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.
K/T Nightmare
Moderator: Moderators
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
Post #41YEC, if you won't accept the niche theory, that just means you are absolutely unable to be swayed by truth.
That's not having a discerning mind, that's plain old ignorance.
It's pretty obvious you dont want to learn anything on this forum but rather simply want to cling to radically incorrect beliefs while whining at the top of your lungs.
We've disproved you and debunked you on this forum and many other, but you still won't answer basic questions or face simple facts.
That's not having a discerning mind, that's plain old ignorance.
It's pretty obvious you dont want to learn anything on this forum but rather simply want to cling to radically incorrect beliefs while whining at the top of your lungs.
We've disproved you and debunked you on this forum and many other, but you still won't answer basic questions or face simple facts.
Post #42
yarr..you might actually want to post a refute...instead of claiming a refute.
People who read these forums are not stupid and have the ability to see through your ploy...so instread of poasting the same old rhetoric, why don't you actually try to answerr my questions??????
You claim I don't answer yours, then turn right around and do what you claim I have been doing.
Are youa troll? If so let me know so I don't have to waste my time replying to you.
People who read these forums are not stupid and have the ability to see through your ploy...so instread of poasting the same old rhetoric, why don't you actually try to answerr my questions??????
You claim I don't answer yours, then turn right around and do what you claim I have been doing.
Are youa troll? If so let me know so I don't have to waste my time replying to you.
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
Post #43You're free to stop replying to me, YEC - you never have with any sort of substance anyway.
Your third grade style of "No it isn't!" debating and constant shifting of the subject is really starting to rake on nerves.
You contribute nothing to this forum but a whiny attitude - you obviously have no intention of learning or debating.
It's obvious you cannot back up even the simplest of your claims and cannot answer the simplest of my questions, so you have decided to fall back on accusing me of being a troll. This is very petty namecalling and a desperate attempt to get out of the discussion.
Please explain to us where our niche theory is flawed or stop whining.
Your third grade style of "No it isn't!" debating and constant shifting of the subject is really starting to rake on nerves.
You contribute nothing to this forum but a whiny attitude - you obviously have no intention of learning or debating.
It's obvious you cannot back up even the simplest of your claims and cannot answer the simplest of my questions, so you have decided to fall back on accusing me of being a troll. This is very petty namecalling and a desperate attempt to get out of the discussion.
Please explain to us where our niche theory is flawed or stop whining.
Post #44
jim speocer posted:
OK, now I've read the thread, and agree that the objection raised by YEC has been answered in general terms. I don't see anything in evolution that requires significant change, even over long periods of time. YEC seems to assume that there is a time limit, that the entire global phenotype will "turn over" in "X" my, where X < 65. He would have to "show his work" to support this claim
You might have a point if mutations didn't occur on a regular basics to the said species...or genetic drift didn't occur...or the tempo of evolution wasn't changed due to a catastrophe..and so on
The bottom line, every thing the evos claim cause evolution has occured to these species...and they didn't change.
OK, now I've read the thread, and agree that the objection raised by YEC has been answered in general terms. I don't see anything in evolution that requires significant change, even over long periods of time. YEC seems to assume that there is a time limit, that the entire global phenotype will "turn over" in "X" my, where X < 65. He would have to "show his work" to support this claim
You might have a point if mutations didn't occur on a regular basics to the said species...or genetic drift didn't occur...or the tempo of evolution wasn't changed due to a catastrophe..and so on
The bottom line, every thing the evos claim cause evolution has occured to these species...and they didn't change.
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
Post #46Nice to know tht because you can't win the game, you decided to take the board with you and go home, YEC.
Your whining and question dodging will be sorely missed.
Oh, and final tally: Of four questions posited by me, you have answered zero, and changed the subject an astonishing record of seven times.
Your whining and question dodging will be sorely missed.
Oh, and final tally: Of four questions posited by me, you have answered zero, and changed the subject an astonishing record of seven times.
-
Yarr the Pirate
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:04 pm
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20522
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #49
YEC wrote:
Are you a troll?
It is up to the moderators to determine who is a troll or not. Users are prohibited from labeling another person. If you feel someone has posted baiting posts, please use the report post function and the moderating team will look into the matter.
I would suggest everyone take a breather in the C vs E debates. And in the meantime, read about the thoughts on respect on the forum.
I know that everyone here are experienced debaters and I would adjure all of you to use the utmost discipline to maintain a civil environment here. This forum strives to be a place where respect, logic, and evidence are used to present arguments. Attacks on the character of other people are to be avoided.
If anyone is not able to abide by these principles, I would encourage that person to pursue discussions elsewhere in the many C vs E forums on the web.
Thank you for you attention to this matter and in upholding the standards of this site.
