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

A List Of Unchanged Organisms Showin Zero Evolution

Recommended Posts

 

 

Wibble: 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

 

Logically and rationally it's absurd for those who have an understanding of claims, and what they are, mean, their burden-of-proof level, etc.

 

If you are going to make a claim that humans came from apes, and that every mammal on land originally stemmed from a fish, and that all things that fly either evolved from things with legs or de-novo wings, rather than exapted features, then to show simply the complete things but never how the things came to be, isn't good evidence to back that claim. 

 

In the exact same way we can use identical logic, using the same standard (rather than a double standard or special pleading), to say that if someone claimed to be superman, the evidence of a normal ability to walk like a man, perform like a man, doesn't match up.

 

It's very clear logic. I see no reason to treat evolution theory as special.

 

 

 

Wibble: 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.

 

Yes I know what you argue evolution is and why different lineages would be more stable than others such as no environmental pressure from change, however what evolution argues, and what reality is, are two different things. It seems to me a lot of evolutionists tend to struggle and conflate the two as one and the same thing. So actually I am going beyond just the hypothetics, and weighing them against reality. We all know the hypothetics, "but evolution would do this, and that," but they can be adequately described as posteriori excuses, argued circularly. Example of circular reasoning;

 

"evolution predicts change, but also not change, and here we have no change, therefore that is proof of evolutionary stability."

 

EQUIVALENT argument:

 

"My snooker theory predicts an orange ball, but also there can also be a lack of orange balls, and here we find no orange ball therefore that is proof of my orange ball theory that snooker sets include an orange ball."

 

I think you don't quite get that what the "reality" is showing, if we are to think in terms of your analogy, is that water is only collecting in pools and it never manages to flow anywhere even where the path of least resistance seems obvious.

 

Your claim is the water flows down hill, the facts only show it oddly collects in pools. If an odd liquid only collects in pools and shows it cannot flow, is it not, "absurd" to then say such evidence is good reason to also believe it flows? As a hypothetic you can argue both, but if you argue from the facts there is no flow. The claim requires something more than hypothetics, if the claim is that the most mind-blowing aerodynamical designs invented themselves.

 

In other words, if the fossils only show things staying the same, and for what would be incredibly long eons of time, is it not then absurd the claim fast and significant change can happen in 5 million years? Especially when lots of things in that record have generation times a hundredfold quicker? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you don't quite get that what the "reality" is showing, if we are to think in terms of your analogy, is that water is only collecting in pools

Er no you could argue a particular phenotype of jellyfish collected in a pool but you can't claim the same for chordates, for example. And you continue to be in denial with all the transitional forms we have, which you just dismiss as 'mosaics', even though they pepper the geological record in the correct places that make sense from an evolutionary perspective. I mean, what would it take for you to personally consider a transitional valid ? To keep asking for transitionals and then when shown them to just assert they don't count doesn't seem to be very honest to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: Er no you could argue a particular phenotype of jellyfish collected in a pool but you can't claim the same for chordates, for example. And you continue to be in denial with all the transitional forms we have, which you just dismiss as 'mosaics', even though they pepper the geological record in the correct places that make sense from an evolutionary perspective. I mean, what would it take for you to personally consider a transitional valid ? To keep asking for transitionals and then when shown them to just assert they don't count doesn't seem to be very honest to me.

 

So you can show how a chordate became a chordate? You can show pre-bat transitions? Pre-pteradactyl, pre-pterosaur, pre-insect wings, etc? We've had this discussion before, what is truly not, "very honest" is for you to continually ignore the mathematics that prove slothful-induction fallacy is argued for the purported, "transitionals". You offered up 250 transitionals by wiki. Not only are they not proven to be but they would represent 0.8% of the fossils. You also argued in the past that there are, "multitudes" of transitionals, and I said to back that claim, you need multitudinous examples. 

 

You're playing a weak hand Wibble, there aren't any transitional forms for the above listed, unchanged organisms. As for mosaics, they qualify in that something which has features not in transition, but whole features from "either fish or amphibian" are by definition, chimeric

 

To  your mind if one organism is in lower rock then another type in higher rock, that is sufficient for an evolution but thin air isn't a transitional.

