Living fossils support Genesis and 6 day creation

[Ark Guy]

Living fossils support Genesis and a 6 day creation

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 Òliving fossilsÓ...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 Òecological nicheÓ and despite the enourmous amount of mutations that they say would have occurred naturally in those millions of years they were somehow 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 ÒnicheÓ 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.
ItÕs 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 ÒwintersÓ 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, 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 itÕs 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 ÒkindÓ and donÕt 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 itÕs history....as expected.

It tells us that scientist should view the geological column and the animals trapped in the fossil record as contemporanious rather than seperated by long time frames.

 

[Vance]

Actually, these species are very supportive of evolutionary thought. Given the vast numbers of species we have today, there should be a full spectrum of degrees of divergence from very early forms. When you have hundreds of millions of species, evolutionary principles would predict that there would be a certain number, but not a very large number, which would change very little, and that is exactly what we have.

In fact, it would be surprising if you did *not* have a small fraction of one percent of the total species with little or no change for all this time. Now, if you had half of the species with so little change, then you would have something to argue. The fact that fairly static species are SO DRAMATICALLY few actually supports evolution.

Besides, you might want to check out this discussion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep02.html#coelacanth

And this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB930_1.html

 

[Vance]

In fact, you might want to check out this site on such points, just to see what the other side is saying:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

 

[lucaspa]

Living fossils support Genesis and a 6 day creation

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 Òliving fossilsÓ...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.

Did you see where you said "almost identical" but then tried to change it to "virtually no change"?

Nice sleight of hand. Your first one was right. The contemporary species are very similar to, but not identical to, the species millions of years ago. There have been changes. Also, you don't know about changes in the biochemical systems and soft tissues, do you?

The answer is simple: natural selection comes in 3 forms:
1. Directional selection. This applies in a changing environment and changes the organism to adapt to the new environment. It is, unfortunately, the only type of natural selection most people consider.
2. Stabilizing or purifying selection. This applies when the environment the organism lives in is stable. Once the organism is adapted, any change will be for the worse, so selection keeps the species stable.
3. Disruptive selection. This is when a population faces different environments in different parts of its range. The selection for these different environments tends to pull the population into two species.

Some evolutionist will argue that these species found a special Òecological nicheÓ and despite the enourmous amount of mutations that they say would have occurred naturally in those millions of years they were somehow not exposed to the pressures presented by normal evolutionary change.

Selection would have removed the mutations in this case.

ItÕs 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 ÒwintersÓ 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.

Not so. The planet is a big place. Now, look at where all the animal species lived: in or close to water. This buffers the climatic catastrophe. As long as the genus wasn't totally wiped out, there would be pockets of environment that were similar to before the catastrophe until the global climate evened out again.

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.

Again, genetic drift only applies to variations that don't affect survival. And these variations are going to be the ones that are invisible. Changing the appearance of the organisms is part of survival, isn't it?

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, 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.

Yep. But the crocodile is earning its living the same way it always had. And doing it well. So stabilizing selection keeps it the same. But Andersarchus and its descendents are earning their living by a completely different way: living in the water when they used to live on land. So directional selection works on them.

 

[Y’VA–REKH’KHA ADONAI]

Unfortunatly, God does not come in Black and white.

 

[pudmuddle]

Unfortunatly, God does not come in Black and white.

Actually, it's kind of cool that He doesn't. "Wouldn't you doubt a God that you knew all about."

If I'm going to quote, might as well quote a little more
"What keeps this tiny planet
moving round the sun each day?
who makes the evening sky into a shrine?
you've known it from the start, it's written in your heart
This clock is running by divine design"

Who keeps the seasons changing
as the winter turns to spring?
Who made the plan that brought this rock to life?
you don't need a school
from wiseman to fool
we know that it is by divine design

Tell me you believe it's fate and not a master plan
tell me I'm an accident with eyes and feet and hands
I'll tell you one more time
I know that it is by divine design..." --Dana Key

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspal:
The answer is simple: natural selection comes in 3 forms:
1. Directional selection. This applies in a changing environment and changes the organism to adapt to the new environment. It is, unfortunately, the only type of natural selection most people consider.
2. Stabilizing or purifying selection. This applies when the environment the organism lives in is stable. Once the organism is adapted, any change will be for the worse, so selection keeps the species stable.
3. Disruptive selection. This is when a population faces different environments in different parts of its range. The selection for these different environments tends to pull the population into two species.


My original post has showned that all of the above according to the evos already occured...and virtually no change occured in the variety of animals and plants I presented.

65+ milllions of years is a long long long long long time. My opening post above shows why according to the evos they should not exist in their current form.

For example I showed world wide directional selection would/should have occured. (1)

I showed the enviroment for the species of animals and plants presented wasn't really that stable. Throw in a little mutations that crertainly woukld have occured and a little genetic drift...and they go away. (2)

Your point 3 would/should have occured world wide. Not only due to the impact but according to the evo models there would have been other elements that should have produced change.

In other words...you were refuted prior to this post.[/font]

 

[lucaspa]

My original post has showned that all of the above according to the evos already occured...and virtually no change occured in the variety of animals and plants I presented.

The OP said "These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts."

Notice the "almost". Your post made no attempt to reference any work comparing the species then and now.

As to the different types of selection, your post never mentioned them.
"Some evolutionist will argue that these species found a special Òecological nicheÓ and despite the enourmous amount of mutations that they say would have occurred naturally in those millions of years "

See? No mention that purifying selection would have removed those mutations because the organisms were already well-adapted to their niche.

65+ milllions of years is a long long long long long time. My opening post above shows why according to the evos they should not exist in their current form.

For example I showed world wide directional selection would/should have occured. (1)

I showed the enviroment for the species of animals and plants presented wasn't really that stable. Throw in a little mutations that crertainly woukld have occured and a little genetic drift...and they go away. (2)

The KT extinction was global but not all environments were affected. Many species continued thru the event because some niches were unaffected. Bakker discusses this very well in his books on the KT event.

Now, genetic drift operates only in the absence of selection. For selection to be absent, the mutation has to have no effect on survival or reproduction. Thus, genetic drift cannot produce the changes that you are talking about -- adaptive changes. They would produce changes in equivalent alleles of genes coding for some enzymes. But these are exactly the types of changes that do not show up in a fossil.

Your point 3 would/should have occured world wide. Not only due to the impact but according to the evo models there would have been other elements that should have produced change.

Short lived changes, lasting 2-10 years. That is enough to kill the dinos and some plankton, but not enough to kill animals that hibernate, estivate, or live in niches where the environmental effects are moderated by water. And all your "unchanged" animals lived in water. Notice that all of them are cold-blooded. Which means they have a slow metabolism. The crocs would have done very well for a while scavenging on the bodies of the dinos. They don't have to each much anyway. So they get thru the lean couple of years where the dinos starve. Turtles live in water and can eat a variety of plants or insects. Again, their food source is not going to be that affected and they can scavenge on dead insects for quite a while. Same for bottom feeding horseshoe crabs.

Also, except for the crocs, the organisms are close to the bottom of the food chain. Dinos were near the top. And herbivorous dinos needed a lot to eat. Just cutting back on the amount of plants -- not having them go extinct -- is going to have them starve. Whereas smaller herbivores can get by on the lesser amount of plants.

Once the climatic effects of the impact wear off, the ecological niche for turtles, crocs, and horseshoe crabs still exist.

What you should look for to test your hypothesis is to see whether there wasn't diversification in these groups immediately after the KT boundary. Did the diversifications then go extinct because they couldn't compete with mammals?

In fact, I can test your hypothesis and show it false for turtles. Turtles did diversify after the KT event: http://reptilis.net/chelonia/distribution.html

"Surviving the K-T Catastrophy

The survival numbers for non-dinosaurian/non-marine reptiles isn't well known. The evidence so far, though, seems to indicate that with the possible exception of the squamates, chelonians survived the K-T extinction better than any other reptilian groups. Where 15 species were known to have had lived to the end of the Cretaceous eight of them survived to move on into the Tertiary. Still a hard hit, but slightly more than half survived.. Plus after the catastrophy and the loss of two more families in the succeeding Eocene period, the Tertiary saw the rise of many new families including the most diverse of today, the emydids. "

" Eocene Emydids
As the most diverse of the extant chelonians, the emydids first got their start in the Eocene, just after the K-T extinction. They included the forerunners of the genus Trachemys which holds among others, the red eared sliders which were once a popular dime store pet.
These were the first chelonians to make the venture back onto land and are thus a very important group. Their distribution over the continents was just beginning again and these animals were beginning to colonise North America.
During the Oligocene Period, France was being colonised by the relatively large, 75cm (30in) chelonian Broilia. This genus had cartillaginous attachments connecting the plastron to the carapace and making for a very flexible link on both sides. These animals had rather domed shells and were semi terrestrial. But the true terrestrial wonders were yet to come."

Hey! This site refutes your whole point of turtles remaing "virtually unchanged"!

Now who is refuted! It seems you were refuted before you even made your OP. You worked from a false premise.

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa:
The OP said "These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts."

Notice the "almost". Your post made no attempt to reference any work comparing the species then and now.

Well no kidding lucaspa...who would ever expect them to be identical? Not me. Heck you could choose two of just about any currently living animals or plant and make the same statement..they are just about identical.

The point you fail to realize is that the biomes changed.

The point you fail to realize is thhat according to the TOE mutations occur and would have changed the animal or plant in 65+ MY's.

Oh just for the record...the list of living fossils I presented is the short list. From my short list I presented animals that would have been effected by the impact if it did indeed happen 65 MY ago.

The niches...changed. Get over it

 

[Ark Guy]

One more thing...there is always better.

According to the evos there is always mutations

...in 65+ MY's ...that is if evolution is true...they would have muutated and evolved to something nore fit. According to the TOE, there should be no living fossils.

It is the young earth flood models that best explain the living fossils.

 

[lucaspa]

About the horseshoe crab:
"Coming from the famous 150 million year old Jurassic Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone deposits near Eichstatt, Germany, this is a fine example of the Horseshoe Crab Mesolimulus walchi. It shared its final resting place with many other exquisitely-preserved organisms, the most famous of which is the early bird Archaeopteryx. Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs) are related to the extinct Eurypterids, and more distantly to spiders and scorpions. They trace their ancestry back to the Cambrian, and proceed into the modern day as the genus Limulus, which looks much like the splendid fossil offered here. " http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/solnhofen/Horseshoe_Crab/Horseshoe_Crab.htm

Notice that the Jurassic speciment is a different genus than the modern horseshoe crab.

So much for the "virtually unchanged claim!

When you really look at the data, the data shows something different from the creationist claims.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa:
The OP said "These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts."

Notice the "almost". Your post made no attempt to reference any work comparing the species then and now.

Well no kidding lucaspa...who would ever expect them to be identical? Not me. Heck you could choose two of just about any currently living animals or plant and make the same statement..they are just about identical.

You did. Also from the OP: "survive the many millions upon millions of years with virtually no change? "

"no change" means identical. Look up the defintions.

The point you fail to realize is that the biomes changed.

But they don't. Some biomes can remain unchanged for a long time. The horseshoe crab is a bottom feeder eating worms, crustaceans, and the remains of fish. Guess what? That is the same diet that has been around for 200 million years. And the shallow water is still there.

The point you fail to realize is thhat according to the TOE mutations occur and would have changed the animal or plant in 65+ MY's.

That's where you miss purifying selection. Yes, the mutations occur, but they aren't kept. In that unchanged environment, the design the crab has is going to be the best it can get. Any change is going to be for the worse and thus be rejected by natural selection. Ever hear of fitness peaks? When you are at the peak of a mountain and move in any direction, what direction are you going to be going? Down! Not up. On a fitness peak any mutation is not going to make the individual any more fit. It is already as fit as it can be in that environment.

Now, as noted in the post above, horseshoe crabs have changed in the last 120 million years. Changed enough that they are not only not in the same species, but not in the same genus. So change has occurred, just not the major change your strawman says should happen. The major change doesn't happen because the horseshoe crab is earning its living the same way it did 120 million years ago. If it ain't broken, natural selection ain't gonna fix it.

Oh just for the record...the list of living fossils I presented is the short list. From my short list I presented animals that would have been effected by the impact if it did indeed happen 65 MY ago.

Then you had better get the long list out.

1. We have evidence for change among turtles and horseshoe crabs. There goes your "virtually unchanged". For turtles, there is a whole new family after the KT impact.

2. You haven't demonstrated they would have been affected. I say that their particular niches were not permanently changed. Water buffered the temperature changes. You have done nothing to provide evidence that I am mistaken.

If you say the niches changed, then you are going to have to provide some evidence of that. Empty assertions won't do.

The niches...changed. Get over it

Evidence. The KT event screwed up the climate for a few years. Then the climate went back to what it was before the impact. Show me it didn't. The dinosaur niches were gone, but not these. Show me they were. Provide the data. That's all I ask.

 

[lucaspa]

One more thing...there is always better.

For a given environment, that's not true. If that were true, why are there still bacteria? Why are there still fish? Because for that way of earning a living, there is no better. Congratulations, ArkGuy, you've helped answer one of the most persistent questions by creationists: why are there still monkeys? Because, for earning that type of living, there isn't anything better than monkeys.

According to the evos there is always mutations

But creationists say they are not advantageous. When you are at a fitness peak, this is true. Pay attention to creationist data and you have refuted this claim.

...in 65+ MY's ...that is if evolution is true...they would have muutated and evolved to something nore fit. According to the TOE, there should be no living fossils.

Well, they did. Turtles today are not the same species they were then. They are not even the same family. Horseshoe crabs are not the same genus. So, there has been change.

So now you are caught in a cleft stick. On one side there is change. if you are not claiming stasis, you must be claiming that there must be "large" change. But now you can't define "large". So you have to admit to change.

It is the young earth flood models that best explain the living fossils.

No it doesn't. Since the genus of horseshoe crab now is very similar to the genus in the Jurassic, why aren't they found mixed together in the fossil record? There is no sorting mechanism in flood geology to separate these two very close genera into different geological layers. Whatever mechanism -- hydrodynamics, mobility, habitat -- that you use for one is the same for the other. Young earth flood models don't explain living fossils at all! In fact, now that we look at the details of turtle and horseshoe crab evolution, we find that the fossils once again falsify young earth flood models.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Far from being a problem for evolution, living fossils merely bear out the predictions of Punk Eek. Where an environment is stable, little evolution occurs.

But where did the OP come from? I don't think the OPer made it up - exactly the same text was posted by "ksc" last year here: http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000028.html. Although ksc deleted it later, the text is found quoted in various replies to him.

So, Ark Guy, unless you are ksc (Karl Crawford) and you wrote this piece, which book did you copy it from, why didn't you reference it, and why do you think plagiarism is acceptable?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I have never understood the arguement that living fossils somehow invalidate evolutionary theory. On the contrary, they bolster it.

Nobobdy, creationist or "evolutionist", disputes the concept that our advanced technological society that we have today developed from more primitive societies. We can all accept that at one time all humans were living in primitive "stone age" conditions at one time. However, you never hear anybody say "the existance of technologically primitive cultures in the Amazon and New Guinea invalidate the idea that technologically advanced cultures devoloped over time from more primitive ones".

Even in this day and age tribes exist in these remote areas, that have had no contact with the outside world. They are still living in the stone age. These societies are living fossils in their own way. Anthropologists study them in order to gain insights into our own past.


Dragonflies can be considered living fossils. Their outward appearance has not changed much since the Carboniferous, except that none grow to the proportions that some species did back then. Today's dragonflies must be very different creatures though - they have to avoid birds which did not exist back then, and thier prey has changed too. They must be a lot more quick witted then their primitive ancestors. They can also be found in climates and environments that did not exist so long ago. The dragonfly HAS adapted and changed with the times (evolved), the only thing is that they found a highly successful body form 300 million years ago that is still good today.

The same is true for sharks.

Evolution works below the surface just as much as it does to the gross morphology (body plan) of organisms.

It is not just a stable envrionment that allows a family of organisms to remain outwardly unchanged - it is also traits that remain functional in a changing world.

 

[lucaspa]

Nobobdy, creationist or "evolutionist", disputes the concept that our advanced technological society that we have today developed from more primitive societies. We can all accept that at one time all humans were living in primitive "stone age" conditions at one time. However, you never hear anybody say "the existance of technologically primitive cultures in the Amazon and New Guinea invalidate the idea that technologically advanced cultures devoloped over time from more primitive ones".

Even in this day and age tribes exist in these remote areas, that have had no contact with the outside world. They are still living in the stone age. These societies are living fossils in their own way. Anthropologists study them in order to gain insights into our own past.

VERY good argument. I'll have to remember that one!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Thanks.

I think that you could also add that - in these cases remaining "primitive" is actually the more adaptive strategy. Primitive cultures have thrived in rainforest areas for millenia, where are more technologically advanced ones (like the Maya who irrigated farmland in the jungle) have not fared so well in the long run.

 

[jetrich]

Aren't most mutations for the worse and not better? Does anybody have an actual example of a good mutation, proof not speculative?

I can understand why technologically advanced cultures do not survive. Usually they place their trust in the machines that were designed and created by other people and after they fail or a major disaster occurs they are unable to function. Take the recent blackouts in the Northeastern U.S. for example, a bunch of people didn't know what to do. They were dependant on public works for water, sewer, power, etc., and after publics works were eliminated the people had nowhere to turn.

How is it possible for Natural Selection and Evolution (species to species) to be equated? Technically natural selection is a form of evolution, but it does not lead to the formation of a drastically different species.

 

[Vance]

Aren't most mutations for the worse and not better? Does anybody have an actual example of a good mutation, proof not speculative?

I can understand why technologically advanced cultures do not survive. Usually they place their trust in the machines that were designed and created by other people and after they fail or a major disaster occurs they are unable to function. Take the recent blackouts in the Northeastern U.S. for example, a bunch of people didn't know what to do. They were dependant on public works for water, sewer, power, etc., and after publics works were eliminated the people had nowhere to turn.

How is it possible for Natural Selection and Evolution (species to species) to be equated? Technically natural selection is a form of evolution, but it does not lead to the formation of a drastically different species.

On the issue of beneficial mutations, read here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB101.html

Your statement "it does not lead to the formation of a drastically different species" is confusing to me. Of course, it would not be a "drastically" different species all in one fell swoop. It would gradually add up and add up as much as needed to help the group better survive in its given environment. If this goes on long enough and the pressures are strong enough, then why would they NOT create as much change as needed? What is the brake in the process that would prevent major changes given enough pressure/time?

Whales are a pretty good example of major change, if you ask me. Mammals in the ocean?!

 

[Zoot]

According to the evos there is always mutations

Perhaps, but they only take precedence if they provide some reproductive advantage over the parent. Plenty of mutations could have occurred in the living fossils' history, but if the mutants were less adapted to the environment than the parents, the mutant genes are very unlikely to take priority.