Dr. Michael Denton said that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils.
The majority of fossils found are creatures that look just the same as today's animals.
Evolutionists aren't particularly excited about these, because it doesn't help support their views.
They are finding so many of what they call "living fossils".
Even the famed supposedly 65-million-year-old coelacanth, which they believed lived at the same time as dinosaurs (and it did! just wasn't millions of years ago) was found ALIVE and well in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.
Their response. "Oh, wow, it didn't evolve at all in tens of millions of years!"
The coelacanth was touted as the missing link between fish and land animals. It was supposed to be the ancestor of all land animals, the animal that was coming out of the water. Yet...it's still here...and it's still a fish! Oh dear. What a calamity.
Now scientists have come up with a new story to cover for this blunder that was previously taught as FACT and anyone who questions it is a retard (like Ywfn says, anyone who questions FACTS of evolution is a retard!) Now they have decided, "Oh, this thing is just evolving slower than anything else because it's genes are remarkably stable!"
Yeah, the genes of it and every other living organism on the planet!
Facts are things that can be observed, tested, repeated, demonstrated, measured, or experienced with the 5 senses.
The notion that fish started walking onto land and left their gills behind in the water to get lungs instead is not a part of science. People are welcome to believe these fishy stories all they want, but calling it science is entirely inaccurate.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/
The "420 million year old" elephant shark is even more tragic for the evolutionists. An animal hasn't evolved in 420 millions years. Maybe, it's because the theory is baloney!
There is zero evidence for one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the creature, if not fatal.
Mutations involve a scrambling or deletion of existing information, NEVER, EVER, EVER a GAIN of new information or new instructions on making new organs and body parts that the parent organism did not have.
Evolution, in order to progress, requires the addition of NEW information and new instructions for new parts. This has not been observed and this does not happen in real life. This is not a part of science. This is faith. It is as religious as the belief in God.
Intentional breeding with a specific goal in mind (like to create a dog breed with super short legs or a curly coat) takes mutant animals and reproduces those intentionally until the genetic diversity and normal genes are removed from that population pool. "Pure" breeds or specifically bred types of corn, cattle, chickens, etc. have LESS genetic diversity and information than the parent animals, not more, and are sicker and weaker than the genetically diverse animals.
What you start with? dog
What you end with? dog
Change in kind of animal? no, none
If a virus attacks a specific protein in bacteria, and a mutation causes some bacteria to be produced without this protein, they are protected from that threat by having a mutation that appears to be, momentarily beneficial.
This is a LOSS of information, not a gain. And these bacteria are sicklier and weaker than the normal bacteria in the long run. And they are still bacteria!
Species at start: bacteria
Species at end: bacteria
Change in kind of life form? no, none
And they are still always the same KIND of animal that they were at the beginning.Back to Fossils
Evolutionists admit that there is a complete absence of fossils of transitional creatures.
Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”
“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”
University of Chicago paleontologist David M. Raup: “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”
“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”
University professor, paleontologist, curator of two museums, George Gaylord Simpson: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”
UC San Diego biology professor David S. Woodruff: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”
University of Hawaii paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Steven M. Stanley: “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson: “About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
The evidence for one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal is NOT found in "the fossil record".
How do fossils form, anyways?
Is the Google search result true?Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.
People don't see fossils forming very often in nature today, yet there are millions of fossils all over the world.
When an animal dies in nature, usually the flesh and often even the bones are devoured and anything left decays.
It takes special conditions for fossils to form...like a worldwide flood catastrophe. There is evidence that the entire world was underwater, just like Genesis says in the Bible. There are marine fossils found on Mount Everest. There are marine fossils found all over the world.
I believe the fossils formed in the flood catastophe, when there would have been enormous amounts of mud and water travelling rapidly to bury these creatures alive and under pressure and just the right conditions for fossils to form.
It's not a slow process.
A fossil fish seen below died rapidly during the process of giving birth.
Here is a fossilized fish mid-bite.
These things did not die and get buried slowly. These creatures were buried alive and rapidly, as they would be in catastophic flood conditions, as would a vast quantity and assortment of animals.
Soft tissue (blood vessels, blood cells) has been found in dinosaur remains. These things cannot survive from 70 million years ago from when these creatures are believed by some to have existed.
The discoverer, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."
Scientists wrong again.
They have been scrambling to come up with new stories and ways to explain away yet more evidence that contradicts their notion of "science", which is in effect their religion that they must protect at all costs, regardless of what the evidence shows.
Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation week, along with other land animals.
There is plenty of evidence to show that dinosaurs (this word was invented in 1842) existed alongside human beings. Before that, they were often called dragons or other names.
Some of these images and carvings are thousands of years old, but people started digging up dinosaur bones in the last few hundred years.
The evidence indicates that the people making the pictures and carvings and writing the stories of these huge reptiles (dragons or dinosaurs or whatever you'd like to call them) actually SAW these creatures!
There are many historical accounts of battles with dragons (aka dinosaurs).
Out of time for now.