Quote
Hi RAZD,

Quote
Even when species appear unchanged this does not mean that evolution has not occurred -- that these species were not also descended from common ancestors to other species that have changed visibly while they remain well suited to a stable niche.

So the fact is, though they "appear" unchanged, they must have evolved anyway..... I think it's time to throw ones brain out the window and shut the eyes, irrespective of the visible evidence, in favour of "take my word for it, it happened anyway" ...
Actually, I don't want you to take my word for it. Take a biologist's word for it. Take a fossil turtle, or frog or crocodile to a biologist and ask what the differences are between the fossil and a modern version of that genus.

Quote
So the pictures really don't tell us anything right? They don't disprove evolution according to you and Linear.... even though they show no signs of change.... evolution occured anyway...therefore....perhaps these fossils are fooling us all. They just "appear" unchanged.....or they evolved in a way, and in a time where it was somehow missed, even with all the vast amounts of time and death the evolution believes has occured over millions of years. Conveniently any process of evolution had it's own hidden, quiet way of doing things undetected and failed to leave any visible proof in those particular fossils......BUT, it happened. These guys just missed the boat I guess, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As RAZD said, evolution does not require that all populations of organisms go through great change over any great period of time.
The environment for those populations didn't change much, so the body type of those species didn't have to change to continue to exploit their environment adequately enough to survive and breed new generations of their species.

Quote
This is unbelieveable (literally). Apart from imagination, speculation and "take my word for it, it happened anyway" One is supposed to toss aside these ancient fossil pictures, (real visible leftovers from our past that we are lucky to have) in favour of the unseen assumed past that the evolution has drawn up for us regardless. Why? because the evolutionist said it must have been so, therefore it is so. Evolution was so slow that we didn't really observe it happening - Or so fast we missed it. Or it happened in spurts/jumps, slow, then sudden, then slow, then sudden, and so clever, that the fossils in the pictures somehow escaped this process or at least give the "appearance" of escaping it. One will notice that they will adjust their theory according to the circumstances and if they are faced with pictures that defy the changes expected over these vast periods of time, (whether slow, or fast, or in spurts), they'll still claim evolution and say that the pictures do not disprove it. Only in THEIR mind it doesn't, because they're already convinced it occured regardless. But anybody else that has escaped the brain washing, can probably see these fossils certainly do not show any sign that evolution has affected them or taken place at all.
This statement makes me think you have not looked at my examples (with photos) of transitional fossils or you have looked an choose not to comment on them.

Quote
Quote
Evolution does not HAVE to happen, nor does it HAVE to affect all species in any major way -- species that are in a stable niche can - and do - remain virtually unchanged (certainly unchanged enough for the average person to see little difference). The blue-green algae that lives today is similar to the fossils that are found in rocks 3.5 billion years old, the oldest known fossils.

Evolution does not have to happen. That's about as close to saying "evolution may not have happened", which is exactly the point. What an admission. The alternative to evolution? Spontaneous appearance? Or did evolution just happen to pick and choose at will and somehow it missed the fossils in the pictures I provided (or at least it gave the appearance of missing them) but probably affected everything else (we just happened to miss the ones that it affected). Certainly the fossils have defied the changes that we would have expected after such long periods of time.... so you gotta find a way around it and this is the best you can come up with.
Evolution is not a sentient being that picks and chooses. Evolution is a result of the combined effects from genetic differences in a population of organisms and changes in the environment that the population resides in. Genetic differences exist in all populations. If little environmental change occurs, there is little change in the population....even after "millions" of years.

Quote
Quote
And what you have failed to show is that there is any limitation to adaptation. For creationists to claim that there is only "adaptation" within "kinds" you need to demonstrate that there is some barrier to the amount of variation that can occur.

What you have failed to show in any of your post here is photographic evidence to the contrary. So far, we have not seen any sign that any creature is becoming something else, then or now! And certainly, if the fossil pictures are anything to go by, it wasn't showing any change in them millions of years ago either. Tigers, goats, plants, fish, sealife, insects etc etc. One wonders what else you have to go on? Charts, words, links....do you think you can start to come up with solid proof?

I should be bowled over by the impressive verbiage, but I guess I'm one of those people that prefer straight and simple evidence that doesn't require it as much. And unless you can prove to me that evolution happened that matches the visible proof I have given that it hasn't, (at least not in the fossils I've provided), then I hardly see that you have much left to argue about. There is simpy no convincing the unconvincable, even with photos of ancient fossils. I imagine I'll simply be wasting more of my time going in circles over this with the obviously brain washed.

I have shown you links to pictures of transitional animals. Did you miss it?

You show fossils that are quite old of animals that, at first glance, are the same as animals today. However, they are only the same on the order of all frogs being the same. You know they are not all the same. A biologist specializing in those animals could show you a number of differences between the fossils and the living species today. So, some change did happen, even if it is only that the individuals in the frog population are smaller now.

I have provided examples of transitional animals. I have given a simple explanation of the two major mechanisms involved in the change in particular gene frequency in a population of animals (evolution) along with an explanation of why your examples didn't change much over the great span of time. Can you explain, without using evolution, why the fossil record shows changes in population individual's body structure over time? Why are insects, for the most part, much smaller now than in the past, if evolution didn't occur?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke