Living fossils expose evolution

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.

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.

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.

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

Next: Again, we must ask; where is the evolutionary change? Furthermore, where are the transitional forms that supposedly preceeded this organism?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"First, do you honestly think that a fair comparison may be made between a fossil specimen and a living specimen based on two pictures? The people who study these things examine the real thing and publish their detailed findings in peer reviewed journals."That is precisely why Dr. Werner visited so many museums and interviewed those who had opportunity to assess the evidence personally. Give me more time. This will all come out this week as I continue to post this information and the interview responses."So that said I'd just like you to clarify your position for us: you appear to be saying that evolution doesn't exist (except within biblically undefined "kinds") because some existing species are similar to older species. Is this correct?"It is not undefined. Not with me and not with creationists in general. I made it clear that 'kind' is 'family'. Just look again carefully."One last question: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you can provide an endless series of pictures that appear to show little change on casual observation. How many picture sets showing change does it take to show that evolution is possible?"They can't. Unless that is you wish to post the so-called evolution of man which is highly suspect or the oft repeated mistake of the so-called evolution of the horse. But in the end of all consideration, besides the terrible comparisons evolutionists make and others that are downright deceptive, all the examples are Equidae (ahem...horses).But that is just the point. Variation within the kind is a scientific observation and all agree on it. We even believe in natural selection. What we don't agree on is that genetic limitations inherent in the DNA will allow for a serious change of one organism into another organism. In other words, we reject this: On top of all that, rodents do not have radar ability. How did nature instill radar in such organisms and sonar in others? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed image to thumbnail to reduce size. Use "peek" to see coding.

"only the other day, I was told that a "kind" was most similar to a "syngameon" or close to a genus."Who told you that? Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level."If the magnolia has changed, it has clearly changed very little, I agree with that. However, you seem to be making the judgement that it has not changed, despite only having a single picture of one fossilised leaf for comparison."You are assuming things. I have more than one picture. This is from the U.S. Geological Survey Team: This comparison was made forty yrs before Dr. Werner's.Then this: From the Maryland Geological Survey. This example could be twin sister to several of the examples I posted of the magnolia tree leaves above. Where is the evolution of the magnolia either before or after it abruptly appears in the fossil record?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed image to thumbnail to reduce size. Use "peek" to see coding.

I know it is called echolocation: "In emitting high-pitched sounds and listening to resultant echoes, the process used in radar technology, bats are able to locate prey and nearby objects. This is the process known as echolocation, the ability they similarly share with dolphins and whales." WikipediaDon't give me that condescending attitude again or your posts will be ignored.Otherwise, have a nice day.

No it is not a strawman. I can literally post hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of living organisms all day for about two weeks. There are no transitional forms between them and they all appear abruptly in the fossil record.What I am revealing is equivalent of finding no changes between this: and this... So hypothetically, if we could not find in available records the existence of a chain of vehicles between the Model-T and the Lamborghini (or any other car for that matter) then how would we prove to future school students that such a change has occurred? We couldn't. But the fact is we have both written records, photos, and human observation that this change has taken place. But that does not exist in the fossil record. Almost all species appear abruptly in the fossil record with nothing preceding them and nothing following. Evolutionists have to rely mostly on clever artwork and a healthy imagination to arrive at their conclusions.It is a very serious problem and sooner or later you and those like you will have to bite the bullet and admit the reality.