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

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

It's just not sinking into your Grey Matter is it?

 

His Agreement/Disagreement about his beliefs are Irrelevant.

Of course his beliefs are relevant. If you're trying to use his authority as a fossil expert to support your point, you need to be sure that he actually meant what you claim he did. Proving that a literal interpretation of a sentence could support your point isn't enough, especially when the author himself says you've got it wrong.

 

So he didn't mean...

 

1. New fossils are fitted into a Pre-Existing Story.

 

2. The chain of Ancestry and Decent ARE a completely human invention created after the fact.

 

3.  The physical record IS  "modest".

 

4. Each fossil represents: an Isolated Point, no knowable connection to other given fossils, and FLOATING AROUND in a OVERWHELMING SEA OF GAPS!

 

If so, then he probably shouldn't have wrote it then, eh?

He didn't mean it in a way that would contradict "we have ample evidence to show that humans have evolved", which is what you appeared to have been using that statement to argue against when you first presented it. As I told you before, I don't disagree with anything he said, I disagree with your interpretation of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course his beliefs are relevant. If you're trying to use his authority as a fossil expert to support your point, you need to be sure that he actually meant what you claim he did. Proving that a literal interpretation of a sentence could support your point isn't enough, especially when the author himself says you've got it wrong.

 

 

 

I'm done attempting to explain this over and over and over again.  I'll leave it rest with Bonedigger.

 

 

He didn't mean it in a way that would contradict "we have ample evidence to show that humans have evolved", which is what you appeared to have been using that statement to argue against when you first presented it. As I told you before, I don't disagree with anything he said, I disagree with your interpretation of it.

 

 

1.  You (or Henry Gee) can't even define the theory of evolution.

 

2.  Nor can either of you: Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a viable Scientific Theory.

 

So how in the world can you (or Henry Gee) have "evidence" of something that's Undefined in the First Place?

 

This is My Point....and has been My Point, since I started this Journey years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? The man was inconsistent with his own statement and it's just like what Colin Patterson (of the British Natural Museum) replied to criticisms of his own neo-Darwinian comrades who were angry at him for being so candidly honest with creationist Luther Sunderland in his statements about evolution THAT HE LATER felt compelled to tone down his remarks greatly so that they would all feel justified in pooh-poohing those same candid remarks. In other words he embarrassed himself by being so truthful and felt it necessary to wiggle himself out of the corner he painted himself into. I remember it well. The same thing happened with Stephen J. Gould who made it exceedingly clear that there was no evidence for slow and gradual evolution and he openly promoted 'punctuated equilibrium' of the species. He likewise was very candid about the weakness in the theory, the lack of fossil evidence. But later he likewise felt it necessary to reassure his comrades that he did still believe in Darwinism. 

Let's see what the man himself has to say on this topic, shall we?

The sad thing is that no matter how hard I fight, the creationists will still take quotes out of context, because that’s the way they do what they call “science.†Like all pseudoscientists and peddlers of charlatanry, they don’t investigate anything systematically. They just pick out the things they like and discard anything else, even flat statements to the contrary. Now, I could try quoting scripture out of context to show how such a procedure can be used to mislead. For example, “There is no God.†3 But that approach might be too subtle. That said, I refuse to modify my thoughts for fear of being quote-mined by idiots.

 

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

(bolding mine)

When confronted by creationists, they (scientists) are inclined to close ranks and present a united front of “fact†against “mythology.†Such a strategy only plays into the creationists’ hands, leaving them free to mine the works of evolutionary biologists for quotes— the subtext being that scientists are always squabbling behind the scenes, and the united front they want you good honest folks to believe is a cover-up. In my view the best way that scientists can confront creationism is to be as honest as possible. Science is not all about truth given to us by authority, but doubts that arise from the ground up. You, the citizen, should never be afraid to ask a silly question— and you, the scientist, should never be afraid to admit that you don’t know the answers.

