Living fossils expose evolution

Now 120 posts in we cut to the chase. I see you have come here to preach not actually give evidence. Well if you want to preach head over to the faith forums. Are you taking a few classes at a christian college, because most classes only require you to post 20 messages on "evolutionist" forums.

---

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

On what planet? But this is the kind of thinking that keeps me from returning to the theory of evolution as even a reasonable theory. Showing photo after photo of fossils that have obviously not changed (or very little change) over millions of yrs is 'proof' of evolution?Backwards thinking indeed.It's as simple as this:A 1957 Chevy (in 1957) Compared to a rebuilt 1957 Chevy: What's the difference between the two? The hubs, the fin decoration, etc. But they are both still the same 'species' and 'family'. No one who knows cars will mistake the rebuilt car for anything other than a 57 Chevy. That is because the intelligent engineers who made it. So it is with living organisms. Variations within the kind are according to the design of the Engineer, Almighty God.

Didn't you see this? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

You need to stop your complaining and address the issue. It matters not to me if talk about the Creator/God disturbs you. The facts are there and they don't lie....(right?) The subject of this websiste is creation vs evolution; do you think that such a discussion will therefore leave out talk about a 'Creator'?I am nearly 60 yrs of age and have not been a student for 25 yrs.Now deal with the facts.

Evolution neither predicts nor demands the amount of phenotypical changes for a given lineage over a given amount of time. We can make assumptions about the number of mutations that will happen and the percentage of those that will become fixed, but again, this is not a hard and fast number. If the environmental niche the animal inhabits doesn't change much, why would they need to change much? Evolution predicts they won't. So showing pictures of animals that don't change much makes evolution yawn and say, "Yeah, so?"Second, looking at what's left of the animals in a fossil is a very poor way of knowing alot about how the animal looked. We don't know its coloration, we don't know it's habits, we don't know it's fine morphology (the things that don't readily fossilize, but would be noticeable in a living animal). SHowing me two different skeletons and saying they look similar is like pointing out that Toyotas and Fords both use metal, plastic and rubber in grossly the same shape and saying they all must have been made by the same person. It just don't work that way. Quite right. And no one who knows the type of animal in question will mistake the two examples in any of the numerous "picture posts" you make for being the same species. Before we can even debate this, we need a hard and fast definition of "kind." I would say evolution demands the same thing, I define "kind" as "life that exists on this planet." In that case, all variation is variation within kind, as predicted by evolution.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Do you understand that showing animals in stasis, that have not evolved much lately, doesn't really say anything about all the other animals that have been evolving?

I did! Read carefully please. I even gave the page number.

That is so much balderdash. The definition of evolution according to Sir Julian Huxley. Evolutionists are such chamelions on this issue. They invent arguments that 'prove' the changes from one kind of organism to another and they deny that changes are made in those that won't give them the changes they hoped to see in the matter of living fossils. It's rather disgusting actually.Edited by Calypsis4, : correction, 'transition'to 'transformation'.

They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it.By the way, your little chart vanished from the screen both times you posted it and was replaced by that nasty little red 'x'. I can't comment on what I can't see.

Did you intend that last paragraph to be written in the English language?It is hard to decipher your meaning, except that it is plain that you are very angry at people who know more about biology than you do.

I believe that I have already pointed out that making false statements, even repeatedly, will not magically make them true. Because your words do not have the power to erase reality.

Try this:

Once again: what are in statis? Are you claiming that Families don't change? Species? Genera? What? Don't just say "Kind", what is a Kind? How do we identify it? Are you sticking to your claim that a kind equates to the scientific concept of family?

Ah yes, I was forgetting. You're a creationist. So the fact that you're wrong about everything in particular doesn't stop you from being right about everything in general; the fact that you know nothing about biology doesn't stop you from knowing better about biology than the world's biologists; and the fact that you're talking nonsense doesn't stop you from being absolutely correct.This is because you have a secret arrangement with God whereby everything you say is "His word" ... an arrangement so secret that God himself is apparently unaware of it. For if you were really speaking for God, then he, being all-knowing, would surely prevent you from repeatedly making a fool of yourself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Going further with the fossils in amber that reveal no evolutionary.The phasmid encased in amber: Compared with its offspring: Where in the fossil record do we see phasmids evolving into non-phasmid?