 

 

 

.Wibble:  I mean, what would it take for you to personally consider a transitional valid ?

 

I think you've picked up the issue right there, a transitional has to be something clearly in transition between two anatomies. A transitional feather wouldn't be a feather it would be something between scale and feather proving an in between transition occurred. Showing for example, a variety of birds or a variety of bats, won't represent any transition. How did for example, an insect wing become an insect wing? What were the transitions? What about a sea-anemone dart eating slug? It eats darts, they go through it's stomach and up to it's back. Without the biology in place, why would natural selection choose slugs that ate darts? What would the use of the pterosaur's elongated finger be before flight? Picking it's nose?

 

With each and every one of these things you have to invoke an imaginary scenario where massive numbers of trial-anatomies would have existed since evolution has no prescience. It's just not very believable, rationally speaking, nor does it match the record.

 

Conclusion: As you have demonstrated with your post, all you can really do against the evidence I have shown, is SAY evolution is there. Is SAY the transitionals are there. You assert victory, and assert I have been shown the transitions, where I have not been shown them. Just saying you win, isn't sufficient, and only counts as bare assertion.

 

Wibble, if you believe evolution happened that's fine but if you are trying to convince me it did with words, by saying evolution is there, and saying it shows itself, well, that isn't going to convince me, no. So sometimes I wonder what the point in your posts are other than to declare propaganda for evolution, and ASSERT that it is victorious. You have to stop being such a SPIN-meister my lad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also argued in the past that there are, "multitudes" of transitionals, and I said to back that claim, you need multitudinous examples.

Yeah you requested them, I did what I was asked and gave you multitudinous examples, then you turned round and accused me of elephant hurling :rotfl3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: Yeah you requested them, I did what I was asked and gave you multitudinous examples, then you turned round and accused me of elephant hurling

 

But no you didn't give what was requested, and this is equivocation. I didn't request a LIST of alleged transitionals, I requested examples of genuine transition. So that is to change the meaning of the request. Do you seriously believe that in a court of law if someone claims to have a list of people who are all evil incarnate, like Mother Theresa and other benevolent people, that it follows you have supported the request to show they are evil because you gave a list of names?

 

This happened yesterday when I said to someone, "oh no there is no brown sauce in, only fruit sauce and I like brown", and their rebuttal was this; "fruit sauce is brown."

 

They CHANGED the meaning. I was not talking about the colour of the sauce but the flavour. In the same way when you claim there are multitudes of transitions, that means you have examples where you can show a clear, transition. Though I am being optimistic I suppose, in hoping you understand what the term, "transition" actually means? As I described earlier, it doesn't mean having complete features of a mammal and complete features of a duck, like say a Platypus. It doesn't mean having complete features of a tetrapod and complete features of a fish either. It means transitioning features between two complete anatomies, not complete features from two complete types of anatomy. (chimeric)

 

So no, you didn't provide the transitionals Wibble, you provided 0.8% of the fossil record which is a list of CLAIMED transitionals, and even if they all were transitionals you would still be arguing slothful induction fallacy because all of the transitionals in history would still be 99.2% missing in action.

 

The problem is you don't seem to understand the numbers involved, generally they are missing.

 

Another error is to believe that if you show something relatively simple can evolve that you jump to the conclusion that something more sophisticated therefore can. (Hasty generalisation)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to make a claim that humans came from apes,

No.  We make the claim that humans ARE apes.  Just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc.

 

The point is that we must first agree on definitions.  This is the core problem with the whole "transitional" issue.

 

Now, we may argue about what is, or is not a transitional.  My position is that if one expert looks at a fossil and says it's an older species because of a, b, and c then another expert looks as the same artifact and says it's a newer species because of d, e, and f, it's entirely possible you have a transitional fossil.  This is especially true when both experts are of the same "worldview."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no, you didn't provide the transitionals Wibble, you provided 0.8% of the fossil record which is a list of CLAIMED transitionals, and even if they all were transitionals you would still be arguing slothful induction fallacy because all of the transitionals in history would still be 99.2% missing in action.

