New Record-Setting Living Fossil Flabbergasts Scientists

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 12/5/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

New Record-Setting Living Fossil Flabbergasts Scientists   12/05/2003
A remarkably-detailed fossil ostracode, a type of crustacean, has been announced in the Dec. 5 issue of Science¹ that is blowing the socks off its discoverers.  Erik Stokstad in a review of the discovery in the same issue² explains its significance in the evolutionary picture of prehistory:

Over the past half-billion years [sic], evolution has dished up [sic] an almost endless variety of novelties: lungs, legs, eyes, wings, scales, feathers, fur.  So when paleontologists find a creature that doesn’t change, they take note.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Two things about this fossil are exceptional.  (1) It has a “jaw-dropping” amount of detail, such that even small fragile parts and soft tissues were perfectly preserved.  (2) It is indistinguishable from modern ostracodes:

What’s most amazing, ostracode experts say, is how eerily similar the soft-tissue anatomy is to that of modern relatives.  “I was flabbergasted,” says Koen Martens, a zoologist at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 

This fossil, found near Herefordshire, U.K., was found in Silurian deposits estimated to be 425 million years old.  That means that its modern counterparts are living fossils, virtually unchanged for all that time:

Some ostracode specialists are stunned.  “This is a demonstration of unbelievable stability,” says Tom Cronin of the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Virginia.  Whereas ostracodes diversified [sic] into some 33,000 living and extinct species, “these guys have just been plodding along totally unfazed.”

This fossil, named Colymbosathon, is also upsetting those who look for evolution in the genes:

Finding a modern cylindroleberid in the Silurian clashes with molecular data, which suggest that the group and related families originated relatively recently, says evolutionary biologist Todd Oakley of the University of California, Santa Barbara.  There’s no conflict for zoologist Anne Cohen, a research associate at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, who thinks Colymbosathon actually belongs to a long-extinct family.  In any case, the new fossil indicates that a basic ostracode body plan was already present in the Silurian.  It could also help [sic] sort out evolutionary relationships of fossil ostracodes.

David Horne (Queen Mary College, London) predicts more “long-lost evolutionary blueprints” [sic] may emerge from these deposits.  “The probability that they will find similarly preserved representatives of other ostracode lineages, and of other arthropods, is both high and extremely exciting.”

---

¹Siveter et al., “An Ostracode Crustacean with Soft Parts from the Lower Silurian,” Science Dec. 5, 2003.
²Erik Stokstad, “Invertebrate Paleontology: Gutsy Fossil Sets Record for Staying the Course,” Science Volume 302, Number 5651, Issue of 5 Dec 2003, p. 1645.

This is just one more of many remarkable, astounding, flabbergasting examples of living fossils.  “Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism.  The Darwinian world is supposed to be a fluid world, filled with diversification, radiation, and innovation.  During the imaginary 425 million years, the continents moved all over the world, animals crawled onto the land and became geckos and crocodiles and birds and caribou.  Mountains rose and valleys sank, and glaciers repeatedly advanced and retreated over much of the planet.  Some animals moved back into the oceans and became whales, porpoises, manatees and sea lions in just a small fraction of this much time, and humans emerged from grunting chimpanzees, invented language and abstract thought, and conquered space.  Is it reasonable to assume that in this slow whirlwind of continuous dynamical change, these ostracodes just reproduced themselves over and over millions of times without any change whatsoever?
    Darwinists are caught in a crossfire of antagonistic evidence.  Only a well-armored Darwinist could be excited about incoming bombshells like this.  Only by wearing Kevlar-lined lead helmets around their brains can they keep the bullets from penetrating and the insides from exploding.

[ChefKeith]

You are talking about Byrd and Kennedy right?

[mylife]

Here it is

[bondserv]

While the universe may as a whole be dying entropically, local systems are free to do as they please only limited by energy sources and sinks.

So you are saying your engineering research has led you to believe nature can take a lack of information, and order things together giving the appearance of intelligence?

The most sophisticated thing I have seen nature create is crystalline structures, and they don't evidence an increase in information like self-replicating, self-healing, error correcting life does.

[bondserv]

Cool!

Thanks.

[mylife]

humorous story on the "Big" little critter

[bert]

...Why did'nt it evolve alot more?.....

Darwinian evolutionary success depends on natural selection of beneficial change. If there have been changes that were not really beneficial, the species will stay as it has been.

Also, A seperate species can evolve in a different location as a result of changes there but the original can still exist elsewhere.

[bondserv]

Keep in mind, science can never prove, or DISPROVE the existance of God. It's strictly a mater of faith, either way.

Jesus Christ (aka. God) walked on the face of this planet less than 2000 years ago. Thomas got to clear that problem up for us.

Believing God is managing every aspect of our lives to such a degree that we exemplify a peace that passes all understanding is faith.

Faith = Seeing and knowing things non-believing people don't see or know. It is a gift of God. Therefore we can worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Are we prompted to seek Him, or do we taste His glory through someone preaching the Gospel to us?

[bert]

....creationists.....

