Evolutionists: Can you answer this simple question for me about evolution?

Question

Evolutionists claim that living things have improved and evolved over time. Fossils however demonstrate that living things that lived in the past were the same as their modern counterparts and they have not undergone any evolution.

A crab dated 150 million years fossil found still exists today?

A Coelacanth fish fossil dated 350-400 million years still exists today?

A thornback ray dated 75 million years still found toay?

A bat dated 50 million years still found today?

A starfish fossil dated 400 million years still found today?

A shark fossil dated 400 million years still exists today?

Could this be a blow to the theory Of Evolution by the Fossil record?

Could this be evidence Of creation In the Fossil record?

ohiofirefighter42 not could it does

Answer 1

I like youuuuuu. :)

Answer 2

No.

If an environment of an organism does not change, it has no reason to evolve. For example, a coelacanth lived in the deep ocean, it had no natural predators and the ocean's composition did not change for millions of years, hence genetically and physically it will exhibit limited change.

In fact it proves evolution, if an organism becomes so well adapted to an environment, natural selection will not occur, there is no selection pressure, and nothing to make an individual seem more advantageous. This case is only true for a few organisms are very rarely does an environment go unchanged for millions of years.

Better luck next time.

Answer 3

You know, this evidence might be quite stark and useful, but I have never seen anything that better disproves Evolution and simultaneously supports the Biblical Adam and Eve account than the recent Book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE, by Denis Towers. He is a specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist.
He addresses many of life's Hugest Questions in that work - 9 years in the making and in the researching - but his most significant scientific discovery is that man and the snake prove to be the precise antithesis of one another - both, anatomically and behaviorally.
To have precise opposites within creation clearly indicates "deliberate design', not a case of random mutation!
The 2nd factor this discovery tends to prove is the Biblical Adam and Eve, wherein it just so happens that the serpent instigated opposition between man and God!
God cursed the serpent "above all the beasts of the field" in fact, and made changes to it - some recorded.
As a result, it would appear those changes were such as to make it the complete opposite of man.
It is a most inspirational and fascinating work.

Answer 4

Nope. There are occasional species that have a very clearly defined nitch and that causes them not change that much. Nothing about evolution requires change. And if you were right there should be a few examples, modern life should be COMMON in the older fossil layer. Flowering plants should be as abundant in the Pennsylvania period as they are in the late Jurassic period. They are non-existent.

And you are really exaggerating on many of your examples. Here is the shark: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1001_031001_sharkfossil.html
It is not much like modern species at all.

Answer 5

On the other hand, there are several other animals in existence that are similar to these creatures yet markedly different. Birds are similar to bats, modern reptiles are similar to dinosaurs, etc. Certain animals even have vestigial structures (structures that no longer serve a function but rather are a remnant from ancestors to whom they were important), like the appendix in the human. Some whales even have very small arms.

The fact that these select few organisms managed to survive unchanged is not a testament to creationism.

Answer 6

In evolution, gene pools can change rapidly, in only a few thousand years, or very slowly, in a few million years. In some cases, the changes are so small, and so slow, a gene pool is still considered the same species millions of years later.

Answer 7

The fossils may be similar but you would have a hard time saying they are the same from a fossil.

Animals evolve by adapting to a changing environment if the environment is stable and the animal is well adapted there is little if any pressure to change.

Note that all but one of your examples occured in the ocean which is a very stable environment.

Answer 8

the evolutionary theory applies to species that must adapt to there changing environment. if the environment is stable then there is no need to change have you ever heard the saying "if it isn't broke don't fix it" the same applies here. if its working for that species then there is no need to invest energy and time in change. sorry if i upset your day with the facts. but maybe before you try and prove a theory wrong you should look it up and read about it more and don't dismiss certain facts because they don't support your beliefs. that's just stupid.

Answer 9

Evolution is powered by natural selection. If an organism is successful it may not change noticeably. Fairly basic and uncomplicated concept, for reasonable people.

Answer 10

Evolution does not state things universally "improved" over time.

There are numerous isolated populations that have not undergone radical changes. This does not mean that any one of the fossils you cited could be confused for their relatively unchanged descendants on close examination. This is not evidence of creation, but evidence of the success of certain evolutionary forms.

Answer 11

do u actually now what evolution presumes survival of the fittest in a particular environment and if the fittest just happens to be the old species what do u think will happen
oh and answer me this if you're so sure of yore pixie flapping his tutu and wand and creating everything why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible i mean come on 7 ton lizards walking around and the bible says nothing that's really amusing