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

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

You might be interested to know that they are pushing back the date for the earliest angiosperms (flowering plants). This article pushes the appearance to early Triassic (about 240 millions years ago) 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131001191811.htm

 

But I talked to a couple of other researchers recently. They are working on a cite in a remote part of Russia where they have found clear and definitive angiosperms, fully formed. The strata is early Permian. This work is not yet published, but they are working on it.  

  • 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.

..

 

This is funny.. Reading over the back and forth between Wibble and Enoch from 26 Months ago... Wibble is slightly less dogmatic and certain in tone and assertions however he still clings to his desperate hope against hope as he slowly slides into the abyss of godlessness for eternity...

 

Hopefully he will see he is on the wrong side of history while he still has breath in his lungs.. (There is still time to repent and accept God's grace Wibble)

 

ANYWAY

 

I miss Enoch, I am sorry that he decided to join forces with the dark side... I mean the flat side.... May he be a reminder that the enemy is always at the door, ready to ensnare us and devour us with his lies..(I am talking to fellow followers of Jesus BTW)

 

 

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

 

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A list of evolution survivors! May need to push the octopus back to 165ma. They thought it was an ancestor but now say it's a relative.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161102-this-is-a-fossilised-octopus

It is really quite easy to edit a science fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" All you need is a pencil and a eraser! And then all you need is a few godless dummies to share in your neurotic agreement and give their blessing by way of "Peer Review" and Presto, "Science"! And anyone who doesnt agree with you is a low IQ, Ignoramus who knows nothing about "real science" .. And, Think about it, without a time machine, Who can possibly prove you wrong? Intellectual Fascism is alive and well in the 21st century!

 

 

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

 

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pencil and an eraser, yes. Both necessary until a conclusion is arrived at. No real conclusion in sight, though.

 

Am surprised at 450mya for sharks. Who ever said ya can't stay an ocean wide apex predator for 450my without evolving? Sharks weren't listening.

 

We went from vulnerable herbivores to the dominant form on earth in just 3my!

 

When and how did meat start becoming bioavailable to other organisms, anyway? I forget...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pencil and an eraser, yes. Both necessary until a conclusion is arrived at. No real conclusion in sight, though.

Am surprised at 450mya for sharks. Who ever said ya can't stay an ocean wide apex predator for 450my without evolving? Sharks weren't listening.

We went from vulnerable herbivores to the dominant form on earth in just 3my!

When and how did meat start becoming bioavailable to other organisms, anyway? I forget...

 

Oh it gets even better than that!!

 

According to Darwin's Fairytale, Over the course of "500 Million" Years while

 

SOME Jellyfish were evolving into humans..

 

OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.... JELLYFISH..

 

You cant make this stuff up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Darwin's Fairytale, Over the course of "500 Million" Years while

 

SOME Jellyfish were evolving into humans..

 

OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.... JELLYFISH..

 

You cant make this stuff up..

Looks like you can ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to Darwin's Fairytale, Over the course of "500 Million" Years while

 

SOME Jellyfish were evolving into humans..

 

OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.... JELLYFISH..

 

You cant make this stuff up..

Looks like you can ...

 

 

Don't you dare try to blame ME for YOUR Fairytale..

I know it is embarrassing when I bring up what a lot

of you guys actually believe had to have happened.. :rotfl3:

 

I actually admire your Faith.. If Christians had 1/100 the

Faith that Evolutionists did, the world would be a better

place, that's for sure!

 

 

"It’s long been thought we evolved from sea sponges, but new genetic research suggests that jellyfish-style creatures may have kicked off the human race.

While trying to fill the gaps in the genome sequence of the comb jelly, a gelatinous sea creature similar to a jellyfish, researchers discovered it was related

to all other animal species in the world.In fact, it shared so many similarities, the researchers went as far to suggest the creature may have been one of our

first ancestors. 

The research was carried out by scientists from the University of Miami and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Maryland.

They wanted to create the full genome sequence of a comb jelly to fill in some of the gaps in knowledge about the creature. 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2523249/Did-humans-descend-JELLYFISH.html#ixzz4znwNwLsa 

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2523249/Did-humans-descend-JELLYFISH.html#ixzz4znwEYAaq 

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2523249/Did-humans-descend-JELLYFISH.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

According to Darwin's Fairytale, Over the course of "500 Million" Years while

 

SOME Jellyfish were evolving into humans..

