Living fossils expose evolution

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.

Then we have this: Which is right across the page from this:

Sir, respectfully; The whole point of the 'living fossil' issue is that there is no evolutionary change in any organisms into another kind of organism and there are NO transitional forms. The one cannot be separated from the other for that is the very point I am attempting to make here.Thank you.

Appearance, function, homology, etc. are all factors. But the homology of organisms that have been dead for eons of time is very difficult unless we happen to come across a T-Rex with soft tissue and viable blood cells.But the point of the bacterial fossil I posted from the lab of U Cal Berkeley above was made by U Cal Berekely; there is little difference. Bacterium are known to change within genetic limits but never become anything else but bacterium.

Pardon the expression but it appears that we are not on the same page. I don't know how to make my point clearer than I did above.Have a nice day.

Yes, but I do have the reference. It was from AOL pictures of tiger fossils, p. 3. not hyenas. If there was a mistake it was AOL and not I. I have not used 'Harun Yayha'.Edited by AdminNosy, : To use "standard" quoting technique. Please use Peek to see how this was done.

Then we have this: The thing that surprised me after coming across Dr. Werners illustrations was just how extensive the evidence is. But Werner's work doesn't even represent half of what is available as far as living fossils are concerned.

"Now which point are you trying to make? When we know that we can maintain the focus of this topic."I don't mean to be unkind but I don't understand why you even brought up the matter in the first place. The first and main point is that there is no evolutionary change. BUT...that lack of change is seen in TWO things (a) visible anatomical changes are small or unchanged and (b)there are no transitional forms that reveal that such a change has occurred. Both are subpoints to my main contention.Sorry, but I am confused about the reasons for your question. Nonetheless, I will comply as best I can. I have never seen a discussion in which each of the above mentioned subpoints were not freely discussed.

"Icarosaurus is a diapsid in the extinct order Eolacertilia. The modern flying lizard, Draco, is in the order Squamata which includes true lizards, worm lizards, and snakes. So while a similar gliding mechanism is used, these are very different 'kinds' of animals."Really? So why do Russian scientists place them in the same category as 'gliding lizards'? BFP 404Of course you will have to do a lot better than they did and fill in the huge gaps between supplying the necessary stages between the different organisms. Clever artwork isn't going to do it.But then I suppose it depends on which evolutinary scientist one talks to, the opinions vary so widely.And who determines what is a 'true lizard'? The point is that they are both lizards. Didn't you notice that Dr. Werner pointed out that they were different species of lizard ("Now compare the different genus names in blue". Why did you overlook that? Well, you are missing the point of the whole thread to begin with so why should we be surprised?But you are free to post pictures of the step by step changes from gliding lizards (be they Icarosaurus or draco, take your pick) to another kind of organism.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Well, I just can't please everybody.I think the enlarger serves the purpose pretty well, but thanks, friend. I will keep it in mind.Have a nice day.

(Scrath, scratch) Uh, why should I have to?I'll give the hint one more time:This... evolved to this? Those changes are testable, repeatable, and observable to all. However, the changes were each made by intelligent designers.So...! What did this: evolve from....or evolve into?What did this; evolve from or evolve into?What did this: evolve from or what did it evolve into?Unless clear anatomical and/or morphological changes from one kind of organism to another can be observed then we can conclude a stasis among related kinds (no evolution).

To the other readers:(pssst, whisper whisper)...the bats...are still bats!

Now for what may be even more damaging to evolution than what was previously posted: fossils encased in amber, Compared with its living offspring: So what did this species of ants evolve from?

Everything I have posted is against evolutionary change of one kind of organism to another kind. The same genetic limitations that will allow a dog to interbreed and produce a mixed canine offsrping will not ever produce a non-dog. That is the point you are missing.Interesting that lions can breed with tigers and produce a liger but ligers are hybrid. Hmm. Horses can breed with donkeys and produce mules. Yet mules are also hybrid. Genetic limitations. The living fossils reveal the truth of those limitations that God made upon nature. And nature will not violate that law of its own accord no matter what the skeptics think otherwise.But you're still welcome to post photos of the stages in between dogs and non-dogs if you can. How about cows? How about Lions, & tigers,
& bears? If you could do that I would have to say, "Oh, my!"