I have seen--don't remember where--Creationists touting "living fossils" like the coelacanth (creatures that were thought to be extinct for millions of years and then turn up alive) as evidence against evolution.
I've been trying, but I can't seem to remember how that line of reasoning went. If anything, I would think that "living fossils" would be a boost for the theory of evolution. After all, critters like the coelacanth have apparently been around for millions of years and we just haven't happened to find any recent fossils of them, right?
Doesn't that imply that, just because scientists haven't found every little "missing link" that Creationists demand, it doesn't mean they're not there? If a creature can go unrepresented in the fossil record for millions of years when we know very well that it must have been there anyway, doesn't that make a case for yet-undiscovered "missing links"?
2007-12-08 10:54:44 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
LeftShoeBlind: How could I not have noticed that before?!? I'm convinced; I'll throw out all my science books and go buy a bible...
2007-12-08 11:06:44 · update #1
Finkaboud: Maybe, um, they're doing just fine as they are. Even if other species of fish proliferated to fill other ecological niches, there's no reason why the coelacanth can't continue to fill the niche it's in. Sort of like ants and cockroaches, etc.
2007-12-08 11:08:53 · update #2
angeltress: "...than are dreamt of in your paleontology"?
Almost witty, thoroughly unconvincing.
2007-12-08 12:48:33 · update #3
punch: That was the reasoning I was trying to remember. Thanks.
2007-12-10 13:43:37 · update #4
Because everything they believe is all in one collection of primitive Hebrew superstitions, they have no concept of how science, and scientific theories, work.
Everything must be black or white, and very simple for them. They will latch onto an apparent anomaly and yell and scream that somehow that one thing disproves an entire theory and therefore makes all their ridiculous beliefs true.
They are fundamentally, stupid.
2007-12-08 11:24:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Evolution would not propose that organisms inevitably grow to be extra complicated the two. it could each so often be the different, with the lack of ability of specific redundant effective factors or physique factors (the appendix in people, the coccyx in people). definite you're best, there are thousands of species of cockroach, all of them distinctive. shape, length, features, evolutionary historic past. It irks me when I hear people say shite approximately 'no transitional fossils', blah blah blah. And use a quote with the help of Darwin from final century retaining it. definite, you would be best one hundred years in the past, yet that quote became from over a century in the past and our understanding of evolution has stepped forward heavily for the reason that then. we've complete fossil records of homo genus and a good style of different species, pass to a museum now and returned.
2016-12-10 16:52:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have only identified 10% of all the different species currently living. It is no surprise to me that we don't have a complete fossil record, or that there are some very ancient creatures long thought extinct that really aren't.
I don't see how that is an affront to evolutionary theory.
2007-12-08 11:03:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Regarding the mythical missing link, from the creationist point of view, it works this way:
When you find a fossil that fills the gap in between two species, that creates TWO more gaps so you're even more wrong!
I love their logic.
2007-12-08 11:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I can remember way back in school when that fish was paraded as an extinct precursor to (modern Fish). Back then I thought evolution was real and scientists were smarter than the rest of us. But then it turned up and since then extinct species exactly the same as their prehistoric ancestors are popping up every week. None of these million year old creatures show any sort of mutation,,WHY
2007-12-08 11:05:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Coelacanth are obviously the spawn of Satan. Have you ever looked one in the eyes? You can feel their evil intentions, brewing beneath their glassy eyes.
2007-12-08 11:03:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Probably because it hasn't evolved. They don't take into account that some creatures did not have a need to evolve. Their environment is more stable.
2007-12-08 10:59:26 · answer #7 · answered by punch 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Haha they don't understand the concept of evolution.
Many of them think that if we evolved from monkeys there would be no more monkeys.
2007-12-08 10:58:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
There are more things in Heaven and on earth, oh Horatio, than your science books tell you about....
2007-12-08 11:10:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
you ever notice god doesn't have to prove he exists,but evolutionist have to prove he doesn't exists.
2007-12-08 11:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