 

OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.... JELLYFISH..

 

You cant make this stuff up..

Looks like you can ...

 

 

Don't you dare try to blame ME for YOUR Fairytale..

I know it is embarrassing when I bring up what a lot

of you guys actually believe had to have happened.. :rotfl3:

 

Says you who believes a snake could speak and lions were vegetarians. Now that’s a fairytale.

 

I expect you think the Daily Mail (often referred to as the Daily Fail over here) which you link to is a leading academic journal but just so you know, the researchers weren’t suggesting that humans descended from jellyfish as the tabloid headline said. The whole genome analysis of a species of comb jelly (which belong to a different phylum to jellyfish) indicated that the comb jelly line is a sister group to the rest of the animal kingdom and possibly diverged even earlier than sponges and therefore are the earliest group to split from the lineage that (eventually) led to humans.

 

So nothing embarrassing, though the evolution of life is astonishing of course, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is funny.. Reading over the back and forth between Wibble and Enoch from 26 Months ago... Wibble is slightly less dogmatic and certain in tone and assertions however he still clings to his desperate hope against hope as he slowly slides into the abyss of godlessness for eternity...

How do you work that one out ? It wasn't my tone and assertions, it was those of a creationist admitting to the evidential strength of the ToE.

 

I miss Enoch, I am sorry that he decided to join forces with the dark side... I mean the flat side....

Is this him ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/93f087a5-33e5-49a5-b36b-0605c3fd2820

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is funny.. Reading over the back and forth between Wibble and Enoch from 26 Months ago... Wibble is slightly less dogmatic and certain in tone and assertions however he still clings to his desperate hope against hope as he slowly slides into the abyss of godlessness for eternity...

 

How do you work that one out ? It wasn't my tone and assertions, it was those of a creationist admitting to the evidential strength of the ToE.

 

I miss Enoch, I am sorry that he decided to join forces with the dark side... I mean the flat side....

 

Is this him ?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/93f087a5-33e5-49a5-b36b-0605c3fd2820

 

No.. Must be a Darwinist.. BTW The president of the flat earth society is an Evolutionist and Global Warming Alarmist.. A Trifecta!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This just might be an example of "Darwinism" happening before our very eyes..........

 

No.. Must be a Darwinist.. BTW The president of the flat earth society is an Evolutionist and Global Warming Alarmist.. A Trifecta!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

According to Darwin's Fairytale, Over the course of "500 Million" Years while

SOME Jellyfish were evolving into humans..

OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.... JELLYFISH..

You cant make this stuff up..

 

Looks like you can ...

Don't you dare try to blame ME for YOUR Fairytale..

I know it is embarrassing when I bring up what a lot

of you guys actually believe had to have happened.. :rotfl3:

Says you who believes a snake could speak and lions were vegetarians. Now that’s a fairytale.

 

I expect you think the Daily Mail (often referred to as the Daily Fail over here) which you link to is a leading academic journal but just so you know, the researchers weren’t suggesting that humans descended from jellyfish as the tabloid headline said. The whole genome analysis of a species of comb jelly (which belong to a different phylum to jellyfish) indicated that the comb jelly line is a sister group to the rest of the animal kingdom and possibly diverged even earlier than sponges and therefore are the earliest group to split from the lineage that (eventually) led to humans.

 

So nothing embarrassing, though the evolution of life is astonishing of course, absolutely.

The Daily Mail didnt just dream this up on their own silly.. They got there info from a panel of Evolutionary Scientists.(An Oxymoron I know)

 

Snakes dont talk any more then young girls speak in low guttural voices spewing filth that they dont have a clue even means..

 

But then again.. You prefer to whistle past the graveyard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail didnt just dream this up on their own silly..

Didn't say they did. However if you prefer not to spread misinformation then it would be better to link to an academic source rather than a tabloid newspaper.

 

Snakes dont talk any more then young girls speak in low guttural voices spewing filth that they dont have a clue even means..

 

Come again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Daily Mail didnt just dream this up on their own silly..

Didn't say they did. However if you prefer not to spread misinformation then it would be better to link to an academic source rather than a tabloid newspaper.

 

Snakes dont talk any more then young girls speak in low guttural voices spewing filth that they dont have a clue even means..

 

Come again ?

