Living and amber fossils sure doesn't give credence to the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
There is a story believed by evolutionists that humans rapidly evolved from some ape ancestor in just 5-7 million years which requires drastic anatomical, biochemical, physiological etc. changes. But evolutionists also believe living or amber fossils can remain unchanged for up to 400+ million years compared to its living counterparts. This is utterly ridiculous. The common answer I receive on this is something of the effect of "because they didn't have to evolve." I call this utter dog poo. That's really one weak cop-out to explain it away.
There are thousands of organisms, some even supposedly 140+ million years, that are virtually the same. You would think all those supposed meteor impacts, ice ages, genetic mutations, volcanic eruptions etc. etc., they would have evolved as much as humans supposedly evolved in the last 7 million years or so.
Some examples of organisms that supposedly said no to Evolution even after millions and millions and millions and millions of years:
Peripatopsis: South Africa "endless-walk type of family Onychophora. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. With more than 500 million years of stability. Therefore, peripatopsis conveniently votes no for evolution.
Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell because it's unusual shape, is a kind of Lingula brachiopods. No fossils or lead away the lingula. This creature has unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years. Lingula conveniently votes no to evolution.
Neopilina and Nucula: Two kinds of marine animals both have retained the same manner as their ancestors had more than 400 million years. They also vote no for evolution.
Pyenogonum: A kind of fifty marine species which resemble spiders. They have not changed since 350 million years. These troublemakers vote no for Devonian evolution.
Hutchinsoniella: A bottom-dwelling marine genus of the family cephocardia remained constant at 340 million years. Another vote for no change.
Liphistius spiders hatch. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to spiders hatch now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene, 55 million years, is identical to the species of modern times. Again, we find creatures that appear suddenly in great shape and stay the same at present. With bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution.
Nautilus: A kind of shellfish which has defied evolution 270 million years. One more vote for no change.
Anaspids: a kind of sectoral water bugs and Limulus: The horseshoe crab fossils from both 250 million years. Neither has changed over the centuries. Again, two more vote against evolution.
Latimeria chalumnae: A coelacanth, a species of ray-finned fishes glans remained unchanged for 200 million years. No fossils or lead away of Latimeria. This voice Triassic surviving prohibition period of evolution.
Entemnotrochus: Another type of marine animals that have no ancestors known. It has a fossil record dating back 180 million years. They have not changed. Entemnotrochus votes no to evolution.
Ornithorhynchus anatinus: duck-billed platypus has remained unchanged for 160 million years. They vote not to evolution.
Sphenodon punctatus: Tuatara usually called in English. This reptile has no known ancestors and descendants do not know. And showed little change for 140 million years since the late Jurassic. He voted no to change too.
Leiopelma: An archaic frog of the genus in New Zealand. They are considered living fossils from the Cretaceous period. For 135 million years these frogs have resisted change. Again, no evolution. Therefore, votes Leiopelma no to evolution.
Apteryx Genre kiwi, a flightless bird. Their fossil date from the Cretaceous period 95 million years. The bird has not changed. Apteryx votes no to evolution.
Lepisosteus: Garfish; Lanthanotus boorneenish: A family of lizards of moderate size, and Didelphis: Opossums are all represented in the fossil record 70 million years ago. They have not changed. Gar, lizards, possums and all vote no to evolution.
Cheroptera: Bats. Again, we see creatures make a sudden appearancein the form we know them today. The oldest known bat, 50 million years.is indistinguishable from modern bats. We have a continuous fossil record of these animals since the beginning of the Eocene period. No sign of change and their ancestors are unknown. Bats vote no to evolution.
Insects: Ants, mites and aphids have been captured a yellow ooze together in 35 million years. Their appearances have not changed. Insofar as evolution goes, all three insects have stalled since. Where are the effects of mutations and natural selection? For 35 million years these forces have somehow bypassed the ants, mites and aphids. instead of a gradual change, there are three compelling examples of long-term stability. Ants, aphids, mites and all vote no to evolution.
