|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I am an ex-evolutionist who is now a 6 day creationist. Although I think that there are many excellent reasons to reject evolution, perhaps the most effective in convincing people who are not totally committed one way or the other is in the matter of living fossils; that is, those fossils which have living offspring which reveal little or no change despite the supposed millions of yrs between them.
Most of the photo illustrations I will give come from Dr. Carl Werner who in his work Living Fossils: Evolution, the Great Experiment reveals how he made a world tour of various museums and saw first hand the many fossils that still have living descendants and how he obtained candid interviews from the curators and/or heads of those museums. Many of the comments he garnished in his tour brought out statements that fly in the face of the status quo of accidentalist thought. I have hundreds of examples but I begin with this: The oldest fossil bat on record, dated at 50 million yrs old. (Note: I do not accept the time frame of evolutionist conclusions).
Compared with the skeleton of a modern bat:
Notice that the shape, contour, symmetry, and number of phalanges and the head are all the same. So why no evolutionary change in 50 million yrs? The most damaging thing to evolution about this is that there are no transitionals either before or after this bat. Other species have been found of course, but none reveal any change either from another organism or a change into something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
This species of magnolia seems to have no change in 12 million yrs.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. Edited by Admin, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Use new image resizing code.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Next we have this:
The living crayfish appears that it could be used to make the very impress of the fossil crayfish. Again, no evolutionary change of any significance is seen here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Going further:
Compare this skeleton of a modern species of rabbit to what is supposed to be its ancestor millions of yrs older:
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width again using resizable images version
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Next:
Again, we must ask; where is the evolutionary change? Furthermore, where are the transitional forms that supposedly preceeded this organism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Living fossils expose evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Calypsis4 and welcome to EvC.
This species of magnolia seems to have no change in 12 million yrs. Well first, there are two species there, as ought to be clear from the two Latin names, Magnolia magnifloria and Magnolia stellata. Secondly, there are clear differences between the two. You're just not looking at it with a naturalists eye. Look at the two leaves very closely. The one on the left (M. magnifolia) is narrows very gradually as it reaches the base of the leaf. It becomes narrow, whilst still having a little bit of leaf evident either side of the central stem. By contrast, the leaf on the right (M. stellata) tapers very abruptly. It does not have the same narrow, tapering leaf base that M. magnifolia has. Look at this table, a fairly standard comparison system of the kind used by botanists.
Comparing the two leaves, M. magnifolia is clearly more like the illustrations marked "spatulate" or "oblaceolate". M. stellata on the other hand, with its more blunt base to the leaf, looks more like "eliptical" or "ovate" leaves. They are clearly different in this respect. But there's more... The image on the right has an interesting jumbled pattern about its veins, in the top right portion of the leaf. That isn't normal growth. That sparked my interest, so I looked up some images of magnolias. Here's what I found.
Now some of those leaves are distinctly pointed towards the end, a feature that the fossil leaf does not possess. Other leaves are blunter. Most taper somewhat at the base thought not as much as the fossil specimen. Clearly, the modern plant displays some variability in this respect, but it still shows differences from the ancient species. Now I don't know exactly what criteria where used to classify this fossil, nor do I know how many specimens are known to science. What I do know is that comparing two living or fossil organisms is much more complicated than a comparison of two photographs showing a superficial similarity. I'm also a little confused as to how old the fossil is supposed to be. You say 12 million years. The image says "Dinosaur Era", which is just a tiny bit vague. The dinosaurs were around for some 160 million years you know. But "Dinosaur Era" could be as little as 65 million years ago, just yesterday by geological standards. I've got plant fossils on the desk right in front of me that are over 300 million years old. They're of ferns. They look pretty similar to modern species as well. The fact is that some species just don't change that much over 300 million years. There's no need. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precludes this. If a particular form is effective in the survival game, it can persist, changing little, for as long as there remains an ecosystem that can support it. The ToE does say that organisms change, but it places no demands on how much or how fast. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Thanks.
