Why Evolution is Impossible part II

[Calypsis4]

I will be giving more direct evidence that 'evolution' has not occured in nature, this time on the biological level. All things were created by God just the way Moses, the prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and particularly Jesus Christ Himself said He did in scripture. The scientific evidence strongly reveals this fact.

One of the areas it is seen most clearly is in the matter of 'living fossils', that is those fossils which are dated in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of yrs old that have living offspring which reveal very little or no change. The problem for evolutionists in this regard is huge but most of them whom I have presented this evidence discard it deliberately.

First, the oldest known fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old by evolutionists (Note: I do not accept the time frame of evolutionists in millions or billions of yrs).

Compared with its almost identical living offspring:

The point: There is no evolution of the bat species. The only changes we see in the fossil record are within the various kinds of bats. There is no visible change of any other organisms INTO bats prior to the 50 million yr old example above and there is not change FROM bats as we know them into any different kind of organism. Such a change is non-existent for there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that change.

2nd point: The evolutionary biologists/geolgists/zoologists CANNOT reveal this kind of change in bats:

If indeed bats evolved from small rodent-like creatures over millions of years then WHERE are the fossils of those changes? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them in existence. But threre are none! There isn't a single bat fossil in existence older than the one you see in this OP. That speaks volumes to honest thinkers who understand how serious this problem is for evolutionists.

Next: alligator fossils and the modern alligators reveal no change.

Not only so but rabbit fossils compared to rabbit skeletons of our time reveal no change despite what is supposed to have been millions of yrs of 'evolution'.

There is no anatomical changes revealed in these comparisons despite the fact that the species are supposed to be millions of yrs apart in age.

I am giving the reader just the beginning of the direct observational evidence against the theory of evolution and that such an interpretation of the facts as we have them is in error. Evolution has never occurred on this planet because it never existed to begin with.

 

[Calypsis4]

Next is the thylacine, thought exinct in our time.

But see if you can detect any pysical/anatomical changes between the fossil which is supposedly millions of yrs old and the more modern skeleton of the thylacine.

Below is a fossil of a gavial as compared with the skeleton of a modern gavial:

Then we have the lobster.

No evident change over 'millions of years.' Why?

My position, as well as that of my colleagues in creationism is that the only changes that we see among the species is seen within the kind (order/family classification) and that genetically they will never produce offspring that is outside of their own kind. Change is accepted within the kind but the genetic limitations will not allow for the kind of changes evolutionists teach.

 

[Calypsis4]

There are hundreds of examples of living fossils in which direct comparisons can be made between what was supposed to have been millions of yrs old with the modern offspring of those same fossilized organisms. My point in all of this is that those examples serve as direct observational evidence that evolution has never occured in nature.

Here is more:

Again, there are no visible anatomical changes between these two organisms. They are the same after what was supposed to have been millions of yrs of evolution.

The Brittle Star reveals no change either.

The shovelnose Ray reveals no evolutionary change either.

There will be much more tomorrow.

 

[shernren]

In addition, velociraptors:

have been sighted essentially unchanged in modern webcomics:

Oh goodness me dinosaurs still roam the earth today evolution must be false.

 

[metherion]

So, just so I have this straight, because the bones haven't changed, and because there are no transitions across the line of 'kinds' (which still haven't been defined), they didn't evolve?

It doesn't NEED to change physical (especially bone) structure to evolve. Let's see, there are muscles, metabolism, eyes, brain, other internal organs, functions of said organs, skin (think color), fur color, etc etc etc that can all have been evolving that haven't changed.

Just because there haven't been any obvious bone structure changes does not mean there hasn't been evolution or that it is impossible. Sorry.

Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

Oh, goodness me! Dinosaurs still roam the earth today. Evolution must be false.

 

[Calypsis4]

So, just so I have this straight, because the bones haven't changed, and because there are no transitions across the line of 'kinds' (which still haven't been defined), they didn't evolve?

You're catching on slowly. But keep reading over the next several days for I have only just begun.

