong, frankly I'd like him to honestly grapple with the arguments presented, rather than dogmatically cling to his beliefs. What do people do when evidence changes? They change their mind.

 

 

Quote; "Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages,[12] this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[13] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[14] and this is called the species problem.[15]Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species of concern.[15] (Wikipedia).

 

 

This is very very much the case for prokaryotes due to horizontal gene transfer as it means a bacteria is potentially capable of testing as (or being) multiple "species" at different points in one lifetime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gilbo: Its interesting how often atheists claim "X doesn't know Y" without providing evidence of such.

 

It's what Mike Summers would call arrogant, because how can anyone know the knowledge of the other person without testing it? As you can see, Bill hasn't answered my evolution-quiz. In the thread, "Does Gilbo understand evolution", I also provided Mattias with a list of questions. What this shows is that I understood more about evolution as a creationist, than the evolutionist claiming I didn't understand evolution, because how could I know the answers to those vital questions? Mattias back-tracked and gave some bluff and bluster, but he couldn't answer my questions. I find that amusing, because most evolutionists claiming creationists don't understand science, are laymen themselves, without much knowledge of evolution, and a few technical terms only a study of evolution could give you knowledge of, quickly has them discombobulated. :)

 

It's a neat way of turning the focus back on to the accuser, because all of a sudden they are on the stand an you are the lawyer. It is a clever way of turning an unfair burden-of-proof back on to the accuser.

 

I think it is also an ad-hominem argument because it focuses the attentions of people, onto the people that don't accept evolution, as though making out that the problem isn't with science, so the problem must be with creationists.

 

You don't have to convince me you understand evolution Gilbo Baggins, I can see that ere long you have studied it, anyone with an average IQ can see you have a good grasp of the issues but thanks for the link I enjoy your elegant style of writing and focusing and isolating the issue that count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what Mike Summers would call arrogant, because how can anyone know the knowledge of the other person without testing it? As you can see, Bill hasn't answered my evolution-quiz. In the thread, "Does Gilbo understand evolution", I also provided Mattias with a list of questions. What this shows is that I understood more about evolution as a creationist, than the evolutionist claiming I didn't understand evolution, because how could I know the answers to those vital questions? Mattias back-tracked and gave some bluff and bluster, but he couldn't answer my questions. I find that amusing, because most evolutionists claiming creationists don't understand science, are laymen themselves, without much knowledge of evolution, and a few technical terms only a study of evolution could give you knowledge of, quickly has them discombobulated. :)

 

It's a neat way of turning the focus back on to the accuser, because all of a sudden they are on the stand an you are the lawyer. It is a clever way of turning an unfair burden-of-proof back on to the accuser.

 

Thanks for the tip :)

 

 

I think it is also an ad-hominem argument because it focuses the attentions of people, onto the people that don't accept evolution, as though making out that the problem isn't with science, so the problem must be with creationists.

 

It certainly is since it isn't focusing on the argument given, rather the person who made it. (So I guess this is yet more examples of logical fallacies that Bill resorts to using).

 

Even IF an argument was proposed by someone who knew nothing about everything, that doesn't make the argument invalid since it could well be a valid argument. As the saying goes a broken clock is correct twice a day ;)

 

 

You don't have to convince me you understand evolution Gilbo Baggins, I can see that ere long you have studied it, anyone with an average IQ can see you have a good grasp of the issues but thanks for the link I enjoy your elegant style of writing and focusing and isolating the issue that count. 

 

Thanks Mike :)

 

I'm not too fussed about how people see me, (if I did I wouldn't argue against the paradigm ;) ), though thanks for your encouragement, it is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gilbo: Even IF an argument was proposed by someone who knew nothing about everything, that doesn't make the argument invalid since it could well be a valid argument. As the saying goes a broken clock is correct twice a day

 

It's a good point. A syllogism is sound even if a madman argues it. If the premises are true, the form is valid then the syllogism is sound. 

 

I wonder if Bill knows that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good point. A syllogism is sound even if a madman argues it. If the premises are true, the form is valid then the syllogism is sound. 

 

I wonder if Bill knows that?

 

Thanks.

 

Many atheists / evolutionists, (most of the ones I see here), don't care. They will automatically believe that because a Christian / Creationist has claimed X then that means X MUST be incorrect. Come see a recent example of this here ;)

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6398-barriers-preventing-micro-macro/?p=123076

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gilbo: Many atheists / evolutionists, (most of the ones I see here), don't care. They will automatically believe that because a Christian / Creationist has claimed X then that means X MUST be incorrect.

 

I know. I really do see a blindness in people that disturbs me. It's 100% denialism, it literally will not matter what you say to Fury-Fjuri, I have debated him and others, they will accept nothing IMHO. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE: "Micro" bears are found in the Cambrian. These bears are animalcules, they are quite brilliant and baba-ish, they can survive the most hostile conditions and are less than a millimetre in size, they are nick-named micro-bears because they actually have eyes, organs, a brain, etc...a real-life micro-animal. CMI posted an article about them, I have added them to our list of unchanged organisms: It should be noted that none of these listed animals have any evolutionary ancestors. As I have said before, this is only my own compilation and will NOT represent the true size of the list which will be much, much more extensive.

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tuatara Lizard - (200 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

UPDATE: "Micro" bears are found in the Cambrian. These bears are animalcules, they are quite brilliant and baba-ish, they can survive the most hostile conditions and are less than a millimetre in size, they are nick-named micro-bears because they actually have eyes, organs, a brain, etc...a real-life micro-animal. CMI posted an article about them, I have added them to our list of unchanged organisms: It should be noted that none of these listed animals have any evolutionary ancestors. As I have said before, this is only my own compilation and will NOT represent the true size of the list which will be much, much more extensive.

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tuatara Lizard - (200 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)

 

 

And this is an argument against evolution? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is an argument against evolution? Why?

 

It's like asking:

if humans are created from dust and dirt like the bible says, why is there still dust and dirt?

 

I am pretty sure they know the answer,

They just fail to apply that same answer to their question.

  • Like 1

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