 

"Didn't say they did. However if you prefer not to spread misinformation then it would be better to link to an academic source rather than a tabloid newspaper.​"

 

The academic source was linked to the article I posted.. But, of course, you already knew that I am quite sure...  :off_topic: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The neverending list of unevolved, unchanged organisms with no fictional evolutionary history to match, showing macro evolution is quite literally only existent between the ears of evolutionists.

 

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,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)


Gastropoda (snails and slugs) - Cambrian


Nectocaris - mid Cambrian (cephalopod) 500 million years.

Cryptobranchid (salamander) - pushed back to 161 million years (60 million years older than argued)

Grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in plants) in dinosaur coprolites (65 million year old grass)

Anomalocaris - 515 million years. (Arthropod) (Burgess shale)

Large tyrannosauroids (Early Cretaceous, pushed back from late Cretaceous)

Bilaterian burrows - (Many organisms burrow into and disturb soil or bottom sediments of a lake or ocean. This process is called bioturbation and is ubiquitous on the bottom of lakes and the oceans today.31 Burrows of likely bilaterians have been found recently in the late Precambrian of Siberia as old as 555 Ma32,33 and in Uruguay in rocks claimed to be older than 585 Ma.31,34 In the burrows from Uruguay, researchers found evidence of active backfilling, the ability to burrow up and down, and meandering burrows that suggest ‘advanced behavioral adaptations’. This would mean that the evolution of bilaterians was significantly earlier than was recently believed.)https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j27_3/j27_3_79-83.pdf

Bioturbation - (pushed back 45my, to pre-Cambrian from Cambrian)

 

(The organisms highlighted in red are examples of the argument-from-silence fallacy previously argued by evolutionists, that because previously such organisms were not found earlier they concluded they had not yet evolved only to later find them in the, "earlier" layer, proving how poor such reasoning-from-ignorance, is. Or, they are examples of things silent in the periods later than where they are found and so where concluded to be extinct. "living fossils".)

 

I think if most people were not brain-washed by the modern day propaganda, they would look at these overwhelming facts and say; "well it's obvious isn't it from looking at it, things have simply always been what they are, and are created according to kind, to reproduce and replicate themselves since they were created."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading my post in the other thread, do you want to explain why any of these are a problem for evolution Mike ?

 

By the way, what's the big deal with bioturbation in the late Precambrian ? Those Cambrian phyla couldn't have appeared from nowhere could they ? ;)

 

Can you expand on the non marine Ostracod "believed extinct until recently". Ostracods as a group certainly were never believed extinct, I get them in my freshwater samples all the time.

 

Since when was Anomolacaris an "unchanged organism". This is the crux of much of your ignorance/ propaganda I think. Just because it belonged to the higher group Arthropoda that does not make it "unchanged". When was the last time you saw one of these

 

post-2128-0-27076800-1517100321.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading my post in the other thread, do you want to explain why any of these are a problem for evolution Mike ?

 

By the way, what's the big deal with bioturbation in the late Precambrian ? Those Cambrian phyla couldn't have appeared from nowhere could they ? ;)

 

Can you expand on the non marine Ostracod "believed extinct until recently". Ostracods as a group certainly were never believed extinct, I get them in my freshwater samples all the time.

 

Since when was Anomolacaris an "unchanged organism". This is the crux of much of your ignorance/ propaganda I think. Just because it belonged to the higher group Arthropoda that does not make it "unchanged". When was the last time you saw one of these

 

attachicon.gifanomalocaris.jpg

 

 

"After reading my post in the other thread, do you want to explain why any of these are a problem for evolution Mike ?"

 

I Believe that Mike's point would be that NOTHING is a "Problem for Evolution"  It is an unfalsifiable science fiction tale about "long ago and far away" that merely needs a pencil and an eraser to Edit, Change, or even REWRITE if needed.. after all without a TIME MACHINE.. Who can prove you wrong?? :farmer:

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

 

BY JIM THINNSEN

 

 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

 

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

 

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

 

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

 

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

 

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So evolution happens....

 

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

 

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: Can you expand on the non marine Ostracod "believed extinct until recently". Ostracods as a group certainly were never believed extinct, I get them in my freshwater samples all the time.