 

The problem is you don't seem to understand the numbers involved, generally they are missing.

If it is as much as 0.8% then I think that's pretty impressive. I've explained to you before why, logically, we shouldn't expect to find a high proportion of transitionals in the fossil record (for example, here, post#36). We should expect the main population of a given species, with mixing of genes, to tend towards stasis. It is disjunct, peripheral populations in sub optimal habitat that will tend to evolve rapidly. Logically, a small population evolving quickly is not very likely to leave behind fossil specimens for us to find, especially given that sedimentary rock generally represents snapshots of time, rather than a continuous record. In contrast, the much larger main population, stable over a long period of time is much more likely to leave fossils behind, with a given species showing little change in the sedimentary record over the five million years or so that the average species survives before going extinct. So for the 250,000 documented fossil species, only a very small proportion of these are transitionals. However, paraphrasing Gould, we have an abundance of fossils representing transitionals between major groups.

 

How do creationists account for transitionals such as Basilosaurus, one of a beautiful sequence of whale fossils ? It had vestigial hind limbs the size of a human arm, which would have been of little use for locomotion.

 

Basilosaurus_Egypt.jpg

 

Basilosaurus_isis_hindlimb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are going to make a claim that humans came from apes,

 

No.  We make the claim that humans ARE apes.  Just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc.

 

The point is that we must first agree on definitions.  This is the core problem with the whole "transitional" issue.

 

Now, we may argue about what is, or is not a transitional.  My position is that if one expert looks at a fossil and says it's an older species because of a, b, and c then another expert looks as the same artifact and says it's a newer species because of d, e, and f, it's entirely possible you have a transitional fossil.  This is especially true when both experts are of the same "worldview."

 

 

"No. We make the claim that humans ARE apes"

 

Speak for yourself Monkey Boy..Real Christians want no part in your demonic blasphemy that tries to portray God as an Ape... You are ANAMETHA to us.

 

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

Richard Dawkins

 

 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

 

Gen 1:26-28

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wibble, if you believe evolution happened that's fine but if you are trying to convince me it did with words, by saying evolution is there, and saying it shows itself, well, that isn't going to convince me, no.

Yes I know whatever I say won't convince you because you have made your dogmatic stance very clear, you started a thread admitting this.  It is not possible for any amount or quality of evidence to convince you that evolution has occurred because you believe in creation, and that's that.

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6703-no-evidence-could-convince-me-evolution-occured/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you are going to make a claim that humans came from apes,

No.  We make the claim that humans ARE apes.  Just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc.

 

The point is that we must first agree on definitions.  This is the core problem with the whole "transitional" issue.

 

Now, we may argue about what is, or is not a transitional.  My position is that if one expert looks at a fossil and says it's an older species because of a, b, and c then another expert looks as the same artifact and says it's a newer species because of d, e, and f, it's entirely possible you have a transitional fossil.  This is especially true when both experts are of the same "worldview."

 

 

"No. We make the claim that humans ARE apes"

 

Speak for yourself Monkey Boy..Real Christians want no part in your demonic blasphemy that tries to portray God as an Ape... You are ANAMETHA to us.

 

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

Richard Dawkins

 

 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

 

Gen 1:26-28

 

Yes Blitzking this is exactly why any attempt of co-mingling or entwining Erroneous Evolution to our Biblical narrative utter fails. There is absolutely NO WAY around this dilemma by any means. This is a literal statement and there is no wiggle room what-so-ever. To even try to rationalize it to conform to any evolution the 'Theist Evolutionist' must commit intellectual suicide. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ICR: None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement. However, (snip) whales do have a spinal up-and-down undulation. When did this happen? Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of (snip) whales? This is quite significant! The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea.

 

Blue highlight = Correct example of a transition between anatomies.

 

Example of a pseudo-transition; "This species was an ancestor of a whale because it superficially looks like it might have been as it seems to have some similar features." (Example of reasoning; platypus shares features with a duck, ergo must be an ancestor to a duck.)