It doesn't NEED to change physical (especially bone) structure to evolve. Let's see, there are muscles, metabolism, eyes, brain, other internal organs, functions of said organs, skin (think color), fur color, etc etc etc that can all have been evolving that haven't changed.

Then give the evidence that such a change occurred....use the same fossils as evidence of that change.

Just because there haven't been any obvious bone structure changes does not mean there hasn't been evolution or that it is impossible. Sorry.

You should be. You can't counter this evidence so you .....uh....guess.

Metherion

Bye.

 

[metherion]

Then give the evidence that such a change occurred....use the same fossils as evidence of that change.

*facepalm* You seem to be misunderstanding what evolution says. Evolution says that things CAN change and Do change, not that they MUST change. What if the way something was was the best form for its environment, hm? Well, then any mutations would lead away from that 'best' form. So it WOULDN"T change, now, would it? And that's fine with evolutionary theory.

You should be. You can't counter this evidence so you .....uh....guess.

What evidence? In the skeletons of these particular animals, nothing has changed. Wooooo. *twirls finger in the air.* Nothing in evolutionary theory says it will be false if things stay the same due to environmental pressures for a while. Even a long while.

Also, as to your pictures,
Dinosaurs are alive!!!!!!!!!!!!? - Yahoo! Answers will answer several of them, and as for the 'stegosaurus', well, the lack of tail spikes and the horn/ears on the beast sure doesn't support it being one.

And besides, so what if 'dinosaurs' are still alive? How would that prove evolution false? Does the existence of a Ford Model T that still runs prove that the auto industry hasn't made hybrids? Especially in the (relatively) unexplored deep sea, where we haven't discovered everything yet.


Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Mallon and Gluadys, I like to hear your opinion on Calypsis4's examples.

 

[philadiddle]

Calypsis4, I'm not a fossil expert, but I'd like to ask you something.

What happens if you keep following the fossil record back further from the examples that you gave?

 

[gluadys]

I
The point: There is no evolution of the bat species. The only changes we see in the fossil record are within the various kinds of bats.

Nearly one out of every four species of mammal is a bat. It takes a lot of evolution to generate that much diversity.

If indeed bats evolved from small rodent-like creatures over millions of years then WHERE are the fossils of those changes? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them in existence.

Why? How have you (or your source) arrived at these figures?

I am giving the reader just the beginning of the direct observational evidence against the theory of evolution and that such an interpretation of the facts as we have them is in error.

No, you are giving pictures of fossils. Direct observational evidence requires direct observation of the actual fossils. Have you personally observed any of these fossils directly? Are you a paleontologist? Have you spoken to a paleontologist who has examined these fossils? Or at least read a paper on the analysis of these fossils?


Most any competent paleontologist could tell you what the differences are between a living species and its fossil homologue and why they are classified as different species. It is simply not true that there has been no change in any of these fossil families.

My position, as well as that of my colleagues in creationism is that the only changes that we see among the species is seen within the kind (order/family classification) and that genetically they will never produce offspring that is outside of their own kind. Change is accepted within the kind but the genetic limitations will not allow for the kind of changes evolutionists teach.

Whoop-de-doo. That is basically the same position as that taken by the theory of evolution. It is because no species evolves out of its ancestry that we get a universal family tree in the form of a nested hierarchy. That is why the double nested-hierarchy of the phylogeny of life is considered one of the basic evidences of evolution.

The significant difference in science is that there is ongoing research into which species pertain to which clade (which is the term nearest to the creationist "kind".) and to how the clades relate to each other.

 

[Mallon]

Finally, biological evolution is a little more up my alley...

First, Calypsis4, despite your statement that "those fossils which are dated in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of yrs old that have living offspring which reveal very little or no change" is absolutely false. There are no vertebrate fossils over ~1 million years old that has remained unchanged. Each of the examples you provided are distinctly different from modern species, otherwise they would not have been given different species names (look up the species diagnosis for yourself if you don't believe me).
Secondly, lineages that have changed little over the course of even a hundred million years is not evidence against evolution because the theory of evolution does not state that all lineages must evolve at the same rate. Some lineages evolve slowly, and some evolve quickly (depending on the selection pressures they face). The rate isn't uniform. So simply pointing to one (or more than one) lineage and saying "look! This lineage has changed little, therefore evolution is false" is silly, if not a complete strawman. That's like saying it didn't rain today in Kansas or Ontario, therefore it didn't rain elsewhere in the world.