 

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

Does this sound like someone who would backpedal for the sake of reassuring his colleagues?

 

It doesn't matter to us if you all think we are stupid or ignorant because we aren't going to let you (any of you) get away with this stuff. 

I am well aware that you don't care about looking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done attempting to explain this over and over and over again.  I'll leave it rest with Bonedigger.

 

1.  You (or Henry Gee) can't even define the theory of evolution.

 

2.  Nor can either of you: Post ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a viable Scientific Theory.

 

So how in the world can you (or Henry Gee) have "evidence" of something that's Undefined in the First Place?

 

This is My Point....and has been My Point, since I started this Journey years ago.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had read this years ago, finally found it...

 

Andrew Snelling PhD Geology:

 

Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution.

Andrew Snelling PhD; The Revised Quote Book 1990

 

And this one lol...

 

Michael Behe (Professor Biochemistry Lehigh University)...

 

4) Coyne complains the book is "heavily larded" with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don’t know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants?


 

 

That's where I'll leave it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Case Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Case Closed.

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

 

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

LOL That's a classic. :gigglesmile:

 

Thanks for posting that Enoch.

 

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

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis." 

 

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

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

It is not teetering on the verge of collapse.

 

 

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

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

It has not failed as a scientific explanation. 

 

 

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

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

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

 

 

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

 

Then

 

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

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

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

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

Name One....?

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

It works, and it works well.

 

 

How so....?

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

Please VALIDATE.  SEE: Scientific Method 1/ea

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

Thanks for the Colorful Anecdote.

 

And...Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks for your "Opinion".

 

 

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

 

 

Well Good, because Biblical Faith is....

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your "Opinion"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

:rotfl3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Fred Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Fred Williams

 

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

 

 

 

Goodbye then.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

Goodbye then.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

Yes....I Know:

 

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

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

oy vey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes....I Know:

 

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

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

oy vey

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

He means this...

 

Lineage -- a :  descent in a line from a common progenitor.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lineage

 

 

However, evolutionary science....

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

If you care to refute, then....

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

And btw...

 

everyone who studies evolution professionally...

 

 

Who are these people?  "scientists"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years. (the below picture shows the fossil compared to a live one;
 
post-2116-0-49443800-1488552240_thumb.jpg
 
 
The point in showing the shovelnose is that it's obviously a distinguishable Ray, which it would seem, had fully diverged from others, even 150 million years ago. Examples of specialized creatures throws tomatoes in the face of the reasoning that says you will only find more ancient specimens by example. But no matter how far you push back organisms in time, even the modern ones are identical and fully diverged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                               UPDATED LIST OF FOSSILISED ORGANISMS THAT HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR, 'MILLIONS' OF ALLEGED YEARS, SHOWING ZERO MACRO EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.

 
 
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years
Mayfly -  97–110 million years.

Moss - 330 million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 UPDATED LIST OF FOSSILISED ORGANISMS THAT HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR, 'MILLIONS' OF ALLEGED YEARS, SHOWING ZERO MACRO EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.


 

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 

Gingko Trees (125 million years), 

Crocodiles (140 million years), 

Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 

The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 

Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 

The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).

Avocets (65 million years)

Wollemi Pine (150 million years)

Ferns (180 million years)

Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)

Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)

Jellyfish (500 million years)

Alligators (75 million years)

Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)

Turtles (110 million years)

Gladiator Insect (45 million years)

Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)

Starfish (500 million years)

Bats (48-54 million years)

Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)

Pelican Spider (44 million years)

Shrimp - (100-300 million years)

Rabbitfish - (150 million years)

Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)

Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)

Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils

Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)

Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)

Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)

Sharks: (450 million years)

Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)

Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)

Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--

non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--

Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html

Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html

Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html

Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))

Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html

Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)

Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)

Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)

Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)

Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.

Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.

Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years

Mayfly -  97–110 million years.

Moss - 330 million years,.


Gastropoda (snails and slugs) - Cambrian

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