Evolutionists slip up...AGAIN.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_saving_sturgeon

    Its supposedly been 65 million years since the dinosaurs went extinct. This article is about a fish that scientists say has survived since the time of the dinosaurs. I am assuming they believe this because they found a sturgeon from before 65 million years ago according to their dating methods.

    Now here is the problem...Over millions of years we are supposed to evolve. They clearly state this fish survived from the dinosaurs. To give you an idea of how much something is suppossed to evolve, here is an artists rendition of what a human was 45 million years ago.


    As you can see, for over "45 million years" we have changed quite a bit. Yet for some reason, this fish is unchanged over a period that is possibly twice as long or more. Why didnt evolution touch this fish? Its not like it didnt have the opportunity. Some sturgeons produce 1000s of eggs. One Pallid sturgeon (another fish that hasnt changed in 70 million years) was once found with 170k eggs inside it. That many eggs should be more than enough for evolution to get a foothold, right?

    Lets also not forget the Coelacanth fish that the oldest fossil of it is 400 million years old. Then those pesky fisherman found one alive and unchanged in the 1970s which really threw a wrench in their sprockets.

    Kind of sucks for you evolutionists doesnt it? To claim something has been extinct for millions of years only to find it alive and well and unchanged. But hey...keep collecting monkey heads and put them next to each other and then put a human skull on the end. Maybe you can lead the thinking of some people, but you cant argue with the evidence that you yourself have found which completely contradicts what you believe about evolution.
  2. my god the stupidity astounds.
  3. Lucrum


    Which god is that?
  4. PatternRec

    PatternRec Guest

    @ the OP.

    If you would take the time to understand evolution, both micro and macro, you'd see the errors in your post.

    I'm not going to point them out because that only leads to defensiveness and obfuscation. Both of which are counterproductive to learning.

    BTW, I'd start your research with clams which haven't changed much since either. That will help you to understand evolution better.
  5. Ricter


    To borrow from Paulos... a thought

    If a thousand people flip a coin, and we ask all those who got tails (pun intended) to step aside, and then asked the remaining 500 or so to flip again, once again asking those who got tails to step aside, and continued this process until there was one guy left who has flipped heads every time, would we suspect his coin was flawed?
  6. +1

    The guy doesn't know the first thing about evolution, yet tries to argue against it.
  7. fhl


    Let me sum up freethinker/v and patternrec and richter for you peil.

    It doesn't matter what you find or what the evidence is. They all prove evolution.

    Just like whether we have a heat wave or the coldest weather in 100 yrs. They all prove man made global warming.

    It's fairly easy to understand their logic once you know these things.
  8. did you see any evidence in what he posted? it was just a pure demonstration of willfull ignorance designed to get a rise out of some of us.
    if he were truely interested in understanding he could have asked a question about why some things have evolved very little.
  9. the twits right here on ET are PROOOOOOF positive that there is no evolution.

    to paraphrase the great Jean Shepard , some among us are just monkeys that have taken to wearing hats.
    #10     Apr 23, 2010