Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I know of a fossil that represents a living species with no changes to it's form.
Can I ask, just on this basis is there any reason to believe this would be enough evidence to support the creationists theory?
I know of a fossil that represents a living species with no changes to it's form.
Can I ask, just on this basis is there any reason to believe this would be enough evidence to support the creationists theory?
A coelacanth or fir fosssilized and living does not disprove evolution. It only proves that something has become so specialized in its niche that it has no pressure to cause the population to evolve
__________________ Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole." Thomas 34
"On blind faith they place reliance, what they need more of is science"- MC Hawking
I know of a fossil that represents a living species with no changes to it's form.
Can I ask, just on this basis is there any reason to believe this would be enough evidence to support the creationists theory?
Theoretically speaking (since you did not name this "living fossil") the answer is no. A population or a species does not have to change in a major way in a given period of time. If a population is well adapted to its environment and there is no selective pressure on it, there is no reason there needs to be a change.
If, on the other hand, you know of a fossil or species which combines features of unrelated groups (such as bird-amphibian, or bird-mammal) then you would be getting somewhere. P.S. The platypus (despite its name) does not have any bird features.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
I don't think so. If the species of which you speak resides in an environment that has changed very little over a long period of time, evolution may not have happened on any great scale. The Coelecanth (horribly misspelled) is an example of such a species. (Although it would be incorrect to claim that no evolution at all has happened to that fish. Modern ones are certainly different from prehistoric ones) I would have to reserve judgement, of course, until I saw the specific evidence that you are speaking of.
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. (And yes, there is such an animal as a Tasmanian devil)
Posts: 12,522
Blessings: 99,977
Reps: 23,030 (power: 43)
Pureone is correct.
You should perhaps ask youself - do you think that biologists (and particularly, assuming it's the coelecanth of which you speak, icthyologists) are truly unaware of the fossil?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I know of a fossil that represents a living species with no changes to it's form. Can I ask, just on this basis is there any reason to believe this would be enough evidence to support the creationists theory?
It would be evidence for creationism if it proved that God created the Earth and all its species some time in the past and that speciation doesn't happen.
This evidence could prove that some species (sharks, dragonflies, etc) can last for long periods of time with very little new adaptations.
__________________ Veritas omnia vincit.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It seems rather convenienent that evolution has an "out" clause of no pressure to change equals no change. The real question I have is, how do you know it had no pressure to change? Or are you accepting the fact that it hasn't changed as basis for the fact that it had no pressure to change?
I am curious. Why haven't whales developed warfare tactics or armored skin or become transparent. Certainly humpback whales have been hunted by eskimoes for centuries not too mention almost to extinction by other groups.
Also, the other point I had was that the coelecanth was considered extinct until the 1930's when Japanese Fisherman pulled it from the ocean.
To me, there are enough examples of scientists finding the desired result then building the required arguments to support the end result. This being one of them. I mean the animal was declared extinct. What else are they wrong about?
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. (And yes, there is such an animal as a Tasmanian devil)
Posts: 12,522
Blessings: 99,977
Reps: 23,030 (power: 43)
Originally Posted by nyjbarnes
It seems rather convenienent that evolution has an "out" clause of no pressure to change equals no change. The real question I have is, how do you know it had no pressure to change? Or are you accepting the fact that it hasn't changed as basis for the fact that it had no pressure to change?
Change isn't always morphological. The modern coelocanth is the same shape as the fossilised one, but it is unlikely that if both animals existed concurrently that they'd be able to reproduce.
But you are correct - the Coelocanth lives in a very stable niche in the deep ocean, so selection pressures on it would be very minimal.
I am curious. Why haven't whales developed warfare tactics or armored skin or become transparent. Certainly humpback whales have been hunted by eskimoes for centuries not too mention almost to extinction by other groups.
Are you suggesting that whales should be able to alter within the space of centuries? If such a thing could happen, it would *definitely* upset the ToE applecart!
Also, the other point I had was that the coelecanth was considered extinct until the 1930's when Japanese Fisherman pulled it from the ocean.
To me, there are enough examples of scientists finding the desired result then building the required arguments to support the end result. This being one of them. I mean the animal was declared extinct. What else are they wrong about?
Wrong about many things, no doubt. Conclusions can only be reached based on the available evidence, and if there is insufficient evidence then a conclusion can only cautiously accepted.
Given that until a living specimen was found there were only fossils to go on, what conclusion would you have made under those circumstances?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
