May I ask a question to all evolution sifus...

If evolution happens by means of accidental mutations that "change the frequence of alleles" in a "population over time." Why then do we find creatures that are virtually unchanged dating back into the hundreds of millions of years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

For example, the Coelacanth (by no means the only example of this sort) is essentially (as far as shape and bone structure, the same as 300+ million years ago. Shouldn't it be "something" else today? Living fossil plants too.



What gives? Note it is not just Coelacanth. Just the other day realized the vitamin Gingko biloba is a 'living fossil' that dates back to a staggering 270 million years ago. I find it super weird if evolution did occur and this can happen.

The environment that they lived in didn't change. Evolution is basically the survival of the fittest for a given environment. If the existing design is already the best for a given environment, there's no reason for them to change.

Changes requires additional resources(food, energy,...) in order to occur and maintained. So if your original model is able to live on less resources compared to the newer model with no added benefit, the older model will survive.

But it has been said...



Last time so called "living coecalanths" were only via sightings (early 1900s) but now we have it on video.

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

That's the part I don't get. Coelacanth (again by no means the only example) has been long said to be the missing link between a fish evolving into a land critter, the case for Coelacanth its fin it said to evolve into amphibian legs.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/COELAC.htm

But by finding a population of Coelacanth completely unchanged is baffling. Even if the environment they lived in didn't change (which I find to be a reasonable explanation), doesn't that mean the potential for hundreds of other species in "unchanged" environments also can exist like they did millions of years ago? I keep thinking of the reports of living dinosaurs not so far fetched if indeed their environment didn't change for millions of years ago (e.g sea, vicinity near to virtually unchanged environments).

If the fossil and living version of the species has been found, how can it be declared as missing?

Missing link is not an actual scientific term.

From the same link from above, the Tiktaalik is the so called "missing link" for your example, not the Coelacanth.
We have species dieing off on a daily basis. Finding live dinosaurs is not impossible. It is just highly unlikely. Their fossils practically stopped showing up after a particular time period. Possible Paleocene survivors-The most "recent" fossil is dated 64 million years ago. Unless someone find anything newer, they're pretty much gone.

The premise of evolution is that life happened by pure chance. If that were the case the odds of everything necessary for life falling into place again and again are slim. And that's why many evolutionists have difficulty believing that other earths have produced super intelligent beings----since it took billions of years for mankind to reach this point in the evolutionary ladder.

Evolution is complete and utter nonsense. The whole principle is ridiculous. The only reason anyone believes in evolution, is first because that is all that is taught in the schools, and second, people that have abandon the religion angle need something to fill the gap----where did we come from?

The answer and the truth as usual, are very simple----humans and all life, plant and animal, were seeded by other intelligent life from other star systems.

A large tree produces billions of seeds which are carried by the wind and digestive tracks of animals that have eaten them----to far away places.

These seeds take root and turn into trees and the process repeats forever.

The universe did not begin with a bang fourteen billion years ago, it’s been around ceaselessly, and like a tree puts forth seed in a never ending dance with eternity.

Proof is all around; however the ability to see it rest with the individual, no one can make anyone see it.

your idea merely push back the starting point. if we are seeded by aliens, who seeded the aliens? ad infinitum

They have no beginning or ending , very strange for a dumbed down 3d brain,
now this thread is about evolution i think i have derailed this thread too much sry bout that

We, humans (majority) have been "hard wired" to believe in evolution. Since a kid, evolution has been widely accepted as part of science that we learn. In fact, ask yourself when did you started questioning what has already been widely accepted - - when something compels you to think differently.

Instead of "taking the easy way out and accepting" why not think differently. Not just for sake of it, but it might just be the truth. Problem ? - - majority thinks one way while only a minority thinks the other way. So who wins? Duh... majority no matter how compelling your case against it might be.

Not just evolution, the same applies to say, ghost, bigfoot, ufos, aliens, etc.. whatever that is out of the norm, whether real or not. Even if there is absolute and indisputable evidence, one will say "Nah... it's just a big hoax." Even if a real fleet of aliens were to land on Earth, Google trend search would be "Giant alien fleet hoax", "Alien fleet hoax" etc. That is why folks that are actually in the situation/experience it themselves believe in these things.

I think the REAL revolutionary will be immorality.
Please let me re-define what I meant here.
The scientist already predicted in 20 years from now, we will have "nanobots" or nano cells something like that. It will fix our body like bones, organs and so on. But ! You are still mortal againts wounds and all, as in people shoot you in the head / accident and so.
The thing here is as long as you can runaway from the fate of accident, you're basically "immortal" since cancer will be like flu in the future. Back in the days, we "human" lifespan was averagely 35years old only. Look at what technologies and science brought us now? Average 75 yo life span. You might say immortality is boring, but hey, you always get to choose ;p

I think the word you are trying to use here is immortality. We already have immorality in our world.

ops, typo on my side.

Evolution did not occur. Ever.

I finally made my order of the book that I was dying to read about :

http://www.amazon.com/100-Year-Cover-Up-Re...s/dp/1463416830

It's called "100 Year Cover Up Revealed: We Lived With Dinosaurs". It's not a book solely on dinosaurs, but on evolution as well and how we have been 'groomed' to accept the facts thanks to so-called inconclusive evidence. Inconclusive evidence my foot... read the book.

EVERY LIVING HUMAN BEING SHOULD READ THIS FREAKIN' BOOK NOW!

Whether you want to believe it or not, it is up to you but if you have an open mind, this book will change you.

It's amazing how I 'accidentally' stumbled upon this book while not even scouring for anything related to it. It is almost like it was meant to be

It provides incredible evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at the same time. Living seperately, occassionally encounter, but still at the same time AND STILL ARE (in much smaller quantities).

It's a book so good, I have started recommending it to my friends to buy it too (can't find any PDF / 'Free' version).

Every single point in the book makes sense. Makes absolute sense. It is science based and very logically explained. With remarkable evidence of everything that has been in front of us for so long.

The most shocking to me is how inaccurate carbon dating and that the geologic column does not exist . I did not know that the infamous column layer does not exist in its entirety. All along I really thought we were 'mistakenly calculating' the dates, never really thinking that the method of dating itself is flawed.

For starters - - >
Dinosaurs went 'nearly' extinct due to Noah's Flood (The Great Flood) and humans hunting and killing them. Again, all evidence is in the book. The term 'dinosaur' was not coined until 1842 and 'dragons' were more commonly used. Also, scientists and paleontologists agree than only 25% of dinosaur fossils have been discovered leaving the possibility that fuel-reservoir based dinosaurs could have existed and thus an actual dragon-characteristic (yes, fire breathing) could have existed. As wild as this may sound, the undiscovered 3000+ species of dinosaurs makes this a big possibility. The age of the Earth and dinosaurs itself are only thousands of years old. Yes, this brings 'creationism' closer but that is really not the point, it really does tally with what has been going on with our planet.

There is a joke that I like :

(At a dinosaur museum)

Visitor : *Asks security guard* Wow, such great dinosaur fossils. How old do you think they are?
Security guard : They are 65 million and 4 years and 3 months and 1 day old.
Visitor : How can you be so accurate on the age?
Security guard : Well, these fossils were here when I started working 4 years, 3 months and 1 day ago.

... deep down inside I always thought something was wrong with evolution, grossly wrong. Ask a kid and he'll say evolution took place and that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. We were groomed from the beginning and continue to do with our kids. What could possibly rattle the kid as he grows up and think the 'widely accepted' evolution theory isn't real?

This post has been edited by defaultname365: Apr 12 2013, 12:27 PM