Getting to your examples...
Your first example of bats is an interesting choice because, indeed, there are few examples of good transitional bats in the fossil record (fossil bats are hard to come by, given their delicate skeletons). The earliest bats so far discovered appear to be very similar to modern ones. Still, you conveniently neglected to mention that the earliest known bat species, Onychonycteris finneyi, had a simple cochlea incapable of echolocation, a distinctly more primitive feature relative to modern bats: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bat fossil solves evolution poser
So to say that bats haven't changed since they first appeared in the fossil record is, as you would accuse others, a lie. They have changed. They have evolved.

The same criticisms apply to your example of the alligator and just about every other species you mentioned. If we follow the Alligator lineage back far enough in the fossil record, we see that the first crocodylomorphs were actually likely terrestrial endotherms, some even capable of bipedal locomotion (e.g., protosuchians). Honestly, have you ever bothered to look at their fossils? They don't look very much like modern crocs:

We can continue to trace this lineage back further into the fossil record and see how they evolved from even more basal archosaurs similar to Euparkeria:

Ditto the rabbit, thylacine, gavial, lobster, and shark fossils you mentioned. Do you know anything about Palaeopalaemon, the fossil decapod that looks almost like a lobster, but lacks exopod-bearing pereiopods and has the primitive five pairs of pereiopods instead of four? What about even more primitive crustaceans like Yicaris or those from the Burgess Shale? Why didn't you mention those?

To say that these things haven't changed is just silly. You also ignored all the excellent fossil evidence of profound evolutionary change through time, including the evolution of the mammalian ear, the evolution of whales from terrestrial ungulates, or the evolution of humans from primates. Evolution happens and the fossil record shows it every time. I'll even be upfront about where the fossil record is ambiguous: the only living vertebrate lineages whose evolutionary affinities we are still uncertain about are bats and turtles. Everything else has a fossil record that can be traces back to earlier, clearly transitional forms.

 

[laconicstudent]

I will be giving more direct evidence that 'evolution' has not occured in nature, this time on the biological level. All things were created by God just the way Moses, the prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and particularly Jesus Christ Himself said He did in scripture. The scientific evidence strongly reveals this fact.

One of the areas it is seen most clearly is in the matter of 'living fossils', that is those fossils which are dated in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of yrs old that have living offspring which reveal very little or no change. The problem for evolutionists in this regard is huge but most of them whom I have presented this evidence discard it deliberately.

First, the oldest known fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old by evolutionists (Note: I do not accept the time frame of evolutionists in millions or billions of yrs).

Compared with its almost identical living offspring:

The point: There is no evolution of the bat species. The only changes we see in the fossil record are within the various kinds of bats. There is no visible change of any other organisms INTO bats prior to the 50 million yr old example above and there is not change FROM bats as we know them into any different kind of organism. Such a change is non-existent for there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that change.

2nd point: The evolutionary biologists/geolgists/zoologists CANNOT reveal this kind of change in bats:

If indeed bats evolved from small rodent-like creatures over millions of years then WHERE are the fossils of those changes? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them in existence. But threre are none! There isn't a single bat fossil in existence older than the one you see in this OP. That speaks volumes to honest thinkers who understand how serious this problem is for evolutionists.

Next: alligator fossils and the modern alligators reveal no change.

Not only so but rabbit fossils compared to rabbit skeletons of our time reveal no change despite what is supposed to have been millions of yrs of 'evolution'.

There is no anatomical changes revealed in these comparisons despite the fact that the species are supposed to be millions of yrs apart in age.

I am giving the reader just the beginning of the direct observational evidence against the theory of evolution and that such an interpretation of the facts as we have them is in error. Evolution has never occurred on this planet because it never existed to begin with.

Wait, your a qualified Biologist? Trained to be able to recognize and interpret the anatomical differences between specimens through such cursory overviews like a picture? No? Your a layman? kthanxbi ur opinion is just an opinion.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait, your a qualified Biologist? Trained to be able to recognize and interpret the anatomical differences between specimens through such cursory overviews like a picture? No? Your a layman? kthanxbi ur opinion is just an opinion.

Bad attitude. Keep your focus to the argument, not to the person.

 

[Willtor]

Calypsis4, this understanding of evolution is flawed. It wouldn't matter to evolution even if these species _hadn't_ changed (as you suppose they haven't). That is, even if we found a living T-Rex, that wouldn't negatively impact the theory of evolution. It would be surprising, to be sure, but it wouldn't undermine evolution. You're thinking of it the wrong way around:

If the species form a nested hierarchy, you should be looking for anachronisms in the other direction. You should be looking for vertebrates -- especially modern-ish vertebrates -- that appear before they were supposed to have evolved. Or you should be looking for species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy (e.g., vertebrates with more than 4 appendages). Those are things that would be harmful to the theory of evolution as it exists, now.

But arguing about something that hasn't changed much* or something that was thought to be extinct that actually survived... that is interesting, but it isn't an argument against evolution.

* - You should read Mallon's post, carefully. Sometimes two tiny pictures, side-by-side, can be deceiving.

 

[Calypsis4]

Nearly one out of every four species of mammal is a bat. It takes a lot of evolution to generate that much diversity.

That isn't evolution. It is variation within the kind. Evolution does not exist.


Why? How have you (or your source) arrived at these figures?

The bat you see in the OP is dated by evolutionists at 52 million yrs. old and they fully acknowledge that it is the first of its kind. If you can find another fossil that is supposedly older than that then you are free to post it for us.

I am talking here about common sense. There is no problem finding fossils of bats...

There are lots of them. But the stages in between non-bats (rodent-like organisms) and the one in the OP are missing totally. Not only so but there are no stages (branches) of bats revealing change into other organisms. The bats are of various species...but all still bats. That only reveals the truth of what God said, "after it's kind" and the mere variation within the kind is all we see in the fossil record. No evolution.

What you WON'T see is something like this:

No, you are giving pictures of fossils. Direct observational evidence requires direct observation of the actual fossils. Have you personally observed any of these fossils directly? Are you a paleontologist? Have you spoken to a paleontologist who has examined these fossils? Or at least read a paper on the analysis of these fossils?

And direct observation has been made by those who had access to them. Look, if you can't show evolutionary change from one organism to another in the most available fossil evidence that we have (living fossils) then how can you justify the claim that such organisms have evolved at all?

For your information I taught science for 26 yrs. I am retired.

Most any competent paleontologist could tell you what the differences are between a living species and its fossil homologue and why they are classified as different species. It is simply not true that there has been no change in any of these fossil families.

They can only reveal changes within the kind. They cannot reveal changes from one kind of organism into another. Both the scriptures teach this and scientific fact confirm it. Evolution has never occured on this planet. That is because it is does not exist. It never did.

Whoop-de-doo. That is basically the same position as that taken by the theory of evolution. It is because no species evolves out of its ancestry that we get a universal family tree in the form of a nested hierarchy. That is why the double nested-hierarchy of the phylogeny of life is considered one of the basic evidences of evolution.

Whoop-de-doo. I made my point above.

The significant difference in science is that there is ongoing research into which species pertain to which clade (which is the term nearest to the creationist "kind".) and to how the clades relate to each other.

It will become clearer as more research is available to us but evolutionists must use tortured logic to make the facts fit their theory. It's a sorry joke.

 

[Calypsis4]

In the kingdom plantae the same problem exists for evolution. No evolutionary change from one kind of plant to another is observed in the fossil record:

This sycamore dated at millions of yrs old has not changed. It is the same as sycamores today. There are many examples between the fossils and their living offspring...all revealing no change.

Gingkos reveal no change either. The following photo was from an encyclopdia of trees. The book said nothing about the creation/evolution controversy. The statement that 'this gingko has not changed in 150 million yrs' was a candid, honest statement by direct observation.

