K/T Nightmare

[YEC]

Living fossils such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs do an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. The question is, how did these “living fossils”...animals and plants ...survive the many millions upon millions of years with virtually no change? Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions upon millions of years.

Some evolutionist will argue that these species found a special “ecological niche” and despite the enourmous amount of mutations that they say would have occurred naturally in those millions upon millions of years they were some how not exposed to the pressures presented by normal evolutionary change.

According to the old earth uniformitarian theory the whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when a big time major world wide ecological “niche” changing event happened after a meteorite slammed into the earth, ...but, some how, species such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs apparently weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event.
Despite this catastrophic event it is amazing that the evolutionist still claim that these living fossils conformed to their very own particular ecological niche. Some how they were able to pass through this world wide niche changing catastrophic event at the K/T boundary. It was at this time, 65 million years ago, that the evolutionist claim that 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings on the land, in the skies and under the seas were wiped out forever.
It’s interesting to note that each of the above mentioned living fossils are claimed to have pre-dated this catastrophic event by tens of million years with virtually no change prior to or after the catastrophic event.

Certainly after an event such as the supposed mass extinction mentioned above, the changed environment, disappearing food chains on land and in the seas, tsunamis crashing into continents, fire scorched landscapes, sun blocked “winters” and their temperature changes would have caused the tempo of evolution to increase all over the surface of the globe, in the air and under the seas. This increased evolutionary tempo would have allowed for the selection of new beneficial mutations while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental biomes created on the land, in the air and under the seas.

Despite the argument that time coupled with mutations, and the normal pressures of evolutionary change should have been more than enough to introduce major morphological change into the living fossils. Considering the above, the event surrounding the K/T boundary and the massive change to the earth and the insignificant changes to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.

To perplex the issue even more, besides the mutational/natural selective changes mentioned above that should have occurred during the last 65 million years there is yet another mechanism that the evolutionist claim introduces major morphological changes into animals. This mechanism is Genetic Drift. Apparently in the last 65 + million years this process also produced no significant change where according to their theories a considerable change should have occurred to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs as their niches were upset.

The evolutionist say that change does happen. Shortly after the catastrophic event that supposably happened 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, in a period of less than 50 million years a four legged wolf like animal Andrewsarchus (or what ever the latest evolution scenario is) is claimed to have evolved into a sleek sea creature. In this time period Andrewsarchus lost its legs as they turned into flippers, developed a spout with a new breathing system that contained special valves for shutting the nostrils, echo location system with a transmitter and receiver, blubber and other whale like features.....all while the living fossil Crocodile watched from the swamp as the Tuatara peeped his head out of his borrow under the shade of a the Ginko tree and Wollemi Pine. Meanwhile, the Horseshoe crabs scurried along the bay floors and the Coelacanth swam by in the oceans and didn't change outside of their normal genetic variations ...despite the morphological mutations and genetic drift that would have occurred over the millions upon millions of years as the species felt the massive environmental change to the fauna in it’s biome at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that the evolutionist tell us happened 15 million years prior.

The existence of the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs are great example of creation. It shows that animals reproduce after their “kind” and don’t really change in the fashion in which the evolutionist claim. It seem as if the DNA and genetic code for the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs has been resistant to change through out it’s history....as expected.

It is just one more indication that scientist should view the geological column and the animals trapped in the fossil record as contemporanious rather than seperated by long time frames.

[Yarr the Pirate]

YEC is essentially arguing here that, for evolution to be true, all things must evolve over a period of time of about 65 million yeras, yes?

Doesn't this imply that evolution must follow some sort of mathematical constant? Last I checked no evolutionary scientist has ever claimed that evolution advances at a steady or constant rate.

If your envirionment suits you, and the changes in that environment do not hinder you, you will survive. How is this an argument againt evolution? Help me out here.

[YEC]

Yarr,
Perhaps you ought to re-read my opening post.

The answer to your question is there.

If you have any questions feel free to get back to me.

[Yarr the Pirate]

Um, I do have a question - I asked it in the post you just responded to without answering. It's obvious I read your original post and am now asking for clarification.

Here's an analogy:

I just read some lecture notes a professor had prepared for a class. I asked him to tell me if I was right in assuming that the 8th page was about kittens - he then told me - the answer to that question is in the lecture notes.

Now, what he should have done is said either "Yes, you are right, it is about kittens" or "No, you are incorrect, it is not about kittens. Here is why."

Why can't you do either of those?

[ST88]

The question is, how did these “living fossils”...animals and plants ...survive the many millions upon millions of years with virtually no change?

I think this is a valid question and has been posed several times here on this forum with no direct reply.

Some more questions for evolutionists. Are living fossils consistent with the ToE? Does it violate its hypothesis? Why?

Natural selection states that the species that are the best adapted to their environments will survive the best. This means that a species that is able to survive a vast number of changes in surrounding environments and populations will have an additional advantage for survival than those that just find a niche and exploit it.

In the recent tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, I was interested to learn that there were very few, if any, wild animal carcasses found among the wreckage. Is it possible that the species that were the most successful at detecting danger before it arrives & taking action would survive better than those that did not? This is natural selection. It would suggest that those animals that are able to adapt not just to their environments, but also to changes in their environments -- without changing themselves -- are much better off evolutionarily than other animals. I believe humans are one of these animals.

The crocodile is a very successful design, probably exactly for this reason. There is evidence that other kinds of crocodilians did not survive to the present day -- why did these designs survive? I would argue that it is their ability to not only exploit their niche, but also to get through the natural events that occur every now & again -- like volcanic activity, asteroid strikes, floods, earthquakes, etc. It does no good for a species to survive a niche if that niche can be disturbed enough to kill all members of that species even once in a thousand years.

To answer the question, there is nothing in natural selection that states a species must change, or that other species must always evolve out of a "parent" species. This happens, but it is not an imperative. Also, genetic drift does not necessitate phenotypic drift.

[gluadys]

In the recent tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, I was interested to learn that there were very few, if any, wild animal carcasses found among the wreckage. Is it possible that the species that were the most successful at detecting danger before it arrives & taking action would survive better than those that did not? This is natural selection. It would suggest that those animals that are able to adapt not just to their environments, but also to changes in their environments -- without changing themselves -- are much better off evolutionarily than other animals. I believe humans are one of these animals.

The crocodile is a very successful design, probably exactly for this reason. There is evidence that other kinds of crocodilians did not survive to the present day -- why did these designs survive? I would argue that it is their ability to not only exploit their niche, but also to get through the natural events that occur every now & again -- like volcanic activity, asteroid strikes, floods, earthquakes, etc. It does no good for a species to survive a niche if that niche can be disturbed enough to kill all members of that species even once in a thousand years.

Good post.

Perhaps to further clarify.

The word "niche" often implies a small, narrowly defined environment. But actually a species "niche" can be quite large and varied. The human "niche" is the pretty much whole globe since there are very few environments in which we cannot survive. The same goes for many other species.

At the opposite extreme are species which are dependent on a very specialized environment found in only a relatively few places on earth. Dobzhansky in his article "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution" mentions, among other examples, a fly whose larvae survive "only in the nephric grooves beneath the flaps of the third maxilliped" of a land crab found on only a few Caribbean islands.

Clearly the smaller and more specialized the niche to which a species has adapted, the less well prepared it is to deal with change. While "generalist" species which can do well in a number of different environments can survive many environmental changes without needing to evolve a new anatomy.

[YEC]

So far the best the evos can reply back with is..the species found a niche..and despite mutations, genetic drift, natural selection, the upset environment, increased evolution tempo and plenty of time...they did't change because they found a niche.
Honestly, I find that hard to believe and currently am waiting for a proper evo responce. You no, something other than just declaring they found a niche...something like a scientific explaination would be helpful.

[Yarr the Pirate]

And once again, when shown evidence of why his objection is not founded, YEC simply says he hasn't seen the evidence he's looking for. Very easy to claim victory when you set no standard for accepting defeat.

[YEC]

And once again, when shown evidence of why his objection is not founded, YEC simply says he hasn't seen the evidence he's looking for. Very easy to claim victory when you set no standard for accepting defeat.

What??? As I just mentioned...your only responce is that they found a niche...despite the evidense that I presented that showed their world was turned up side down.

There is no reason why not to claim victory. You have provided nothing in a means of a refute....sorry Yarrrrrr

[Yarr the Pirate]

See, the thing is - a niche is the evidence that is needed to prove you wrong. You were proven wrong, and then you decided simply to put your head in the sand and say that you don't see any evidence.

You're asking for evolution to have a set of laws which it does not and then stating that because it lacks those laws, you must be right.

On a side note, do you care to answer the first question I asked you yet?

Why can't you give that a yes or no with a why? It should be the easiest thing in the world, since this is your argument, right?

[ST88]

And once again, when shown evidence of why his objection is not founded, YEC simply says he hasn't seen the evidence he's looking for. Very easy to claim victory when you set no standard for accepting defeat.

What??? As I just mentioned...your only responce is that they found a niche...despite the evidense that I presented that showed their world was turned up side down.

There is no reason why not to claim victory. You have provided nothing in a means of a refute....sorry Yarrrrrr

The niche explanation that you have grabbed hold of is only part of the answer. The other part of the answer is the adaptability of species who occupy a particular niche. If a species' word was turned "upside down," then it would make sense that some individuals would survive and some wouldn't. Of those that did survive, some would have by dumb luck and some would have because they possessed an additional ecological advantage that other members did not. This advantage need not be encapsulated in the fossil record. It could be that it had different coloration, or that it suddenly tasted bad to predators, or that it was smart enough to avoid the cataclysmic event. In each case, even the fossils of the two versions of this species would be the same, assuming they need to be the same. This also means that a shift in the characteristics of the niche does not spell the end of a niche-dweller.

What is unscientific about this?

The iridium layer you talk about points to an otherworldly collision (or multiple collisions) that would create a number of natural disasters. It is a great leap to expect that this event would have wiped out life on earth, as you seem to imply. There is nothing about how we understand life exists right now that would preclude the suvival of many species because of this event. Dinosaurs? Sure, they perhaps died out because the atmospheric changes were no longer able to support their bodies, which had evolved in a completely different environment. But a shrew-like early mammal or echidna with the ability to withstand lower temperatures or less sunlight or what have you would surely have been able to survive such an event.