Just to give you an example: There's a prehistoric fish called a Coelacanth (pronounced "See-La-Canth") that scientists say lived millions of years ago, and yet Fishermen have caught live ones in the ocean!! So what happened there? didn't these fish "evolve"? lol
47 comments
No, they didn't. Not very much anyway.
Why? Because they are still well adapted to their environment.
Scientists USED to say that coelcanths lived millions of years ago, because nobody had ever seen a live one at that time, now they acknowledge that they didn't actually go extinct like we thought they did. Science marches on and adapts to new findings.
and I would imagine that the Ceolcanths have changed somewhat since the ancient ones, but they didn't have to change very much, as they are well suited to their environment, that's why they are still around.
Why change when you're fine just as you are?
*can't say the same about the state of this country now, though, hence hope + change*
"Crocodiles / alligators / WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED haven't 'evolved' much either"
"didn't these fish "evolve"?"
They didn't have a reason to. I know, this newfound knowledge of evolution is on the verge of toppling over the teetering stack of false information you've picked up by going to church too much, but trust me: its Truth.
The term "Coelacanth" describes anything that falls under the sub-Class Coelacanthimorpha, which contains hundreds of recorded species in dozens of genuses in a dozen families. There are currently only two species existing, both of which are brand new species and both of which in a totally new genus, the differences are that major.
For comparison, we're talking about the difference between us and gorillas. I have to admit, though, that all fish look more or less alike to me. :)
And yet the ToE still stands. So if the discovery of a living coelacanth didn't disprove evolution, why do creationists waste so much time trying to prove that dinosaurs were still alive in biblical times?
Animals resembling horseshoe crabs and cockroaches have been around a lot longer than coelacanths. Coelacanths aren't prehistoric fish. They're modern fish that belong to an order of fish that was thought to be extinct. They weren't found until 1938 because they live hundreds of feet below the surface of the Indian Ocean.
Basically, he thinks evolution works like technology development, where if something isn't new it gets changed for the hell of it.
Evolution, however, works more like architecture. If you build a beautiful building out of good material, it will stand, and people will still think it's a beautiful building hundreds of years later. But if you build crap, either it'll fall apart, or someone will call it crap and knock it down to put something better up. If an animal's design is suited to its environment, it's not gonna evolve. But if something isn't working, it probably will.
Typical misconception about evolution theory. There is no obligation to evolve. Actually, genes produce "copies" of themselves, changes are accidental, but when they happen, whatever advantage/disadvantage they give will make them spread/decay through the gene population.
This is a bit comparable to the misconception about relativity theory: "Everything is relative." The first thing you establish in relativity theory is what is absolute, namely the laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light is one of them.
We know! In outward form, especially tail shape, they haven't changed much in sixty million years. We know. Neither have dragonflies, tuataras, horsetail plants, ferns, cockroaches.... we know! This isn't some big secret "they" lied to you about, it's common knowledge and entirely explicable within established theory, any competent scientist could tell you so, stop pretending that you're revealing jealously guarded secrets, you're fooling nobody but yourself.
And the non-Fundie counter-example...
Just to give you an example: there's an obvious division beween salt-water fish and fresh-water fish (pronounced "fraysh wat-er fish") that Creationists say were both thrust into the same environment 4500 years ago by a global flood, and yet today they clearly cannot survive in each others' environment!! So what happened there? didn't the Flood destroy all flesh not on "Noah's Ark"? lol
Disreg>> Well, the Creatards are still using "Nebraska Man" from the 'teens as evidence against evolutionary theory, so I guess 1938 is somewhat more up-to-date by comparison...
Yes, they did.
The coelacanth species that exist today (Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis) don't share identity with the coelacanth species represented in the fossil record. They're in an entirely diffferent family, Latimeria (most fossil coelacanths are in the family Coelacanthidae), they are smaller and they lack internal structures the fossil coelacnaths possess.
No fossil coelacanths from the family Latimeria have been found.
The next time you freak out about a spider, please remember that it has a reasonable chance of being a species that hasn't changed much in several million years, much like a coelacanth. You don't even need to go to the Indian Ocean to see stable evolutionary states in action. Common spiders, isopods, horseshoe crabs...
Open your damn eyes and actually study the world around you objectively.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
