Living fossils expose evolution

Pretend. That's all you're doing. How convenient to claim evolutionary changes with some...even fantastic change like ape-like creatures to modern man, and yet no changes in so many other organisms. Neat. Maybe the name 'evolution' should be changed to 'flexilution'. So you are a 'flexilutionist'! You bet I will. And I am going to convert some people doing it too just like I have in many other places. But those people will be the ones who are not emotionally committed to evolutionary accidentalism.Edited by Calypsis4, : correction

You are deliberately ignoring the weight of the evidence. There is nothing that can be done for the mind that is wedded to what cannot be verified scientifically and yet still believes it.Now, I will continue to reveal that there is no evolutionary changes in living organisms because evolution does not exist and never did. Even if it did exist then it would be in violation of natural law. That, I will touch on later. And then this: But the point was missed from the very first beat...post #1. I posted evidence that the bat has not evolved and that it appeared abruptly in the fossil record and what do my opponents do to 'overthrow' this point? They post pictures of bats!! (oh, excuse me; 'old world bats'). Boy, howdy, isn't that a gem for evidence to prove I am wrong?

Oh, but it is. Not only so but the so called evolution of man from a common ancestor with the ape is not legitimate. My study of the issue is just one of the reasons I tossed out that ridiculous theory. You need to do the same.For instance: concerning Australopithecus, Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago did what was perhaps the most thorough job of examining australopithecus and stated clearly that the specimen was not related to anything living today. Nature, Vol. 258, pp. 389-395. He was not the only well known scientist who ruled thumbs down on australopithecus. Sir Solly Zuckerman also disagreed with those who claimed a transitional form.It takes so much time and effort to go through the whole ridiculous line of so-called evolution of man that I won't do it here unless I am pressed to do so. These things have been written on for decades and I don't think I can add anything to this that you probably haven't read yourself before.By the way: which one is the REAL Zinjanthropus man? The imagination of the average 'flexilutionist' seems to have no bounds.The whole thing is a huge joke and I have been laughing at it for about 40 yrs.

Retired."Let slip"? Gosh, you're catching on slowly. And what are your motivations for being here? It couldn't possibly be to convert poor, ignorant, fundamentalist beleivers in an intellegent Creator God now could it? (wink).

And why should I have to explain to you something you already know?Nonetheless, it is a similarity often attributable to common origin or a likeness in structure between parts of different organisms.

That is bunk. I didn't switch my brain off when I accepted the Lord as my Savior. In fact, my mind switched on.But the last blow to evolution did not come from the Bible or arguments of my Christian friends. It came from Isaac Asimov who, in the 'Wellsprings of Life' promoted the concept of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. And his evidence that this momentouos event occurred in nature? None. I knew after reading that book that evolutionists were living in a fairy land of make-believe.

Funny. You didn't quote Oxnard. You quoted someone who was interpreting Oxnard. I reject your reasoning. I only touched on the many reasons to reject the so-called 'evolution of man'.

You mean THIS geologic column: 247 million yrs of missing strata. Is that a bit of a problem for evolutionary geology? But that is by no means the only one...I will bring that out also.But we are off topic so let's get back on.

Go back and read the definition of evolution by Sir Julian Huxley.It is disgusting to me how modern evolutionist believers play the switching game..."this organism evolved over millions of yrs with real change" to "This organism did not evolve at all". Never mind the fact that although the tips of the branches of the evolutionary tree are visible but the stages in between (branches) are invisible in the fossil record!

Oh, here we go. Another adherent to accidentalism that swallowed that lie. It's called 'chemical evolution', friend; and it has been since the days of Alexander Oparin in the 1930's who coined the phrase. Notice the title of his book: "The Origin of Life on Earth". Hmm, reminds me of Dean Kenyon's book trying to prove the evolution of life from non-life in "Biochemical Predestination". But alas, Kenyon converted and tossed out his own book.Don't try and sell me that bill-of-goods.But we are off topic. Back to the subject now.

Oh, a time or two somewhere. I laughed when I read your answer.Take a look at these photos, please: And... Do you know what those angular piles of sediment are at the foot of each plateau? That's erosion. All agree, right? Now...where is the rest of the untold billions of acres of erosion that is missing between the millions of square miles of such plateaus throughout the southwest USA?I personally took those pictures while I was on the field and I was presented with a panoramic view of that missing sediment.I would suggest you think this over again, very carefully.But I am being pulled off topic again.

No it isn't. By no means!Quote: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny (From the FreeDictionaryonline)Quote: "1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny." (Biologyonline)Don't even go there.

My mind is very tired from being on so long.I will be back tomorrow.Best wishes to all.

"Do you mean they equate to (or nearly to) the taxonomic classification of family in that kinds will tend to fall between order and genus and that we should see no possible examples of transition between orders?"Thanks for the friendly attitude.Answer: That's close. Understand that the Linneaus classification system, though I utilize it often and think it is good, is still merely a matter of human opinion. So I am not married to classification as something infallible.Some organisms are so 'way out there' and unlike anything else that it is hard to properly classify them at all.Gotta run. Thanks. Bye now.

One more thing before I step out of the office and head home:Your statement reveals the depth of naivete you are afflicted with. Far from being a 'straw man' it can be more likened unto the atomic bomb on evolution. Minds that are clouded with accidentalist thought can't see that. They don't wish to see it.Nonetheless, I wish you well. Bye.