 

The answer is in your question. OBVIOUSLY they mean a type of ostracod was believed extinct until recently, not all of them. :get_a_clue:

 

 

 

Wibble: Since when was Anomolacaris an "unchanged organism". This is the crux of much of your ignorance/ propaganda I think. Just because it belonged to the higher group Arthropoda that does not make it "unchanged". When was the last time you saw one of these

 

I think the ignorance is all yours, since again you seem to be confused about what I meant. It means that Anomolacaris though extinct, has been pushed back to an earlier date or has a feature of a group which exists before it was supposed to, meaning for the span of it's existence it remained unchanged if it was previously of a younger date. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that if you previously found an earliest fossil of X at say 100 years old and then you found one at 2 million old, that the period between the two dates would give you the, "unchanged" part of what I was saying.

 

I mean to say did you think for example that when I listed large tyrannosauroids, that I also believed them to still be living? That I was saying dinosaurs are living and have remained unchanged? No but rather you can find the same organisms in many layers. For example starfish are in many differently dated layers, the Cambrian, Cretaceous and others, but they remain unchanged. Even if they were not now extant for a long period they would have remained unchanged.

 

With Anomolacaris you have acute vision and compound eyes pushed back to the early Cambrian, before they allegedly evolved.(argument from silence)

 

 

So as you can see it had absolutely nothing to do with ignorance and propaganda, which was a conclusion you came to because you didn't read and understand what I meant properly.

 

 

 

Wibble: do you want to explain why any of these are a problem for evolution Mike ?

 

Because of logical rules. Sure, it's not a problem for superman-theory if your friend who claims he is superman cannot do any of the things superman can do, but will only perform things of ordinary human ability because he is in, "superman stasis" but those of us who employ some type of rational thinking in our minds, will obviously go with the conclusion that all of these, "non-superman" demonstrations, actually support a whole lot of, "not superman". So if you are saying a whole lot of "no evolution" in the rocks is not a problem for evolution theory, I understand, because it's the same with the superman theory.

 

So you are quite entitled to see all this direct evidence against your fairytale as not being a problem to it, just as you are entitled to believe your friend is superman.

 

:gotcha:

 

(m)I mean the guy practically walks straight into my mikey traps BK. Does he think I have no answers for this type of thing? The poor lad!(/m) :acigar:

 

(m = mischief complete)

 

 

Wibble: ignorance

 

Depends what you mean. Since ignorance is ubiquitous and we all have it in some area, it's not necessarily appropriate to highlight it if the person hasn't claimed any great knowledge in one particular area of study. If you mean I am specifically ignorant about the names of organisms/classifications, the groups they're put into, it wouldn't matter if I had not claimed education in that area anyway. 

 

So then singling me out for my ignorance even though I am a person who is frequently correct, seems like a below-the-belt personal attack, from people who are frequently incorrect.

 

You are not informed Wibble, if you try and remember terms so as to give a false appearance that you are scientific. You are a layman atheist, nothing more. Your ignorance will extend to levels greater than my own in many areas however I do not personally attack you. 

 

So then it is time now for all of the evolutionists to stop using this diversionary fallacy of the personal or ad-hominem attack all of the time, as has been going on lately at this site. It would be a shame if the long term evolutionist members were to be banned but it is heading that way. The quality of the posts has definitely took a turn in that direction lately where the evolutionists are close to posting contentless posts, and focusing solely on some type of mendacious character assassination. I assure you the readers won't be fooled into thinking me ignorant, but they may start to see just how disingenuous/mendacious evolutionist atheists truly are when they are put under pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: Can you expand on the non marine Ostracod "believed extinct until recently". Ostracods as a group certainly were never believed extinct, I get them in my freshwater samples all the time.[/font]

 

The answer is in your question. OBVIOUSLY they mean a type of ostracod was believed extinct until recently, not all of them

 

.

Not obvious at all, you should have made it clearer if that is not what you meant. Ostracods as a group (Class) go back much further, to the late Ordovician – there have that one for free.

