Post Reply
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question 10 - How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:31PM #1
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,613

iama:  Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.

.
The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:34PM #2
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:31PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

.


Ask yourself why species change and the answer should be obvious.


Needless to say, if creationism were correct, all modern animals would be living fossils. They aren't.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:43PM #3
d_p_m
Posts: 9,836

Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:31PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”
.



Quote mining again, I see.


Of course, anyone familiar with Gould's work will immediately know that he does not mean that evolution is in any way in doubt, but rather that the stability of species is a phenomenon that both must be explained by the details of the mechanisms of evolution, and a clue to the nature of evolutionary change.


In other words, he is talking about why 'punk eek' is the mechanism for most speciation.


Thats all.


Now if you understood Gould's work, you'd also have the true answer to your question.


Maybe you should read a couple of his books? They've very good, and not hard to readl

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr


“Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews


“The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of Greece and Rome—not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world were alike despicable.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:58PM #4
Abner1
Posts: 6,387

iama wrote:


> Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

Actually, they probably have changed.  All that a "living fossil" is is a creature that hasn't changed its gross anatomy (i.e. skeletal structure or shape of leaves) over a long period of time.  That doesn't mean it hasn't changed its biochemistry, surface coloration, or other structures that are rarely fossilized.  If a creature has a relatively unchanging environment and the ways in which its environment changed wouldn't favor a change in gross anatomy, there's no reason why the gross anatomy would change.  Even then, there are going to be some changes.  For example, the two coelacanth species known now are *not* identical to the coelacanth species of 400 million years ago; they're just more similar than most species would be after such a long time.


No problem for the theory of evolution whatsoever; the theory of evolution does *not* say that all species have to change their gross anatomy dramatically over time.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:58PM #5
d_p_m
Posts: 9,836

Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:31PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.



1. We warned you before. The CMI web site is essentially science-free, filled with lies and bullshit.


2. An MD is not a scientist.


3. Go read some real science, and expand your mind.


"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr


“Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews


“The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of Greece and Rome—not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world were alike despicable.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 7:29PM #6
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,613

Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:58PM, d_p_m wrote:



See linked-to article: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation


d_p_m: 1. We warned you before. The CMI web site is essentially science-free, filled with lies and bullshit.


2. An MD is not a scientist.


3. Go read some real science, and expand your mind.



iama:  Bully-type communication isn't scientific.


Creation scientists refuting evolution speculations are scientifically based.  If you don't like that fact, then, you refute with your scientific data.


Biology was stated; not just medicine. Didn't you read that part of the article?


Shame on you!  A trained scientist travels the world researching his hypothesis and you Trash Talk their results!


Did you read the conclusion resulting from the research re: dinosaur fossil bed-fellows?


Evolution disproved?


I asked Dr Werner if his study disproved evolution.


“It is becoming more and more difficult for the evolutionary model to stand in the face of this great number of living fossils. Adding the many other problems with evolution (fossil record, origin of first life, geological layering problems, similarities of non-related animals, etc.), you can declare with confidence that yes, the theory is finished. If a few larger mammals were found in the dinosaur layers, it should be over even for the die-hard believers of evolution, but people tend to go to their grave with the theories they learned in college. A new generation might well look at all of this and ask, ‘What were they thinking?’ ”



iama: Your shoddy science behavior, surely, isn't missed by your fellows!


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 7:42PM #7
d_p_m
Posts: 9,836

Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:58PM, d_p_m wrote:




d_p_m: 1. We warned you before. The CMI web site is essentially science-free, filled with lies and bullshit.


2. An MD is not a scientist.


3. Go read some real science, and expand your mind.



iama:  Bully-type communication isn't scientific.


Creation scientists refuting evolution speculations are scientifically based.  If you don't like that fact, then, you refute with your scientific data.



There are no creation scientists, and we've already explained why... as creationists they have abandoned science because they believe the bible before the data. They assume the bible is correct. The creationist world view has been proved wrong millions of times over, and we've given you the data on that, too.



Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Biology was stated; not just medicine. Didn't you read that part of the article?



You still don't know what a scientist is. An undergraduate degree is not sufficient. And someone who is practising emergency medicine isn't doing science.



Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Shame on you!  A trained scientist travels the world researching his hypothesis and you Trash Talk their results!



He's not a trained scientist. He has neither the training, nor the professional experience, nor the peer reviewed pulications.



Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Did you read the conclusion resulting from the research re: dinosaur fossil bed-fellows?




Yes. It's bullshit. So full of holes that it would be amusing to watch a real paleontologist tear it apart.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr


“Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews


“The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of Greece and Rome—not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world were alike despicable.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 7:48PM #8
Abner1
Posts: 6,387

Iama wrote:


> Creation scientists refuting evolution speculations are scientifically based.


Well, this one actually does have an undergraduate degree in biology - I'll give him that much.  He has no training in paleontology and has never (as far as I can tell) published a single scientific article.  I've already answered your question about what living fossils mean and what damage (none, as it turns out) they do to the theory of evolution.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 8:23PM #9
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:29PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Bully-type communication isn't scientific.



Then why do you do nothing but bully, bully. bully? You never enter into an honest discussion. You never listen to anything anyone else says. You never acknowledge when you're wrong. You just shriek at them like a demented fanatic, slander anyone who disagrees with you, and clutter these boards with endless extracts from a website of no scientific merit and even less moral integrity. You seem to think you can justify your wretched superstition with nothing more than noise and bad temper repeated ad nauseum.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:13PM #10
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,613


iama: Following are two Evolutionists' answers and CMI's rebuttals.  Did anyone, here, give the same answer?


Evolution is not falsifiable as the following evidences:



10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?


Answer 1: When creatures find no need to adapt to changing circumstances, they don’t change.


Rebuttal: So evolution explains if creatures don’t change, and it explains if they do! How convenient. See Question 12 with a quote from one of the world’s leading organic chemists, the late Philip Skell.


But surely mutation would work at the same rate in the populations that had unchanging environments, and if eight mutations per year were being fixed in the population as argued in the above answer, this would mean that most, if not all, species would be subject to radical change over time. How could these species not change in light of the species evolving around them, some of which, including bacteria, would be trying to make a meal out of the species in stasis? Also, evolutionists believe that environments changed drastically over millions of years, while some creatures in these environments didn’t change? See also Evolutionary Stasis: Double—Speak and Propaganda.


People take an animal’s environment to mean things like the temperature, pressure, salinity (for marine and fresh water organisms), O2 concentration, etc. So it’s not inconceivable in their mind for an environment to stay roughly the same for millions of years. But once one stresses that a creature’s predators, and their prey species (if carnivores) or plant food (if herbivores), are very much part of their environment, as are their parasites and other pathogens, suddenly it gets even more ludicrous that the environment would stay constant for eons. There are species of all of these categories not only migrating in and out of the area, but also supposedly undergoing all this evolutionary change themselves.


Answer 2: Worms didn’t change into humans—we still have worms today. Rather, worms and humans have a common ancestor, if you go back far enough.


Rebuttal: Tell that to the evolutionist who wrote the article “We were once worms” (cited here).


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook