Looking for all the missing links

[Split Rock]

Nope, not at all mixed up.

In Christ, GB

Uhh... no.

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect32/xfig32_06.jpg

 

[verysincere]

Ceolocanth. It was supposed to be an index fossil from 65 million years ago, now they're fished for.

And there were mammals 65 million years ago, now they're hunted today!

Take THAT, you evilutionists!

(Uhhh, now why is it that they are supposed to care about that? Can somebody PLEAZ explain that to me? Ken Ham said it was a good argooment against evilushionists but I don't get it.)

And considering that Coelacanths are an ENTIRE ORDER of fishes and Monotremes are an ENTIRE ORDER of mammals, why is it that I'm supposed to be bothered by the idea that there were species of Coelacanths living 65 millions years ago but the fact that species of Monotremes [exemplified today by the duck-billed platypus, echidnas, etc.] lived then and now is not a problem? Is this really an argument to be used again people who understand evolution OR is it simply another deception tactic against the scientifically-illiterate who think that "living fossil" somehow contradicts the facts? I keep losing track of which ideas actually have substance and which are purely propaganda to use on the ignorant. Somebody pleez help me!

If anybody thinks it is easy being an evolution-denier, you've never tried it! Those nagging facts and piles of evidence just keep getting in the way. I mean, it's one thing to preach it in a church service full of great grandmothers born in the Great Depression and amongst teenagers who've been told since birth that "Darwin and his followers are all Sons of Satin [sic]", but when I go out in the real world or post to an Internet forum, there's far too many people who think I'm full of baloney. What do I do? (I was told all of the propaganda tactics and the dishonest quote-mines but nobody ever told me how to deal with evidence!)

[Meanwhile, where is it that I can pick up my Ken Ham "Were You There?" T-shirt? Those are kool!]

.

 

[verysincere]

Perhaps because according to us, there aren't specific places fossils should be found if they were laid down during a global world wide flood.

Really? Then THAT should mean that you have evidence for a GLOBAL FLOOD! This is exciting! Nobody has ever found such evidence before. Tell us where we can find this evidence for a global flood?

And while you are at it, it would be great if you could even show us where there is evidence IN THE BIBLE that there was a global flood. After all, in Genesis it just talks about KOL ERETZ, "the entire land." Or are you going to try and convince me that ERETZ ISRAEL means "the planet Israel" instead of "the nation of Israel" or "Land of Israel"?

(On the other hand, those of us who care about the evidence which God has provided for us in his BIBLE and his CREATION are not at all surprised that NEITHER the Bible nor Creation provides ANY evidence of a global flood. Yes, it was "world wide" in that the entire inhabited world which Noah knew was destroyed in terms of mankind wiped out, but there is nothing to suggest a GLOBAL flood. If you have the same "degree" as the Apostle Paul in Hebrew exegesis, you should already know that. Or are you again going to prefer TRADITION over the Biblical TEXT?)

Perhaps because according to us, there aren't specific places fossils should be found if they were laid down during a global world wide flood.

And yet, according to people who have actually STUDIED the evidence found under the ground, they know that there is NO evidence of a global flood but LOTS of orderly patterns of fossils. Why do you ignore them? (Oh, that's right. You don't have a degree in geology. You have the Apostle Peter's degree in geology. And you have "Biblical authority" which other Bible-believing Christians lack.)

And yet in all the pictures, lizards have feathers.

Did somebody give him a picture book? What is this about?

And yet in all the pictures, lizards have feathers.
The platypus comes to mind.

Uhhhh. O.K you guys! Fess up! Who told him that the platypus has feathers? Or did you tell him that it is a lizard? Or both? (That's just not nice.)

Next thing you know, he'll be convinced that a "duck-billed platypus" actually has a bill like a duck or is somehow related to one. (You did? Uhh oh. Sorry. That's not funny.)

We should be respectful of our youth pastors. After all, some youth pastor could misunderstand some of these concepts and pass them on to young people. And then we would have all sorts of nonsense and evolution-denying propaganda promoted in our churches as if the Bible denied evolution and a 13.7 billion years old universe! For the sake of America's future, we really can't play around with science, even for the sake of levity. Agreed?


.

 

[juvenissun]

Index fossils are are short-lived geologically, but that can be for a few hundered thousand years. They are species, and there can be descendant species that survive them. Here are a few:
Index fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you claiming these species were created separately, over long periods of time? Why... so we could use them for geology?

A good index fossil is global. So the environmental change should also be global.

If an index fossil evolved from its parent species, or it evolved into its "daughter(?)" species, then I guess it may lose its quality to be an index fossil.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by good brother

See, and I knew exactly what Sky was talking about when he posted those verses/passages. Over and over the Bible says that "the meek will inherit the earth" and the lowest will be highest in the final order of things. This is in stark contrast to what evolution teaches about things. Evolution states that only the strongest and the fiercest, those who will fight the hardest for survival, will make it. The Bible says you must die in order to live. Evolution says "if you don't do everything you can to live, you will die". Diametrically oppsing ideas. Is it the "meek and gentle" of the Bible or the "strong and aggressive" of evolution?
​

Read Mark 10:19 again.
That is one of the biggest lies I have ever read - and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you genuinely believe that statement to be true, then you need to start reading some factual books.
Even On the Origin of Species would suggest otherwise, as would The Sefish Gene.
Look around the world today, and do you need to be fierce to survice and prosper?
No.
Grass.
Trees.
Are they aggressive?
Sharks and crocodiles are amongst the fiercest animals on the planet, yet they don't dominate it.

I'm not trying to make excuses for "Good Brother" but it is worth mentioning that his "creation science" authorities have for many years drilled into him a steady confusion between "Darwin's theory" and "Social Darwinism".

And as you've pointed out, "Good Brother" has no idea what the Theory of Evolution actually states. He only knows the straw-man version which misrepresents it as "the fiercest" or "the least meek" wins.

Of course, that mindset completely falls apart when one looks at the real world, where "weak" shelf fungi triumph over mighty oak trees and cockroaches survive in great numbers that all sorts of things. Indeed, most of the "creation science" advocates I worked with over the years (e.g. in the seminary where I worked) had never ever considered what "success" and "out-compete" means when applied to bacteria or weeds or a coelacanth or monotreme or anything else.

Yes, we have every reason to be frustrated at the refusal to learn the most basic fundamentals. But as with the stereotypical religious cult, the cocoon carefully filters out legitimate information and only the "official dogma" gets through. (Check out online: Google for "Morton's Demon". Glen Morton is a former YEC who describes his life prior to his learning the truth, both in the scriptures and in his geology field studies. He wrote for "creation science" journals until the oil exploration company he worked for moved him out into the field where he was forced to view the real data on a daily basis. And notice also how his Young Earth Creationist "friends" ostracized him when he started asking the wrong questions. They even accused him of being a "closet atheist." I know that everything he reports is consistent with what I observed over the years.)

And, of course, these factors are precisely why so many churches lose their teenagers when they grow up and realize that the 2+2=5 which they've been TOLD is the Bible's teachings on a particular topic -----and it turns out to be wrong when they take a math course. (Of course, the Bible made such claims in the first place. But tradition says it did.) It is much like belief in Santa Claus: If the child grows up and realizes that authority figures have lied to them about Santa, they doubt everything else they've been told by that "authority". So you can predict what will happen when the local church tells a child, "The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is an evil theory. And you can't believe BOTH the Bible and that kind of science at the same time! You must choose one." So when they figure out they've been told falsehoods about science, they nevertheless believe the pastor who told them that they can only CHOOSE ONE. So they decide, "If the Bible was wrong about evolution and the age of the earth, I can't believe anything else it says. The pastor told me that! So I choose to believe the Science."

Yes, I have no doubt that Young Earth Creationism has turned far more young people into agnostics and atheists than "evilution" ever will. And that is why it is such a threat to Biblical truth and the credibility of the Bible in general. (And yet I regularly talk to pastors who lament, "Evolution has turned so many of our former youth group members into church dropouts once they reach college age!" They blame it on Richard Dawkins instead of themselves! They should have listened to the Apostle Paul who warned of the hazards of teaching a Gospel OTHER THAN the Cross of Jesus Christ. If the church insists on fighting a war against Science, i.e. the realities of God's creation, they will lose every time.)

"Good Brother" has told us that he is a Youth Pastor. So I'm sure he will vouch for what I'm saying: Any church which tells young people that they must choose between the Bible and the theory of evolution (or an old earth or the Big Bang Theory) is sure to lose those young people when they get old enough to really that they've been forced into a false dichotomy.

.

 

[Tiberius]

A good index fossil is global. So the environmental change should also be global.

Why? Doe Earth today have the same climate all over? Are all animalks spread evenly across the planet?

If an index fossil evolved from its parent species, or it evolved into its "daughter(?)" species, then I guess it may lose its quality to be an index fossil.

What qualities does an animal need to have in order to be an "Index fossil"?

 

[Jazer]

And as you've pointed out, "Good Brother" has no idea what the Theory of Evolution actually states.

Oh come on, you claim that everyone that does not agree with you does not know what they are talking about. In a college debate that would get you zero points and you know it. Can't you come up with something new and original and different. Or R U just going to keep giving us all the same old tired wore out arguments?

I wonder at what point does someone know enough about it? Does your average high school grad know enough about Darwin's theory? Does your average College Grad understand Darwin's theory? Because I never heard of Darwin back in High School or College. They only time I ever heard about him or his theory was when Creationists were poking fun at him for his so called claim that we evolved from monkeys.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution states that only the strongest and the fiercest, those who will fight the hardest for survival, will make it.

Beware the fearsome products of evolution.

And to add two quotes:

"Nematologists are fond of saying that if all the matter of the earth were removed except nematodes, we would still see a faint outline of all the trees, mountains, lakes, rivers, and animals that existed."
- From a webpage, the quote may be apocraphal, but it still resonates as far as the point we're making.

"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."
- Again, likely apocraphal, but it captures what "evolution states" much better than gradyll's straw man version.

 

[USincognito]

I just found a hare in my Cambrian soup! Thanks Split Rock!

Look at this article from the site you posted:

Index fossils (also known as guide fossils, indicator fossils or zone fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). They work on the premise that, although different sediments may look different depending on the conditions under which they were laid down, they may include the remains of the same species of fossil.

Did you catch that? The article admits that no matter what the actual sediment layer appears to be, if it contains (oh let's say) a tilobite, then "we" know the layer to be "X" years old belonging to "Y" era.

Hmm, I'm no geologist, so perhaps I'm "interpreting" this contribution to a Wikipedia article differently than GB, but I to me it appears to be saying that regardless of whether the layer is shale, chalk or limestone, the presence of index fossils will indicate that it is Cretaceous.

Basically, what the article is trying to slip by...

So what you're saying is you'd rather respond to your straw man version of what was written than what it actually says?

It wouldn't matter one bit if the trilobite fossil was found in a layer of mud that sat atop a human skeleton, wooly mammoth remains, or a Mcdonalds restaurant...

Awesome. When they find something like that, let us know.

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have.{snip a tired attemped appeal to Zeno's Paradox}

Yes, it is worth talking about within the context of how Creationists want to play around with Zeno's Paradox when it comes to the amount of large vertebrat fossils we have, but what does that have to do with the utter absence of truly out of place fossils? The Creationist alternative to evolution is all beings living at the same time and being jumbled together during The Flood. The problem is really on your side because we should constantly be finding dolphins and Ichthysaurs, roses and Placoderms, rabbits and trilobites all mixed together everywhere.

Yet they can't provide a single example.

 

[USincognito]

Ceolocanth. It was supposed to be an index fossil from 65 million years ago...

Ooops. You're confused and you've been lied to by Creationist organizations. It's referred to as a living fossil because it was known from the fossil record from the Devonian to the late-Cretaceous. That's from around 380 million years ago to 65 million years ago, not "from 65 million years ago". And that's also not an index fossil. As Split Rock already noted, species, not orders are index fossils and vertebrates are poor choices, especially in a marine environment where invertebrates are much more plentiful and likely to be preserved. Here's a list of examples from the U.S. Geological Survey.

This lie appears to have originated with Kent Hovind and has been spread with wild abandon by Creationists all around the Internet. Just do a Google search for Is the Coelacanth an index fossil and you'll see no legitimate sources claiming it is or ever was an index fossil.

 

[Jazer]

why is it that I'm supposed to be bothered by the idea that there were species of Coelacanths living 65 millions years ago but the fact that species of Monotremes [exemplified today by the duck-billed platypus, echidnas, etc.] lived then and now is not a problem? Somebody pleez help me![/I]

You need to help us. Explain how animals that are now extinct have evolved but the very few (less than 2%) that are NOT extinct have not evolved or changed. Do only dead extinct animals evolve and living animals do not evolve? The Crocodile found all over the world in all sorts of environments, has not changed in 55 million years. Again, the evidence supports creationism, not evolution. Go team Creation Yeah!!! Your basket ball team, I mean your theory is not as good as ours. Of course if your TE, well then I suppose that is a different game that plays on a different field. But it does not really count unless you can produce some ID to support your TE. Now we have a new question that the evos are mad at us because they can not answer the question. If evolution is a product of transcribers then just exactly what does a mutation have to do with a transcriber & Transcription Factor???

Oh wait, I know the answer already, the answer is I do not know what I am talking about. ONLY problem with that answer is IF I can not figure it out, chances are no one can figure it out and you have a nonsense theory. (mutations, transcribers & Transcription factors) So once again you have managed to paint yourself into a corner. If I can not figure it out as a college student, then perhaps we are wasting our time trying to explain this theory to high school students. So from now on ONLY PHD's are allowed to study evolution, because there is no reason for the rest if us to study the theory, we are not smart enough to figure it out. For all you people that function at a Time Magazine level of understanding, I guess Creationism is the only game in town. Evolution is only for real smart people with real high IQ's and lots of post college education. Sense my IQ has only been measured at 145 people like me are just not smart enough to figure it out.

Once again the logical conclusion of your thinking has gone no where. Point, set, match & game. Tks for playing better luck next time.

 

[juvenissun]

Why? Doe Earth today have the same climate all over? Are all animalks spread evenly across the planet?

What qualities does an animal need to have in order to be an "Index fossil"?

I am not sure. But I have posted my idea.

Anyway, I assume that an index fossil should not be a transitional form. And more seriously, it should not have related transitional forms, and the gap should be the bigger the better.

 

[Split Rock]

A good index fossil is global. So the environmental change should also be global.

A good index fossil should have a wide-spread distribution, yes. Maybe not global. And yes, if it is widespread that would make its extinction less likely. That is why there are so few index fossils species, relative to the total number of fossil species.

If an index fossil evolved from its parent species, or it evolved into its "daughter(?)" species, then I guess it may lose its quality to be an index fossil.

Why? We are talking about species here, not genera or higher taxa.

 

[verysincere]

Yes, it is worth talking about within the context of how Creationists want to play around with Zeno's Paradox when it comes to the amount of large vertebrat fossils we have, but what does that have to do with the utter absence of truly out of place fossils? The Creationist alternative to evolution is all beings living at the same time and being jumbled together during The Flood. The problem is really on your side because we should constantly be finding dolphins and Ichthysaurs, roses and Placoderms, rabbits and trilobites all mixed together everywhere.

Yet they can't provide a single example.

1) I hadn't heard it called "Zeno's Paradox" before but that is a GREAT way to describe it!

(At first reading, I thought, "I need to start using that one to describe the argument." But then I realized that the same people who never learned how evolution works never learned about Achilles and the Tortoise.)

2) As to mixing dolphins and roses and rabbit and trilobites, let's recall those great "creation science" solutions:

* "Hydrological sorting" (Too bad that you can't demonstrate it experimentally!)

* "Differential escape capabilities" (After all, any paleontologist can vouch for the fact that those glacially slow tree sloths and turtles are always at the bottom of the fossil record, and cheetahs and Arabian horses are at the very TOP of the fossil record.)

* "Floating vegetation mats" (I must admit that this a relatively new effort to explain why/how some species seem to have survived the global flood and ended up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. "Creation science" hadn't thought of this one back inthe 60's and 70's when I was a Young Earth Creationist speaker.)


See how well "creation science" explains the fossil record? (Of course, there is overwhelming evidence for a global flood everywhere on earth! Every geologist can tell you that!)

.

 

[Split Rock]

* "Differential escape capabilities" (After all, any paleontologist can vouch for the fact that those glacially slow tree sloths and turtles are always at the bottom of the fossil record, and cheetahs and Arabian horses are at the very TOP of the fossil record.)

.

I always got a good laugh from that one... picturing a sloth outrunning a velociraptor, or asking how the oak tree outran the fern up the side of a mountain!

 

[verysincere]

I always got a good laugh from that one... picturing a sloth outrunning a velociraptor, or asking how the oak tree outran the fern up the side of a mountain!

But don't forget that the acorns and the fern spores survived on those floating mats which one author claims were as big as 120 miles in diameter! (And please don't ask me how he made that determination. But he's a "creation scientists." They know stuff!) And acorns and spores also came on the ark with the food for all those animals!