 

 

Wibble: Since when was Anomolacaris an "unchanged organism". This is the crux of much of your ignorance/ propaganda I think. Just because it belonged to the higher group Arthropoda that does not make it "unchanged". When was the last time you saw one of these[/font]

I think the ignorance is all yours, since again you seem to be confused about what I meant. It means that Anomolacaris though extinct, has been pushed back to an earlier date or has a feature of a group which exists before it was supposed to, meaning for the span of it's existence it remained unchanged if it was previously of a younger date. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that if you previously found an earliest fossil of X at say 100 years old and then you found one at 2 million old, that the period between the two dates would give you the, "unchanged" part of what I was saying.[/font]

 

I mean to say did you think for example that when I listed large tyrannosauroids, that I also believed them to still be living? That I was saying dinosaurs are living and have remained unchanged? No but rather you can find the same organisms in many layers. For example starfish are in many differently dated layers, the Cambrian, Cretaceous and others, but they remain unchanged. Even if they were not now extant for a long period they would have remained unchanged.

 

 

Well then you must have changed the parameters of your list since you started it and not told anyone because this is not what you said before (you only added Tyrannosaurs to the most recent list)

 

I quote: (bold mine)

 

 

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

 

and:

 

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

There it is Mike, what do you have to say to that ?

 

you didn't read and understand what I meant properly.

 

Judging by your own words above, you still think that's the case ?

 

Much of your 'list of unchanged organisms' is ridiculous anyway because of classification level I mentioned on the CMI thread, which you are ignoring. You've got vascular plants on there, you've even gone as far as eukaryotic cells. I mean, how wide are you spreading your net ? Don't you think it a bit dishonest to claim a list of supposed unchanged organisms showing ZERO evolution when in fact you are listing when the first representatives of the basal stem group appear. Tell me, which of those 400 myo Silurian vascular plants exist today ?

 

What you should note in your list is that where you have specific species or genera, then they are relatively much more recent. For the older ones, you resort to your higher level classification trick. Why is there that lower resolution the further back you go do you think, from a flood perspective ? Shouldn't there be equal chance to find named species in the first inundated lower strata as much as later in the flood year, and post flood. Of course from an evolutionary perspective, the nearer to modern times you are, then the more life resolves closer to modern species, as you would expect as you move closer to the terminal branches of the evolutionary tree.

 

So then singling me out for my ignorance even though I am a person who is frequently correct, seems like a below-the-belt personal attack, from people who are frequently incorrect.[/font]

 

You are not informed Wibble, if you try and remember terms so as to give a false appearance that you are scientific. You are a layman atheist, nothing more. Your ignorance will extend to levels greater than my own in many areas however I do not personally attack you.

You're so hypocritical. You frequently denigrate evolutionist posters as incompetent or ignorant or just not clever enough to understand your writings. Any hint of getting some back you get all defensive and fly off on one.

 

So then it is time now for all of the evolutionists to stop using this diversionary fallacy of the personal or ad-hominem attack all of the time, as has been going on lately at this site. It would be a shame if the long term evolutionist members were to be banned but it is heading that way. The quality of the posts has definitely took a turn in that direction lately where the evolutionists are close to posting contentless posts, and focusing solely on some type of mendacious character assassination. I assure you the readers won't be fooled into thinking me ignorant, but they may start to see just how disingenuous/mendacious evolutionist atheists truly are when they are put under pressure.[/font]

I'm not sure if you truly believe this or are just mouthing off from your prostrate position on the canvas but none of this bears relation to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be interested to know that they are pushing back the date for the earliest angiosperms (flowering plants). This article pushes the appearance to early Triassic (about 240 millions years ago) 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131001191811.htm

 

But I talked to a couple of other researchers recently. They are working on a cite in a remote part of Russia where they have found clear and definitive angiosperms, fully formed. The strata is early Permian. This work is not yet published, but they are working on it.  

 

Hi Gneiss girl, any update on those putative Permian angiosperms ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the list of unchanged organisms in the fossils showing that between today and then they have remain unchanged, or that if there are extinct species listed, that while they existed they remained unchanged between the evolution-argued ages of eons they were purported to have existed during that span. None have ever been found to show actual intermediate ancestors. Of course this isn't always consequential but it was never my argument for example, that an Avocet water bird should show ancestors that were theropods. No but rather for all of these kinds of organisms that had to have evolve, they would have originated from previous anatomies modified by descent meaning we can find no intermediates that would have pertained to the original clades progenitor. So then if I mention a number of species of winged insect, while the intermediates for the development of wings might not be expected from one species, you would expect them to be found earlier at some stage but they aren't, and no proper intermediate transitionals are found. (So I think it's important for evolutionists to not be obtuse here, they should know that what a creationist considers a proper transitional is something that transitions according to the definition of the word, "transitional", not merely the selected and convenient candidates evolutionists simply name-tag as transitional.)The point is all of these kinds of organism merely turn up fully formed in the fossil record whether they are name tagged "ancient" or, "modern" or previously name-tagged modern, and they don't show any evolutionary history at all, and they don't evolve either, despite many of them having MASSIVELY quick generation times compared to humans. (100 years is about 5 generations for humans but 100 generations for birds and close to that for many small animals and insects or even quicker. Yet they all don't evolve but remain unchanged.) My argument is this is what we would expect to see not from evolution but creation because the flood would have buried created kinds, a lot of them now extinct but the extant ones would remain the same since there would be no such thing as macro-evolution under this scenario.

