Living fossils expose evolution

Who is Dr. Werner? Where are the page images you are posting taken from?(also, please could you reply to message 46)

Show us an old world fruit bat.

I would kindly suggest you go back to the topic post and read it. It will give you the information you are seeking.Have a nice day.

If creationists could magically make things true by saying them, then creationists would be right more often. And you distinguished between them.You said that some species have radar and some have sonar. If you were using "common colloquial terminology", then what distinction did you mean to draw between them? Preferring truth to falsehood may seem a little "oddball" to you. Round here, however, you'll find it's normal. It's this sort of custom that we have, where we prefer not to talk arrant crap about biology.If you want to fit in round here, you should maybe think about trying that yourself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You will probably never understand why that was so funny.But since you ask: There is, I suppose, little chance that you will say "thank you". After all, you didn't say "please".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Why do you think this is relevant or helps your argument?"Is that a serious question? Have you read everything I posted in context? If so they you should know the relevance of it by now.But for those whose minds have not been tainted with accidentalist thought: to display the fossil record of those organisms that have living offspring which reveals little change over multiplied millions of yrs and understanding that each of those organisms appeared abruptly in that same fossil record is devastating to evolution.Once again, it should be as easy to prove evolution as it is to prove that this: Evolved into this: But what is easy to prove historically concerning autos cannot be done as it concerns biological organisms. Proponents have to use clever artwork and manipulate facts to fill in the gaps.

If you have ever worked with bacteria, protists, and the like you will know that external appearance is probably the worst possible way to distinguish genera, families, sometimes even phyla. For example, the Ciliophora (protozoans like the famous paramecium)contain members that cannot be reliably identified to subclass without tedious and careful fixation to illuminate the number and structure of feeding grooves. These structures are unlikely to ever fossilize. Your author could have easily shown a fossil ciliate and a living one and claimed no change but we would no way of telling if the fossil were even distantly related to the living specimen despite 'identical' appearance.Bacteria are even worse. Fossil bacteria, despite amazing preservation, still allow us to only see the gross external morphology. Microbiologists use a number of chemical assays to determine even higher level identification of bacteria. Genetic studies have furthered our understanding of just how diverse 'bacteria' really are, splitting them into two kingdoms. I would challenge you that if I showed you two ESM photos of bacteria from two different kingdoms you could not tell me which was which.Your fossil blue-green is Palaeolyngbya. Just fyi, this genus is linked to the Oscillatoriaceae only because some fossils show what is interpreted as the 'sheath' characteristic of this family. Even if they do belong to this family it does not 'expose evolution' as Mark24 said here, evolution does not expect everything to be changing gross external morphology.You really may want to start critically examining your source. Despite your denial it has been wrong on all examples you gave and fraudulent about Gobicodon. I do not have this book (although I will get it) but so far it seems to be the same material presented at the Harun Yahya pages and fails by the same standards. I do look forward to your addressing my points in Message 25, especially about Gobicodon and the Eryma crayfish.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Yes, of course. Earliest found of each were in the Triassic. The oldest fossil mammal is dated to around 221Mya and the oldest fossil dinosaur to around 228Mya.Important Dates and Cool Creatures in Earth History, Educational Resources for K-16This is easily looked up information.

Ah, I see. Thank you.Dr. Carl Werner "received his undergraduate degree in Biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa cum laude. He received his doctorate degree in Medicine at the age of 23. He was the recipient of the Norman D. Jones Science Award and is the Executive Producer of EVOLUTION: THE GRAND EXPERIMENT video series" according to his website.So his biological education extends only to degree level, the Dr referring to medical training not to a PhD in any science. Well, that would explain his bizarre notion that scientists don't think mammals lived alongside the dinosaurs, I guess.What's this "Norman D. Jones Science Award" that he's so proud of, Calypsis4? The only references to it I can find are in his biography and as an (unanswered) question trying to find out what it is.

Coming back to the issue of mammals: A rather damaged fossil of a tiger skull compared to a modern tiger skull: As one can see: the shape, contour, symmetry, and teeth are basically the same with only minor differences. The point being that they are both tigers. Tigers did not evolve into non-tigers.

But you do not explain why your garbage about "living fossils" should be "devastating to evolution". You just keep saying over and over that it is, as though reciting a falsehood often enough will magically make it true.If you have any reasoning, now would be an excellent time to explain it.P.S: As your other falsehoods about the fossil record are off topic, I am not going to address them here. Please concentrate on being wrong about "living fossils". Thank you.

So let the 'scientists' who believe in evolution do what I am doing. Let them post the transitions between each organism. Since there are seemingly no end to the number of fossils in the world then it should be no problem.

Yet, on another website I was sternly challenged by evolutionists to prove that mammals and dinosaurs were contemporary. Hmm, I guess it depends on which group of accidentalists one talks to and where they were educated.

Wow, you've discovered that the skull of a tiger looks like the skull of a tiger.This will produce a revolution in biology. Or not. Well of course not. Duh. Tigers are the modern, not the ancestral species.And your point, if you had one, would be ... ?

Is this something that you made up, or can you link us to this fabled website whereof you speak?