Living fossils expose evolution

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.

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?

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.

Who died in 1975. You don't think that, maybe, our definition has "evolved" since then as we learn new things? Science isn't static, it changes as new evidence and information comes to light. You don't even say where that quote comes from, if it comes from a popular press book, or something for the lay person, it is an ok, if simplistic definition, though not one that current, actual biologists would use. It is an ongoing investigation. As such, there will be people with different ideas, who subscribe to competing "child" theories, if you will. They agree on the major framework and just quibble over the fine details, devising experiements, making predictions and testing both against the real world. As such, people are going to have differing definitions and these are going to change, relatively quickly, as new things are learned. This is one of the biggest strengths of science, not a problem as you're trying to frame it.But as to the only point of mine you cared to respond to, evolution says that a species will adapt to better fit its environment. If it does so, and is very well adapted to an environment that doesn't change significantly, how and why would you expect the organism to change drastically? Any drastic change to a well adapted species in a static environemtn would make it less well adapted, thus resulting in that offspring not being as competitive and its genes would not be passed on very far. Once you understand how natural selection works, this is quite obvious, 10th grade type stuff.

So, you rejected a theory that doesn't say anything about the origin of life because you found an origin of life theory to be lacking in evidence?This is akin to rejecting Christianity because it suddenly occurs to you that blue isn't all that great a color as you had previously thought. It's a non-sequitur.

Which is out of date and out of context. We're not saying "this organism did not evolve at all." We're merely pointing out that if an organism didn't change much from a long time ago to now, it doesn't disprove the ToE because in a static environment, evolution would predict very little change. We've also been pointing out that the pictures your supplying do, indeed, show changes, and they have been pointed out to you. The fact that you seem to think these changes "aren't enough" is a problem on your end, and is not one to the ToE. Why don't you tell us how much change you would expect a specific organism to go through and why, and we'll explain to you how much we would expect and why, and let's see which one makes more sense. We show the tips of branches, and the bases of branches. The lines in between them are a recognition by scientists that they don't have every organism that ever died. They're also loath to put an extinct organism in the direct lineage of a living or later organism because while they may know without any reaosnable doubt that an organism like what they have evolved into the later one, they don't know if it was, in fact, that very species. They may be holding a species that was a dead end, but a cousin species was what evolved. It's an admission of scientific tentativity, which again, is a hallmark fo science and not a reason to reject it.As a "science teacher" you seem to be very uninformed on what science is, how it is carried out, and what it's conclusions mean.

Ok, now where on here does it say how much change must be seen? No where? Oh, then I guess saying that the amount of change is neither predicted nor required by evolution wasn't wrong? As you recall, that was the point I was making which led you to quote the definition you did. Thanks for finally ceding me the point.

Sir, you leave me with my mouth hanging open. How could you possibly have done any worse? The bat example alone is worthless. There's nothing to answer. It shows exactly what evolution predicts for more primitive bats. They are still bats...just as evolution predicts.Seriously, you're quite a joke...though a very aggravating one. You keep claiming that "living fossils" destroy evolution. Claiming that we've been hit with an atomic bomb and a sledgehammer. When we show you an excerpt from none other than DARWIN himself, not just predicting living fossils, but actively hoping for them as they would seriously bolster his theory, you ignore it, claiming that living fossils are the death knell of evolution.When you are told that evolution predicts living fossils, that many are known, and that they are used as a proof of evolution, you ignore it at best, or call us liars and blinded by our ideology. Well, doctor, heal thyself. You seem to be the one unable to let go of an idea despite all the evidence thrown at you with the strength of a wrecking ball. Perhaps the weight of all the evidence against you has hit your head so hard you can't think logically...I can only hope this is a temporary affliction.But, for the last time:Evolution predicts gradual change (meaning not much from generation to generation) to make a species better adapted to their environment (meaning, they'll reach a point where they are all but perfectly in tune with their environment, the place they live). If the environment changes, the organisms will either die out, or they will begin to adapt to the new one. Ok, you seem to understand what evolution is saying about this...but you seem to stop short of actually thinking logically about the obviopus next step. What happens if the environment doesn't change drastically? WHY oh why oh why would the organisms change in that circumstance? They would only become LESS adapted, if they've already been adapted to it. Any change would be bad, therefore it would be weeded out. Ok, now that I hope I've drilled that into your head, you are in the position of refuting my post. You do this, not by flat out denying it, as that goes round and round for ever and ever amen. What you need to do is provide evidence that this is not what evolution predicts. Either lay out, in a logical fashion, why you would expect an organism to change in an unchanging environment, or concede the point, because we all know you're wrong, and the more you argue the point without giving us any reason whatsoever to change our opinion, the more foolish you look.