 

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))
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,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)

Gastropoda (snails and slugs) - Cambrian

Nectocaris - mid Cambrian (cephalopod) 500 million years.
Cryptobranchid (salamander) - pushed back to 161 million years (60 million years older than argued)
Grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in plants) in dinosaur coprolites (65 million year old grass)
Anomalocaris - 515 million years. (Arthropod) (Burgess shale)
Large tyrannosauroids (Early Cretaceous, pushed back from late Cretaceous)
Bilaterian burrows - (Many organisms burrow into and disturb soil or bottom sediments of a lake or ocean. This process is called bioturbation and is ubiquitous on the bottom of lakes and the oceans today.31 Burrows of likely bilaterians have been found recently in the late Precambrian of Siberia as old as 555 Ma32,33 and in Uruguay in rocks claimed to be older than 585 Ma.31,34 In the burrows from Uruguay, researchers found evidence of active backfilling, the ability to burrow up and down, and meandering burrows that suggest ‘advanced behavioral adaptations’. This would mean that the evolution of bilaterians was significantly earlier than was recently believed.)https://creation.com...j27_3_79-83.pdf
Bioturbation - (pushed back 45my, to pre-Cambrian from Cambrian)
Mastotermes electrodominicus - amber 35 million years. (But also, "modern" termites also in amber, as this is identical to Darwiniensis, which is argued to be ancient. Interestingly the fossils,(or amber) just show the same identical species in the past unchanged with no evolutionary history, the excuse always being that they had already evolved but this is used no matter what they find.)
Trilobites - (unchanged between early Cambrian and Devonian) as wikipedia amusingly puts it, "roaming the oceans for over 270 million years", yes, 270 million years of remaining trilobite, yet we are told humans evolved in 5 million. How absurd.
 
If you are tempted to argue, "this doesn't refute evolution because of evolutionary stasis", THAT isn't my argument. My argument is this isn't the evidence expected for evolution but is the evidence expected from creation, I have wrote about the oxymoron of evolutionary stasis, here; technically it might not refute evolution but I think rationally/reasonably, it is evidence sufficient; I think individually, or for even MANY lineages you could argue evolutionary stasis but I don't think you can argue that as a whole, it should be expected; so I don't think you can jump from the units displaying it, as being stasis to the whole, without arguing a compositional fallacy; "this car part is metal, this other one is, and this one and this one too, and this one, therefore a car is composed of metal entirely." No but rather, whether extinct or extant, whatever you find, stasis is ubiquitous, therefore it is generally explained not as "stasis" but rather it is the rule rather than the exception, where an evolutionary history was alleged to take place, which would NOT be a picture of stasis;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trilobites - (unchanged between early Cambrian and Devonian) as wikipedia amusingly puts it, "roaming the oceans for over 270 million years", yes, 270 million years of remaining trilobite, yet we are told humans evolved in 5 million. How absurd

No, trilobites as a group existed through that period, various orders and species within the group came and went during that time.

 

Why is it absurd for trilobites to exist that long, and for a completely different group existing in entirely different environmental conditions to evolve much faster ? (though of course we did not evolve from a completely different organism in 5 my, it would just be a case of evolving bipedalism, bigger brains and less hair :) )

 

Perhaps an analogy might help. Think of water flowing downhill over rugged terrain. Some water will collect in pools and sit happily there in stability, while some water will find a different route and continue to stream further downhill, perhaps finding a stable hollow at some further point, or perhaps disappearing into the ground. Nature will do different things in different circumstances, so think of evolution as a flow of organism types through time following the contours of their environment, both biotic and abiotic.

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