as long as we're arguing semantics ... xD

evolution is a different idea from speciation is a different idea from common decent. related for sure, but sure but still different.  the concept of all life coming from one common ancestor is a logical extention of the idea of common decent but has one very key distinction; common decent can be proven to be true, common decent from one common ancestor can not.  there are no facts that i am aware of to prove that idea.  it seems logical, it seems to make sense... but i cannot provide you proof and i probably never will be able to.

I thought evolution was explained as simply certain alleles being passed on, which meant the alternate allele of that gene (responsible for a phenotypic trait) eventually died out.

Basic example: In those situations where being tall is more beneficial than being short, the tall people survive better and therefore have better birth rates, until eventually all the shorties die off.

Imagine all the potential traits that have shown through as the better ones in the history of biology, and evolution makes sense. The organisms which haven't changed in 50 million years may just have much the same gene pool now as they did then, thus the changes that occurred generation to generation were never permanent. So to simply say "they didn't need to evolve" could well answer the question, but hopefully my explanation makes it seem more realistic?

And the reason some modern organisms (ie apes and humans) exist at the same time? - could be explained possibly by the idea that as some of the population became more discriminate over their sexual partners, the rest of the population were still procreating with each other. Thus you get branching of the family tree, which has led to modern day differences.


Science is ever-evolving, don't be so quick to rule something out just because it doesn't make sense

It's not an opinion. It is fact. God is Science. It says so in the Bible. The only truths we know is science and math. Therefore they are the same. If evolution didn't happen, then God somehow used a process identical to evolution.

Two thing:

1.)  Nothing in evolutionary theory states that organisms MUST be constantly changing.

2.)  Apes have evolved quite a bit.  It is, infact, wrong to say humans evolved from apes.  Humans (according to evolution) ARE apes.  Just a highly specialized type of ape.  This thing is that many people have this notion that people arose from chimps, which is false.  Humans and chimps have a common ancestor, that was niether human nor chimp.  Chimps have been evolving alongside humans..... humans and chimps actually have a very differntly structured shoulder.  The weird thing is, a human's shoulder is JUST like a gorilla's or any other, non-chimp ape.  The unique shoulder was a trait that chimps evolved after they broke away from the line that would eventually include humans.  (once again, according to evolutionary theory)

Kilter didn't directly address the issues in the OP. The poster just copy and pasted a bunch of irrelevant drivel.

You're still logistically wrong.  Your arugment was that evolution is false (which is a fine stance to have,) but your proof was that several species have remained relatively the same for millions of years.  Which is not agaisnt evolutionary theory.  At all. 

If that's true then why did evolutionists state that living fossils are embarassing? Niles Eldredge remarked: “In the context of Darwin’s own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment.” (Eldredge and Stanley p. 272)

Peter Ward  in his 1992 book: terms living fossils “evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else.” (p. 13)

How in the world did the hundreds or thousands of species did not change (morphologically and anatomically) in the last 100+ million years when there were ice ages, meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis etc.? And let's not forget the supposed huge catastrophic event that happened 65 million years ago that wiped out 75% of species. It's certain after such a huge event that lead to the supposed mass extinction the tempo of evolution would increase while life would scramble to form new dramatic varied species that would thrive in the new environmental niche and changes to the living fossils. But apparently not. Put it another way: The same reason I assume (using the evolutionists' model) the amber fossils and living fossils would change at least a little morphologically and anatomically is the same reasons evolutionists assume humans evolved from some ape in the last 7 million years.

Evolutionists have offered just-so stories for the reason why humans evolved so fast in the last 7 million years or so from an ape ancestor -which requires many anatomical and morpohological changes -such as an unstable environment. But in the last 100+ million years there were ice ages, meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, tsunamies etc. that would have led to an unstable environment.

Mutations should have inevitably changed the living fossils and amber fossils especially after 100+ million years. Evolutionists can't use the cop-out excuse that they were somehow immune to natural selection or natural pressure because mutations whether good, bad or neutral, are carried to the next generation no matter what.

It's so very convenient - Change occurs rapidly to fit their story. Stasis occurs for 100+ million years to fit their story. It's an ad hoc explanation without any scientific evidence (with a source) to back up their story. Their whole story doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on.

This is the dolphin and the ichthyosaur. Virtually unchanged by evolut....

WAIT. THESE SPECIES ARE COMPLETELY 99% unrelated????? You're telling me that ichthyosaur didn't evolve into the dolphin? How is that possible? How is it possible that two different species could be virtually identical and completely unrelated? Wait, dolphins are one of the oldest species lines in existence?

It's called convergent evolution, and it cause even completely unrelated species TODAY to look identical to other species on the other side of the globe. The reason for cnovergent evolution? Because some things just fit their habitat PERFECTLY, and do not need to change. In fact, they fit so perfectly, that OTHER SPECIES BECOME THEM.

Natural selection, and gradualism, do not equal the entirety of evolutionary thought. The fact that all living fossils come from groups of creatures that have historically faired well in mass extinction events and disasters actually bodes well for the theory.

I am at work and do not have the time to access any scientifc journals or data, but quoting two scientists with quotes that support your view (with thier opinions, not any data, and no context) does not mean they share the viewpoint of most scientists. Read up on punctuated equalibirum - its the thought that evolution ONLY happens when it needs to.

Sharks and Turtles haven't changed much in millions of years beacuse they don't need to, we did