Au contraire (a little frog lingo) mi Amigo (a little Spanish lingo).......

If creationists have not evolved, how do you account for the impenetrable brain rind?

[jennyp]

blah blah blah PLACEMARKER.

[snowballinhell]

I used to be an advocate for evolution until a friend of mine told me to prove it, so off I went to prove him wrong. What I found was that there is actually very little evidence for evolution(there is evidence of micro adaptation but none for macro evolution) For example we have the graph of the evolution of horses (from smallest to largest)problem is the fossils for these horses are not found according to the geophysical table ie the "oldest" horse is not found in the oldest rock. As well I could not find evidence of ANY species evolving into another NOT ONE EXISTS. Not only have we not found the missing link (which used to be Neanderthal(sp)which has now been found to not be related to Homo Sapien) between man and ape but we have not found the missing link between any group or sub group. We can manage to find 10's of thousands of fossils from each group, but not one of the evolving fossils.
Another point was "where are the evolving species today?" question.
If we have samples of groups but no evolving samples evolution must happen quickly,but if evolution happens quickly where are the examples of quick evolution, they should be around us everywhere.
Another point most animals have way faster reproductive cycles than humans (rats every 43 days, cats and dogs every 9 months) if the cycles are 20 to 200 times faster should we not be having to wrestle the car keys from our pets by now. NOTHING ELSE BUT HUMANS, have even figured out how to come in out of the cold let alone build a automobile or a boat. Do you honestly think some day your descendants will be sitting down with your dog's descendants for tea and crumpets?...

Anyway I could find no proof, but what I have noticed is the more we learn, the more accurate the Bible becomes.
People used to call the story of the virgin birth a fairy tale, now we call it artificial insemination. People used to call the story of creation of Eve from Adam a fairy tale, now we call it cloning. The big bang theory, "Add the Lord said let there be light, and there was light.

[dinasour]

Lots of living things still exist which aren't evolving further. Roaches, certain 'palm' trees, alligators, ants, creationists.

Not only that, a subspecies can also split off, even though the parent species continues unchanged.

For example, clams, snails, octipi, "intelligent designers"

[PatrickHenry]

I'm not going to deploy my ping list for this thread. The whole thing is based on a misconception that evolution commands everything to change all the time, so that nothing could possibly remain in stasis, which is goofy. I'm content to let the creos have this thread to themselves.

[snowballinhell]

You mean like the fact the most evolved species is the weakest on the planet?? What happened to survival of the fittest. Should we not resemble the other creatures on the top of the food chain, such as big teeth, big claws,immense size, fur to keep us warm (or cold blood for that matter. What happened to survival of the fittest, a kitten could last longer than a human when exposed to the elements.

[bondserv]

It is my firm conviction, resting on years of cover to cover Bible study, that the Holy Spirit has preserved His word for all to read. I am convinced that the scholars commissioned by King James, painstakingly reviewed all of the manuscript documents that they had access to (which included a newer copy of the gnostic Alexandrian text than was used by Westcott and Hort).

Westcott and Hort chose to use the oldest documents they could get their hands on as their primary documents. They wrongly chose to believe because it was older it was closer to the original. The King James scholars had reliable copies of the same documents from Alexandria and found them to be erroneous.

With the recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls the King James scholars have been vindicated on their choice of documents in creating the King James Authorised Version.

A Holy Spirit miracle of preservation of God's Word. Praise God.

[FastCoyote]

"So you are saying your engineering research has led you to believe nature can take a lack of information, and order things together giving the appearance of intelligence?"

Think about this. The universe itself has a memory (what you see in the Hubble Telescope is 12 billion years worth of memory), it has a nervous system (light and radio rays transmitting information), it has local pockets of order (at least the earth, likely more) which form cells. It is a self conscious entity (gravity holds it together). So, there may well be thinking creatures on a cosmic scale.

But of course, I already think nature/God has evolved thinking creatures right here.

[bondserv]

You're so kind.

Flabbergastic Placemarker!

[Grut]

The term 'survival of the fittest' is unfortunate; what Darwin ought to have used was 'survival of the fitted '. So long as an environment exists to which an organism is optimally fitted, that organism will persist without change. In fact, any examples of that organism which do change (mutate) will be selected out because they are less well fitted to that environment than their parents.

[bert]

Weak doesn't apply to the issue. Fit or unfit applies to the ability to exist within a specific evolving ecology. The species in question was extremely fit for what must be considerable ecological variation. Thus, no change took place.

The species had evolved to a point where it was the fittest. Additional change did not improve the ability to exist.

There were changes, but the individuals exhibiting the change were not successful, not fit, did not survive.

[bondserv]

Recent scientific Catastrophic discoveries are shaking up things a bit too.

Link

[snowballinhell]

OK so lets see if I have this straight there is no example of evolution because... every thing has already evolved, that at no other time in history has the need to evolve stopped except for today?
You attempt to use the no current evolving species scenario to explain evolution.
I am sitting down therefore I can run 100 yards in 3 seconds- same logic.