 

To read my position on defining true examples of transition, according to the correct meaning of the word, 'transition' in relation to anatomical design, please read posts #3, #4 and #5 here which are short and easy to understand;

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6687-defining-transitional/?p=136150

 

(I am not debating today and I am not debating it any further here in this topic, which is mostly a place to post the updated list of unchanged specimens which lack their transitionals.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Wibble: Yes I know whatever I say won't convince you because you have made your dogmatic stance very clear, you started a thread admitting this.  It is not possible for any amount or quality of evidence to convince you that evolution has occurred because you believe in creation, and that's that.

 

My actual statement, from the thread;

 

 

Sure, you can try and convince me a car or helicopter made itself. I won't accept any argument/evidence you give, because I know that to ever accept "evidence", as proof of such a thing, would be absurd, would it not?

 

Or are you saying you are open to the possibility of superman and a flat earth? Just admit it, you would understand all the arguments/evidence for a flat earth but you would still realise it would be insane to accept that evidence as meaning the earth is flat.

 

(snip)

 

This is what I am saying - that no quality of evidence, no exclusive evidence, can allow you to affirm-the-consequent. There is no proof, and only proof will cut the mustard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you are going to make a claim that humans came from apes,

 

No. We make the claim that humans ARE apes. Just as we are primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc.

 

The point is that we must first agree on definitions. This is the core problem with the whole "transitional" issue.

 

Now, we may argue about what is, or is not a transitional. My position is that if one expert looks at a fossil and says it's an older species because of a, b, and c then another expert looks as the same artifact and says it's a newer species because of d, e, and f, it's entirely possible you have a transitional fossil. This is especially true when both experts are of the same "worldview."

"No. We make the claim that humans ARE apes"

Speak for yourself Monkey Boy..Real Christians want no part in your demonic blasphemy that tries to portray God as an Ape... You are ANAMETHA to us.

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

Richard Dawkins

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Gen 1:26-28

Yes Blitzking this is exactly why any attempt of co-mingling or entwining Erroneous Evolution to our Biblical narrative utter fails. There is absolutely NO WAY around this dilemma by any means. This is a literal statement and there is no wiggle room what-so-ever. To even try to rationalize it to conform to any evolution the 'Theist Evolutionist' must commit intellectual suicide.

"Yes Blitzking this is exactly why any attempt of co-mingling or entwining Erroneous Evolution to our Biblical narrative utter fails. There is absolutely NO WAY around this dilemma by any means"

 

Yes but that doesnt stop Satan from selling his poisonous lie that masquerades as "Science" to weak mindedness or treachery among us..

 

From my experience it is about 50/50 between Atheists pretending to be Christians so they can propogate the enemies poison (Wolves in sheeps clothing) and People who who dont have nefarious motives but have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to the point of no return.. The kind of people that if they were in Sauls shoes on the Road to Damascus and saw the light, they would STILL keep on walking towards Damascus ANYWAY..

At this stage, as you can surely see by now, Facts and evidence are worthless.. One must pray for these people as it will truly take a miracle from the Almighty God himself to change their minds...

 

 

 

 

 

Hebrews 11.1; "Now evolutionary faith is The substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of transitionals unseen."

 

"Theistic" can mean a lot of things in my opinion, and one of those things it usually means is "atheist" especially if "evolutionist" comes after it. - mike the wiz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The neverending list of unevolved, unchanged organisms with no evolutionary history. (In blue highlight is examples of even FURTHER pusch backs in time, sometimes by tens of millions of years, from previous finds. The logical point is that no matter how far back in the record we find them, they remain unchanged and show no evolution history. So for example with salamanders the earliest find they pegged at 60my but now they find them in rock they believe 120my, which leads to the obvious conclusion they didn't evolve, because if you can push them back that much and just say "they evolved earlier" then evolution becomes unfalsifiable gibberish.

 

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)

 

DISCLAIMER: OBVIOUSLY some are extinct but they are found in layers earliest/latest meaning they would have existed for millions of years according to evolutionists, unchanged while they were extant.

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