But I think you are missing the point. Both are magnolia's. Minor differences don't change that fact. I am well aware of the different species among magnolia's. What I maintain is that neither magnolias (nor any other species) can change into another kind of organism. You attempted to detail some minute differences between the fossil and its living offspring. But let me reveal to the readers just how insignificant such an argument is:
All of these magnolias, being from the same tree exhibit quite a few differences. Notice that despite the differences, the shape, contour, symmetry, and pinnate characteristics is all intact in each. Need I say more? Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Moving on to other examples of the 'non-evolution of the species':
What is perhaps 3 different species of Scorpionfly but the modern offspring has changed very little from the supposedly much older ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Next:
Again, similar characteristics between what appears to be two closely related species but the essentials are all there. Could the shorter legged species indicate an evolutionary change...or perhaps a degenerative one? Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
Next:
Question for evolutionists: How did nature 'know' that the chambered nautilus would 'need' the siphuncle for survival? What aspect in blind natural forces instilled this knowledge into the DNA code in the first place? Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Firstly, I have added a little to the above message by edit. Please take a look. How do you explain the discrepancies in the dates presented? The difference between 12 million years and "dinosaur Era" is quite large after all. Either the leaf is 12 million years old or it is of the "Dinosaur Era", not both.
I am well aware of the different species among magnolia's. What I maintain is that neither magnolias (nor any other species) can change into another kind of organism. Exactly who claimed that the magnolia had changed into anything other than a magnolia? I didn't.
All of these magnolias, being from the same tree exhibit quite a few differences. Notice that despite the differences, the shape, contour, symmetry, and pinnate characteristics is all intact in each. Need I say more? Yeah, I think you need. Your claim was that the tree showed "no change in 12 million yrs". Now you are saying that it shows that much change in an individual. So does the tree change or not? Further, just how much do you know about this fossil to make any judgement about whether it has changed or not? How many specimens exist? What characteristics were used to make the classification? If you don't have that kind of information, then you can't make meaningful comparisons in the first place. Why exactly do you think the magnolia should have diverged further than it has? Why should we expect such a change? I can assure you, the ToE doesn't demand any particular amount of change over any fixed time scale. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Living fossils expose evolution, eh?
Don't you mean "Living fossils disprove evolution?" What about the dead fossils? What about genetics? What about the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study? Don't those count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore those? And I'm sure others will explain your mistake on the "living fossils" argument. (By the way, the term "Living fossils" is more a newspaper/magazine term than a scientific one. Are you going to consider newspapers and magazines as evidence, rather than what is published in scientific journals, to disprove evolutionary theory? Where will this end? Jack Chick comics as evidence against the theory of evolution?) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
My fault. The 12 million yr date was mine. I did that from memory but I was in error on that point.
2. Evolutionists claim that all life evolved. I don't have quotes by biologists about the magnolia in particular but the fact is that there are no transitionals for magnolias from another organism. 3. "Your claim was that the tree showed 'no change in 12 million yrs'. Now you are saying that it shows that much change in an individual. So does the tree change or not?" I am scratching my head and wondering how you missed the inference. Variation within the kind (family) is scientific. We see them in virtually every organism. But the slight differences that you pointed out between the fossil and its offspring doesn't establish a thing as far as determining any evolutionary change. I am not clear whether you think those changes do establish such evolutionary change or not after that statement. Anyway, thanks for the comments. Have a nice evening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined:
|
"Living fossils expose evolution, eh?
Don't you mean 'Living fossils disprove evolution?' Take your pick. "What about the dead fossils? What about genetics? What about the multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of study? Don't those count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore those?" I will cover those points in time on another thread. I can't cover it all at once. "And I'm sure others will explain your mistake on the 'living fossils' argument." They can try but they won't. There is too much evidence and it is too strong for even the best qualified evolutionist to handle. Evolution does not exist on this planet and never did. The preponderance of evidence against it, when honestly considered, reveals that fact clearly. It is the big part of the reason I was converted in the first place. I am far from being alone in the matter. Have a nice evening.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024