For years I've been studying the characteristics of "creation science" fans to see if one can identify general patterns. And among them I've found that "lack of mathematical magnitudes" is one of them. I'm not just talking about math illiteracy. I'm talking about an inability to appreciate orders of magnitude and the comparison of numbers. For example, how does one fit all NEPHESH animals ("higher animals" which have lungs breathing "the breath of life") of the entire planet on one large barge? Even by playing games with the Biblical concept of "kinds", there's obviously not enough room and the logistical, dietary, hygiene, and waste disposal problems are immense.

Of course, a Young Earth Creationist always has the option of solving any nagging problem with "Then God performed a miracle." Indeed, I think many of my Christian brethren recognize the "numbers problem" with the ark, so they think of the ark as being like one of those circus clown cars! The pairs of animals (seven pairs with some "kinds") just keep going into the ark and the actual capacity doesn't matter!

But the sad things about it is that the Hebrew text of Genesis never claims that the Flood was global! (ERETZ in Hebrew is usually translated "land". It is not that "earth" is a bad translation so much as a misleading one---because most English readers assumed "the entire planet earth" instead of the Hebrew concept of "the earth", which was all of the land "under the heavens", all the way to the horizon. It is "the circle of the earth" one seas when one looks to the horizon, all 360 degrees of the horizon!

So as with MOST Young Earth Creationist beliefs about origins, the problem is NOT with what the Bible actually states. They are defending their cherished TRADITIONS about what they think the Bible means. And then they confuse the doctrine of "scripture inerrancy" with "my church's interpretation of the Bible is inerrant." That is why their Christian brethren disagree with them! (Not only is the global flood not in the scriptures, the Bible makes no statements about the age of the earth and even the early Church Fathers realized that translating YOM in Genesis 1 as "24 hour day" created many inconsistencies and problems in the Biblical text.


[FOOTNOTE: (1) Many assume that the ark was to carry ALL living kinds. No. The Biblical text basically refers to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians--although we must allow some leeway for the ancient Hebrew language and the fact it is an anachronism fallacy to impose modern taxonomy on the Biblical text! (2) Noah's Ark was NOT a boat. It was basically a large barge. (3) YECs know that the huge numbers are a problem so they claim that we shouldn't confuse "kinds" with "species". However, just try to get them to define "kinds"! Check out Ken Ham's "baraminology project" where they are classifying various "kinds" as equivalent to various families, orders, and ever classes! (4) And the great thing about Ham's baraminology is that the Creation Museum has an exhibit where the poster claims that all of the "speciation" from the original "kind" male & female happened in just 200 years! That's what I call "hyper-evolution"!


And as "Good Brother" helpfully pointed out, I learned all of this while flipping burgers at McDonald's! They have a great Biblical Studies program. I had to pass comps, write a dissertation, defend it, and the whole nine yards! (I can only dream of attaining the title of youth pastor.)

.

 

[verysincere]

You need to help us. Explain how animals that are now extinct have evolved but the very few (less than 2%) that are NOT extinct have not evolved or changed.

1) They HAVE changed. (And yes, you don't know what you are talking about. Ask the biologists on this forum if my post represents current evolutionary biology.)

2) The DEGREE of change largely depends upon changes in environment. (Changes can occur for other reasons but environment is a very big one.) If an organism's environment remains relatively stable and there are not major competition changes as far as other organisms grabbing the food supply, there are few "evolutionary pressures" to drive significant changes.

Now if you actually DID understand the Theory of Evolution, I wouldn't have to explain to you the most basic concepts.

You remind me of those who think that because the coelacanth is sometimes called "a living fossil", the discovery of a species of them off the coast Africa almost a hundred years ago was some sort of problem for evolution. They assume that the ancient coelacanths found as fossils are the same as the "living fossil" modern coelacanth species discovered in 1938. (They show their ignorance by claiming "the coelacanth hasn't changed!")

No, a coelacanth is an entire taxonomic ORDER of many families, genera, and species, some having lived long ago and some found more recently. So to refer to a coelacanth is much like referring to a PRIMATE. They are both zoological orders in terms of taxonomy. Or do you think that because some primates (ancient monkey and ape species of long ago) are extinct, that makes humans a "living fossil" in the same way?

Only someone who knows nothing about evolution would assume that the fact that some coelacanth species lived millions of years ago and yet we can still find coelacanths today, that that somehow "disproves" evolution. Likewise, anyone who thinks evolution occurred long ago with "extinct species" but doesn't occur today is similarly confused.

Yes, it seems like many of us are spending a lot of time explaining the basics.

(My science degrees were not in biology so I will defer to the actual biologists on this thread to tell me if I misspoke on some detail.)

.

 

[good brother]

* "Hydrological sorting" (Too bad that you can't demonstrate it experimentally!)


.

I personally have conducted two experiments in hydrologic sorting and found the results to be the same. Where I live there is a large lake nearby with many layers exposed on cliff walls all around. I carefully extracted some rock from every layer I could get to. Once home, I pulverized the different rocks and put them all in a container which I topped off with water. After stirring it vigorously I let it set in my garage. After some time I checked on it and found that the pulverized rocks resettled into the exact same layer positions as I had found occurred naturally.

In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

I personally have conducted two experiments in hydrologic sorting and found the results to be the same. Where I live there is a large lake nearby with many layers exposed on cliff walls all around. I carefully extracted some rock from every layer I could get to. Once home, I pulverized the different rocks and put them all in a container which I topped off with water. After stirring it vigorously I let it set in my garage. After some time I checked on it and found that the pulverized rocks resettled into the exact same layer positions as I had found occurred naturally.

In Christ, GB

Geologists are quite familar with this process. Indeed, you can find such sorting of rocks in the geological column. However, you cannot explain the distribution of fossils or the organisms they came from by hydrologic sorting, despite what Morris claimed. Nor can one find a universal group of strata demonstrating such widespread sorting that could point to global flood sediments. Christian geologists realized this back in the early to mid 19th century. Therefore, the problem with Morris' hypothesis was not the mechanics itself, but the fact that it does nto explain what we find in the geological column.

 

[NailsII]

With carrots it is the flower above the ground that has to die and turn to seed. It is very difficult to kill a plant that has not produced seeds. Even if you burn them off at ground level the roots still continue to grow.

Dead flowers do not turn into seeds.
Plants are very easy to kill, whether they have seeded or not. Just cut of their light and/or water supply. Simple.

Anyway, I assume that an index fossil should not be a transitional form. And more seriously, it should not have related transitional forms, and the gap should be the bigger the better.

All fossils are transitional forms, as is every living creature because evolution hasn't stopped.
Granted, most of them havn't finished the transition because they became extinct - but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a transition in progress....

You need to help us.

I don't think that god could help you.

Explain how animals that are now extinct have evolved but the very few (less than 2%) that are NOT extinct have not evolved or changed. Do only dead extinct animals evolve and living animals do not evolve?

Dead animals cannot evolve because they have lost the ability to reproduce, as well as metabolise and have nice dreams.
Obviously the 2% have evolved, otherwise there would be nothing else alive. This doesn't mean that they all have to become other species; if they are already well adapted to their environment they wouldn't need to evolve - but they will evolve in response to a new environmental pressure, such as a different niche which they can now inhabit after a mass extinction. It doesn't mean a whole population worldwide has to evolve, just fringe groups which are ab;e to adapt to a slightly different environment.

The Crocodile found all over the world in all sorts of environments, has not changed in 55 million years. Again, the evidence supports creationism, not evolution.

Crocodiles havn't changes much in the last 85 million years in terms of their basic body plan, but have varied in size according to their habitat.
They already have a fantastic ambush strategy, so they have no need to adapt when no change is required.
They have adapted quite significantly however, witness the saltwater crocodile - the move from fresh water to sea water is a major change and requires significant adaptations to deal with the new conditions.

If evolution is a product of transcribers then just exactly what does a mutation have to do with a transcriber & Transcription Factor???

Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

Oh wait, I know the answer already, the answer is I do not know what I am talking about. ONLY problem with that answer is IF I can not figure it out, chances are no one can figure it out and you have a nonsense theory.

An argument from incredulity - what a surprise.

Evolution is only for real smart people with real high IQ's and lots of post college education. Sense my IQ has only been measured at 145 people like me are just not smart enough to figure it out.

Your IQ is at least ten points higher than mine, so that can't be the reason.
Maybe you should look for more credible sources of information, then you may understand it.

Once again the logical conclusion of your thinking has gone no where. Point, set, match & game. Tks for playing better luck next time.

How arrogant must someone be to claim victory when the 'game' has only just started?
It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and she hasn't left her seat yet.

Still waiting for a creationist's response here.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7653920-20/#post60492743