Living fossils expose evolution

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

What's your excuse for this?

Once again: does your notion of kind correspond to the scientific category of family? That is, if two things fall into different families are they of different kinds?

pssst, whisper...they're also still mammals, and still vertebrates, and still animals...in fact, that's exactly what evolution predicts. If they turned into anything not bats, you'd disprove evolution and win a Nobel Prize...so thanks for not posting something contrary to evolution.

Pssst, whisper whisper ... no, actually, let's shout it from the rooftops ... by definition, evolution will never ever remove any lineage from a clade that it's in.I'll tell you another dirty little secret ... humans are still eukaryotes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your fossil ophiuroid is Ophiopetra, probably O. lithographica if the locality is accurate. Ophiopetra is an extinct genus in an extinct family (Aplocomidae). It does belong to the extant suborder Chilophiurina.Ophiopholis, an the other hand (btw, the photo is of Ophiopholis japonica, I have seen thousands of these on deep sea corals) is an ophiuroid but a completely different suborder, Gnathophiurina.Unlike bacteria, the carbonate skeletons of echinoderms fossilize very well and we can resolve their taxonomy with fair accuracy. Your brittle stars are different suborders with dramatically different features.

---

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"

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?

Assuming that your statements are accurate, and that's a big "if", then what you have proved is that ants look like other ants.We knew that.You also say that this observation is "damaging to evolution".You have still not explained why.As I said, you can stop posting pictures now. We concede, freely and without reservation, that species look similar to their ancestors. What we are waiting for ... what we are all agog over ... is how you are going to pretend that this is "damaging to evolution".Now, would you actually like to tell the darn lie that you've cooked up in the recesses of your brain, or are you just going to show us pictures proving that what we know to be true is true?

Probably something like Sphecomyrma, an 80 myo ant that combines features of modern ants and vespoid wasps. Another beautiful transition between forms! You can read the full text of the species description hereNow please explain the Gobicodon and crayfish examples, and discuss the other examples you have given before posting more. I will say again, not one is really even a 'true' living fossil as you are imagining and none damage evolution in any way.

---

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"

Aha.Well, ok. I admit my mistake. I should have known better then to question the truths set forth by the greatest of prophets. Weird they'd call them old world fruit bat then, but hey, who am I to question learned men...

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

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!"

If I couold do that, I would be disproving evolution. You seem to be abundantly unaware what evolution is, what it says, what it predicts, and what could disprove it. All you are showing is known, accounted for, and indeed proof FOR evolution. Yes, it is interesting. It is also exactly what evolution would predict for two species that have very recent common ancestors. In effect, you are seeing the branching of two new species lines from a common one when you see horses and donkeys or lions and tigers. Come back in a few million years and the decendants of modern horses will not be able to interbreed with the decendants of modern donkeys. You're right. Evolution not only predicts this, but requires it. If you disproved this, you would be disproving evolution. Thanks for providing evidence FOR evolution. Wait, you weren't trying to? Then why are you making assertions that uphold current evolutionary theory? Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about? Is that even a possibility you have considered?

And nowhere does evolution claim this will happen. Uhm yes, that's what hybrid means...Being of two different spcies... Again, yes, that's what hybrid means. Are you perhaps thinknig of the term infertile? Please get your terms straight, that will keep the discussion so much clearer. No not really. The are exactly as we would expect with evolution happening. Not everything needs to change constantly, you know. Yes, so being poofed out of thin air is impossible.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Learned men? I do that all the time. And I find out that even those who have an expertise much better than mine in certain areas can indeed know details that I may not be familiar with but if their basic premise encompassing that field is wrong to begin with then no matter how well they can excel others in describing function or homology then it is no better than natives from a 3rd world country who had never seen a jet before but concluding upon their first view of one that it is a 'great silver bird!'. Such people might, in time be able to class the birds into large red ones, small blue ones, or long and short ones. They could observe that the 'great silver birds' leave chem trails, or that some could even fly much higher than others. But unlil those natives actually come into contact with the jet and its operators their entire basis of understanding is in error.So it is with Skeptic evolutionists. They do not know the Engineer of living organisms nor do have they come to trust His word that He means what He says.

Post your source. Also, we are still waiting for the link to the site you were ridiculed at for suggesting mammals and dinosaurs coexisted. Did adults go to this website too?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts