The 2 Creatures That Could Deny Evolution !

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rnaa

Chimpanzees are small, humans are bigger, gorillas are even bigger, we're all still hominids.

I'm not related to apes.

Correct. You ARE an ape.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
First I give to you the crocodile having existed in it's same form for 200 million years through the entire dinosaur period and beyond.
It survived an extinction level event that wiped out all it's uncles and cousins within that family and it continues to this day unchanged.

Second the fish called a Sturgeon, again unchanged in 200 million years, it looks like a swimming dinosaur. If you know anything about this fish they are really tough they can survive out of water longer than just about any fish and they live a long time.

My assertion is they were created exactly as they are at around that time and started like that and never changed, they never evolved, they were perfect for all the changing environments on this earth and they survived down to this day, living modern dinosaurs.

Zero Evolution in 200 million years, maybe a little adaptation, that's it.

The key part your missing is humans widely out of range numbers. We say 200 million years, it could be much longer than this. Therefore, we could be looking at a life form that had adapted in its past, through its generations but only 200 million plus years ago, did not need to adapt anymore.

Evolution happens, still to this day, some we see no changes, some we do. Those that we do see change are still not at their peak evolutionary steps.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Do you have any scientific data to back up your opinion? Assertions and hunches aren't enough.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
First I give to you the crocodile having existed in it's same form for 200 million years through the entire dinosaur period and beyond.
It survived an extinction level event that wiped out all it's uncles and cousins within that family and it continues to this day unchanged.

Second the fish called a Sturgeon, again unchanged in 200 million years, it looks like a swimming dinosaur. If you know anything about this fish they are really tough they can survive out of water longer than just about any fish and they live a long time.

My assertion is they were created exactly as they are at around that time and started like that and never changed, they never evolved, they were perfect for all the changing environments on this earth and they survived down to this day, living modern dinosaurs.

Zero Evolution in 200 million years, maybe a little adaptation, that's it.

Yep, a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. Where's the evolution ? You only see organisms adapting after the fact. There's no evolution just Intelligent Design when building the organisms. All of these parts just work together because they were designed to.

As you said with the Sturgeon, it was created by Intelligent Design, then it adapted when it reached the environment.

This is directed to both you and the original poster of this thread....

Fair enough, I will whole heartedly agree that those creatures have changed very little in the last 200-400 million years. However, the world is an estimated 4.5 Billion years old... So what about the 4.1-4.3 Billion years before they became the apex predators in their respective food chains?

a reply to: gort51

I think you will find it's spelt David Aten-Braaah.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution happens when you must adapt to survive, both the animals you listed are at the top of the food chain in their respective environments.

What need would they have to evolve?

A mutation must make survival easier for a species for it to spread throughout that species.

Didn't all life supposedly start in the oceans? By now they should have become humanoids with their respective and toughest traits. For example, If the Sturgeon can survive for so long out of the water, why didn't it evolve to be able to live as both a fish and a land animal?

a reply to: Barcs

Can you define what a deflection is?

I will give you an example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: cooperton

No neighbour its not faith based, it is evidentual. Yoy repeatedly refuse to read the evidence provided. Or perhaps it is outside your level of education. I don't know. But this is based on evidence, not gut feeling.

Your premise is still wrong. I have as I repeatedly said, done experiments, which are related to evolutionary science, I base my trust in scientific method, on the fact that i can do this, and make my own decisions.

My faith is a separate matter, and Polytheistic. Don't confuse my day job with my belief systems.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

a reply to: cooperton

" its still a sturgeon " = the level i expects from creationists

but seriously - a question

when do you " abandon " this falacy ? ie - does the delusion " its still a cat " apply to ALL felines ???? taking your idiocy to is rediculus conclusion how about " its still a mammal " ??? or in the case of sturgeon " its still a bony fish " ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Growl it down a microphone

Our future is bleak.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

" its still a sturgeon " = the level i expects from creationists

but seriously - a question

when do you " abandon " this falacy ? ie - does the delusion " its still a cat " apply to ALL felines ???? taking your idiocy to is rediculus conclusion how about " its still a mammal " ??? or in the case of sturgeon " its still a bony fish " ?

Does it make you feel better about your self when you call other people idiots?

So instead of being able to show an example of evolution and end this debate, you call me an idiot for asking for evidence to support a scientific theory? Wonderful. Unlike you, I don't have bigoted expectations against a group of people. When it comes to science, I let the evidence do the talking. I can discern the data on my own, regardless of who or what is dispensing the information. So please, if you want to come into the discussion, have something relevant and empirical to discuss.

originally posted by: Barcs

Correct. You ARE an ape.

Speak for your self. I'm not a believer in your religion.

originally posted by: Noinden
Your premise is still wrong. I have as I repeatedly said, done experiments, which are related to evolutionary science, I base my trust in scientific method, on the fact that i can do this, and make my own decisions.

You're probably learning a lot about adaptation, but will eventually realize an organism cannot "evolve" into another organism.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Didn't all life supposedly start in the oceans? By now they should have become humanoids with their respective and toughest traits.

False. As many have already explained in this thread, evolutionary changes don't just happen because they are convenient for the organism. The mutations are random and the better adapted are favored to pass down genes. Also life in the ocean DID eventually become humanoids, look at humans today. To think that humanoids should have evolved under water is laughable. If they did, they likely do not survive the Permian or Cretaceous mass extinctions, which is what opened the door for the evolution of apes and hominids. Your criticism is unfounded.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs

Can you define what a deflection is?

I will give you an example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Clearly my sarcasm went way over your head. You quite obviously deflected in that post, not to mention you completely ignored my paragraph explaining it, and then deflected AGAIN in your post above by ignoring it.

Maybe time for another vacation?

originally posted by: cooperton
Speak for your self. I'm not a believer in your religion.

Biological classification of organisms is a religion? LMFAO! Homo sapiens are in the great ape family. Are you denying that you are a homo sapien now, or just rejecting ALL science that conflicts with your silly fundamentalist version of your religion? Don't answer, we already know. Honesty isn't your thing.

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, we deny you're a descendant of fish and apes no matter what your religion is.

One need only to consider the human appendix to readily demonstrate the still evolving human species. It serves no purpose, at this point in our evolution. One could hypothesize that the human appendix will slowly shrink in future generations, to the point of no longer appearing in the human body, if the species survives long enough.

A couple other remnants of past humans no longer necessary at this stage in our evolution, which may fade away over future generations: wisdom teeth and tonsils.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

The human appendix, a narrow pouch that projects off the cecum in the digestive system, has a notorious reputation for its tendency to become inflamed (appendicitis), often resulting in surgical removal. Although it is widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria. Several other mammal species also have an appendix, and studying how it evolved and functions in these species may shed light on this mysterious organ in humans.

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

Yes, we deny you're a descendant of fish and apes no matter what your religion is.

LOL! That's my exact point. You deny science, and have offered nothing whatsoever to support your ignorant position.

Love the new avatar, by the way. It summarizes your posts in here very nicely.