So here is something I have not seened discussed for the evolutionists to consider.
A few years ago some fisherman caught a fish called a Celocanth. The Celocanth was believed to be long extinct since examples of the creature had been found in the fossil record estimated to be a 100 million years old. Yet the fisherman caught a live one that was not materially different from the ones in the fossil record.
But if time and mutation are the inevitable drivers of evolution and if these processes are constantly at work changing the species, then how can you explain the lack of any significant change in the Celocanth over a period of 100 million years?
The thoughts of fellow freepers on both sides of this question are welcome.
The coelocanth that was found was indeed very different from the fossil ones. It was a different species and a different genus; it merely belonged to an order which had been thought extinct.
But if time and mutation are the inevitable drivers of evolution and if these processes are constantly at work changing the species, then how can you explain the lack of any significant change in the Celocanth over a period of 100 million years?
You are forgetting the other part of Dawin's theory-- natural selection. In the absence of any environmental pressure to change, time and random mutations will not produce dramatic changes. That is why cockroaches have not changed all that much in the fossil record. The coelocanth, living in deep oceans, had indeed changed, but not as much as creatures who lived in environments that had changed more.
Not true. The modern specimin is not the same as the fossil.
Secondly, evolution does not require change. If a creature inhabits a niche that does not change, it will not undergo much change. Change in populations is driven by changing environments.
There's still lots of creatures around today that haven't changed much in multiple-millions of years - dragonflies, cockroaches, crabs .... they're commonly referred to as "living fossils".
I just obtained a couple of fossil tortoises from China dating back about 130 million years. They certainly resemble modern turtles in most respects.
But evolutionary theory does not require that species continue to evolve into something else. If a species achieves a niche where it is able to continue its population in a specific form, mutations that vary from that may or may not be rewarded. But the current form of that species which reproduces without significant mutations will continue to thrive.
Evolution only rewards beneficial mutations. It doesn't necessarily punish the species that doesn't mutate. Only if the lack of mutation puts it a disadvantage will the "original" species start to be eliminated.
It's not just that fish that hasn't seen much change. Neither has the shark or the crocodile. And looking at my turtles, they haven't improved much on the design, either.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but this is a standard CRID talking point and is based on BOTH an incorrect fact AND an incorrect understanding of the Therory of Evolution.
I strongly urge you to study heavily the TOE (and Scientific Theories in general) before wading into this issue. And NOT the "evidence" and false spin on the TOE that you find on anti-Evo wesites and threads.
I mean this as a friendly suggestion.