And here is the living offspring:

Here is a poplar leaf compared to the fossil:

But there is no evolutionary change in the poplar either. The close-up views reveal that the shape, contour, pinnation, and symmetry are all the same. Are there differences? Yes, but you can see differences even within the same plant of a particular species. Like...

Evolutionary change is not seen in the fossil record.

 

[metherion]

That isn't evolution. It is variation within the kind. Evolution does not exist.

Define "kind". Or stop using it. Using a term with no definition is an INCREDIBLY dishonest move, and it doesn't show anything since it doesn't have a definition to show.

The bats are of various species...but all still bats. That only reveals the truth of what God said, "after it's kind" and the mere variation within the kind is all we see in the fossil record. No evolution.

Again, define 'kind'.

What you WON'T see is something like this:

Evolution predicts nothing of the sort.

For your information I taught science for 26 yrs. I am retired.

Cool! What type of science?

They can only reveal changes within the kind. They cannot reveal changes from one kind of organism into another. Both the scriptures teach this and scientific fact confirm it.

Actually, it can't reveal changes within a kind because NOBODY HAS EVER SAID WHAT A KIND IS! So we DON"T know we've seen changes within a kind. We also don't know if we've seen changes within a krixbit, a walgertap, or a shikjee either.

Once you define the term, THEN we can talk about if we've seen it or not. Put the goalposts down.

Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

"Calypsis4, this understanding of evolution is flawed. It wouldn't matter to evolution even if these species _hadn't_ changed (as you suppose they haven't)."

No, it isn't. Check this out for yourself:

Definition: evolution - a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state. A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their ORIGINS in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Mirriam Webster Dictionary

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Encyclopedia Britannica

"evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones." (Walker, P.M.B., ed., "Cambridge Dictionary of Biology," [1989], Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 1990, Reprinted, pp.105-106. Emphasis original)

"That is, even if we found a living T-Rex, that wouldn't negatively impact the theory of evolution. It would be surprising, to be sure, but it wouldn't undermine evolution. You're thinking of it the wrong way around:"

No. It is your thinking that is in error. If geologists discover the remains of a human being in the belly of a well preserved T-Rex then practically speaking, that is the end of evolution in our world. Hold your breath, for that day is coming.

"If the species form a nested hierarchy, you should be looking for anachronisms in the other direction. You should be looking for vertebrates -- especially modern-ish vertebrates -- that appear before they were supposed to have evolved. Or you should be looking for species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy (e.g., vertebrates with more than 4 appendages). Those are things that would be harmful to the theory of evolution as it exists, now."

The nested heirarchy argument doesn't help your cause. What is revealed in the comparison of fossils dated millions of yrs and their living offspring reveals exactly what I have posited here: no evolutionary change from one kind to another.

"But arguing about something that hasn't changed much* or something that was thought to be extinct that actually survived... that is interesting, but it isn't an argument against evolution."

"much"? There has been no change from one organism to another. Bats change within their kind but are still bats. Drosophila flies change within their kind but remain flies...none have become birds or bees or even gnats. Bacteria changes are observed but they remain bacterium. Moths change but remain moths, Horses change but remain horses, and so it goes; consistently.

"* - You should read Mallon's post, carefully. Sometimes two tiny pictures, side-by-side, can be deceiving."

I did.

"Your first example of bats is an interesting choice because, indeed, there are few examples of good transitional bats in the fossil record (fossil bats are hard to come by, given their delicate skeletons). The earliest bats so far discovered appear to be very similar to modern ones. Still, you conveniently neglected to mention that the earliest known bat species, Onychonycteris finneyi, had a simple cochlea incapable of echolocation, a distinctly more primitive feature relative to modern bats: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bat fossil solves evolution poser
So to say that bats haven't changed since they first appeared in the fossil record is, as you would accuse others, a lie. They have changed. They have evolved."

Being incapable of echolocation...it is yet still a bat.

He revealed only change within the kind, nothing more.

Best wishes.

 

[Mallon]

In the kingdom plantae the same problem exists for evolution

And the same critiques everyone here gave re: the non-uniformity of evolutionary rates apply. It's almost as though you aren't listening.