Tupaia: Treeshrews; ferox Crytoprocta: Mongoose, and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis: Rhinoceros all fossil records of 30 million years. No significant changes occurred. All three did not vote for evolution.
Tipirus: Tapirs look the same as their 25 million year old ancestors. Also vote no to evolution.
Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/fossils-vote-on-evolution-169225.html
How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.
Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today's lampreys as "living fossils" since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2006/20061026-lamprey.html
How about 100 million year old sea turtles and Cynabacteria that remain unchanged for a whopping 3.5 billion years?
Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution. However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution! The fossils are "believed" to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look "basically the same as sea turtles do today." Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is "dated" at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since "remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years," "Discovery" reports. How do the evolutionists explain this? The Australian researchers are quoted as saying that the "sea turtles have hit on the winning design . . . [and] cracked the winning code." Notice how the evolutionists describe the turtles -- as if they are highly intelligent, creative, forward looking engineers, which they are not, of course. Evolution is supposedly based on natural selection and mutations, which are mindless, directionless, blind natural processes. But these are not the only living fossils that refute evolution and millions of years. Many examples could be cited. Regarding salamander fossils recently found in China, we learn that "Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years." Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today. Microscopic algae didn't change over 3.5 billion years of evolution? Who's kidding whom?
References
1.animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20050221/seaturtles.html.
2. Ke-Qin Gao & Neil H. Shubin, "Earliest known crown-group salamanders," "Nature" 422 :428, March 27, 2003.
3.www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html. This is the website of the Museum of Paleontology at the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
Isn't it amazing how “modern” humans evolved supposedly from some ape ancestor less than 7 million year or so time which is 300,000 generations or less? Yet simple bacteria and protozoans undergoing up to 3.5 x 10 to the 9th power generations haven’t change one bit morphologically, even though theoretically their mutation rates should be infinitely higher that complicated multicellular life forms. They will keep offering cop outs to explain it away: Stasis, punctuated equilibrium, no selective pressures etc.
What do the experts have to say about it?
"Living fossils have been totally unexpected for a theory according to which everything is in a state of permanent flux and evolution (Lönnig, 1999b)."
In the wording of Eldredge (1989, p. 108), "Living fossils are something of an embarrassment to the expectation that evolutionary change is inevitable as time goes by."
Peter Ward in his 1992 book: terms living fossils “evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else.” (p. 13)
There were drastic changes in the environment over the last 100+ million years (supposedly) that would inevitably lead to changing morphology of organisms. Why are there thousands of species that haven't changed in millions and millions of years? This is shown by so called living fossils and amber fossils compared to their living counterparts. Supposedly 65 million years ago 75% of species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings were wiped out. Clearly the environment wasn't stable then nor before and after so saying a stable environment is the reason there were no morphological and anatomical changes wouldn't make sense. There were supposedly many meteor impacts, several ice ages, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis etc. before and after the supposed catastrophic event 65 million years ago that made the environment unstable. What's your explanation for thousands of species remaining the same morphologically and anatomically for 100+ million years despite those environmental changes? And itsn't funny how just in the last 7 million years or so (supposedly) humans evolved from an ape ancestor which requires many anatomical and morphological changes?
Even if there was no selective pressure for the organisms (which is utterly ridiculous considering supposed ice ages, meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions etc.) of living/amber fossils, millions of years of mutations would have resulted in at least slight morphological changes especially after 100+ million years. Then there is the idea of genetic drift which would also lead to changes morphologically in the last 100+ million years.
Evolutionists want to play both side of the coin: Mutations occur rapidly and there happens to be a lot of selection pressure resulting in rapid evolution in the case of human evolution. But there is stasis for thousands of species for 100+ million years despite long term environmental changes which should result in rapid evolution.
Please explain to me how with all these cop outs or ad hoc explanations (if it is not a cop out then please provide scientific evidence for your 'explanation' instead of telling a story) this is real science?
