Since it's rather rare for me to find myself posting in Andrew's defense, I'll leave him a little present to show there's no hard feelings ;)
Posted on 07/04/2002 9:49:26 PM PDT by Phil V.
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.
This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Of course it is. It is totally materialistic. In the Descent of Man for example Darwin makes the ridiculous claim that man only differs from monkeys in degree. Now man is the only species with writing, with art, with tool making. That makes him quite apart from the monkeys and from the rest of the beasts. Man also has a conscience, morals, and many other things which evolution totally denies. So yes, evolution is totally materialistic. And being that we have already agreed that Darwin and his gang were atheists, are you going to tell us that such people created and supported the promotion of a spiritual theory? Are you stating something that absurd?
evolution is morph---mush!
Huh? Doesn't anyone else dig for fossils? Wasn't there a dinosaur found by a creationist family a few months ago?
Yes, I read about that also. Quite interesting, and very unusual. Actually though my point is relevant regardless of who does the digging. The fact remains that we have 100 times more fossils than in Darwin's yet we have not found the evidence of evolution in them. What we have found is that species remain the same. That the Cambrian was indeed a tremendous outpouring of new life in contradiction of evolution. We keep finding species arising with no transitionals connecting them to their supposed antecedents. In the case of man, we keep pushing back the supposed time when man and ape diverged with each new discovery. So the fossils have been a real disaster to evolution.
Or . . .
That the Cambrian was indeed a tremendous outpouring of new life in contradiction of "BIBLICAL CREATION".
Evolutionists consider what they call "living fossils" to be rare, the famous Coelacanth fish being the best-known example. The fossils of this fish are found only in rocks older than 70 million years (assuming the standard geologic time scale to be real), but living coelacanths have been found in the Indian Ocean.
New cases of so-called living fossils do turn up fairly often. Graptolites have been considered in the past to be index fossils for the Ordovician period, 300 million years old. Yet they recently were found still living in the south Pacific.1
Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the Metasequoia conifer tree (thought extinct for the past 20 million years), the Neopilina mollusk (supposedly extinct for 280 million years), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).2 Evolutionists tend to reserve the title of "living fossil" for those animals and plants which had been considered extinct until suddenly they turned up living today. Consequently, the vast numbers of living organisms that were already known to be in the fossil record are generally ignored as examples of living fossils. These even include those organisms supposed to be the most ancient of all. Evolution is supposed to have begun when prokaryotes evolved out of the primeval soup. It is significant, therefore, that: Fossils very similar to living prokaryotes are found in rocks about 3500 million years old.3
Likewise, the primitive one-celled organisms called eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved from prokaryotes. But, these also are still living, essentially unchanged, in the modern world.
Simple eukaryotes, resembling living unicellular algae, are first confirmed in the fossil record about 1500 million years ago and first suspected in rocks almost 2000 million years old.4
The most important modern prokaryotes are probably the bacteria and the blue-green algae, and these certainly should be considered living fossils. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. Modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. One wonders why, if evolution really works, these "primitive" organisms have not changed significantly in over a billion years.
The prolific evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, has insisted that there is no evidence whatever against evolution. Yet he stresses the fact that bacteria have changed little since ancient times. The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today and, with little doubt, into all future time so long as the Earth endures.5 The same situation applies throughout the geologic column. In the supposed "oldest" period with metazoan fossils, all the present-day animal phyla are found as fossils, largely in modern form. As Gould says: In one of the most crucial and enigmatic episodes in the history of life, . . . nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the Cambrian explosion.6
Speaking of the Cambrian fauna, there are many that still survive, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionists, Richard Dawkins, has made the following comment: And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.7 Indeed it has. Until recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China: The two new fossils . . . from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found.8 The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils. With respect to the arthropod phylum (the largest in the animal kingdom), consider the millipedes, for example. Indeed, the oldest fossils of land-dwelling animals are millipedes, dating to more than 425 million years ago. Incredibly, the archaic forms are nearly indistinguishable from certain groups living today.9
The same phenomenon holds for practically all the insects. Compared with other life forms, insects are actually slow to evolve new families—but they are even slower to go extinct. Some 84 percent of the insect families alive today were alive 100 million years ago. . . .10
Whether bees or ants, cicadas or beetles, termites or cockroaches, the fossils of these and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods.
Here's the Merriam Webster On-line definition for liberalism. You might enjoy this. I enjoy posting it:
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized :
a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
971 posted on 7/10/02 8:39 PM Pacific by Tribune7
Since it's rather rare for me to find myself posting in Andrew's defense, I'll leave him a little present to show there's no hard feelings ;)
If they were considered birdlike when Archaeopteryx was found, I would not know. I am not that old. It was found before the Origins so it was not a prediction of evolution.
As to being evidence of evolution, no. It is not. According to evolution, not just species, but traits descend. This is the basis of paleontology that if one sees homology it is due to descent. You throw away descent or homology you destroy paleontology completely and that is the basis of what evolutionists consider the strongest evidence for their theory.
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society!!
Changing--morphing words-meaning-reality...
the CONSTITUTION via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs/IDEOLOGY---LIBERALISM/EVOLUTION is called psychosis!
Absolute desperation! Okay, how did man descend from bacteria without new mutations, without new genetic information? Are you making the ridiculous statement that all the genetic information needed to make a man was to be found in the first single celled animal????????
I don't think so. Therefore, my statement that the finches disprove evolution, not prove it is totally true.
You do not need to do a link on the platypus at all, all you have to do is say one single word: the name of the species from which the 11 traits I mentioned in post#213 came from. Very simple, very easy, and everyone can see it. You did read the article yourself right? You do know the answer right? Or are you bluffing?
As I have said before, the other stuff I am not concerned about and it neither proves nor disproves evolution. Only question you asked which is relevant to the truth of evolution is the above. Suppose you tell us what you think and back it up with some evidence.
Kindly give the post numbers you are referring to. You keep saying my statements have been refuted and never say which statements or what posts have refuted them. Let's stop the nonsense and give the post numbers of these invisible refutations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.