Why do atheists make things up in regards to evolution?
I was just told that certain animals have not evolved for over millions of years because 40 million year old fossils were found that are exactly the same as the animals that exist today, example lions and tigers fossils were found and dated at 40 million years..
If evolution exists then how on earth can animals such as lions and tigers avoid evolving for 40 million years, first you guys say that evolution is on going then you say it stands still, what next "it doesn't exist?", make your minds up, you evolution believers will have an answer im sure but it will be a pathetic one
45 comments
Why do fundies make things up in regards to creation?
Because they stupidly insist on ignoring true science & the scientific method and stick to the false doctrine of 'The Bible says so, therefore it must be true'.
Get your head out of your ass, Frizby.
Patrick:
Not modern lions and tigers, no. Animals like Smilodon, and other early predatory cats. 40 million years is not all that long of a time span, geologically speaking. Not that Frizby would realize that.
Lol, you have to look at the page. There were like 25 responses explaining how evolution occurs due to environmental pressures so its possible for species well adapted to their environment to not evolve.
There was ONE response talking about how "everything," including contradictions, is the rule in the "dogmatic world of Darwinism."
Guess which answer this bozo choose as the best one? If you are determined not to learn, you will not learn.
They are changing. Just because their bones look similar does not mean that no change has taken place. You do realize that there are other things that can change, right? Such as internal organs, behaviors, fur color, etc.
Because they don't fucking need to! If you're already the best equipped for survival in your habitat, then why the hell would you NEED to evolve further?
It's so damn simple it amazes me that people like you can't see it...
Certain animals, dofus! Not every animal.
We don't believe in evolution; we accept it as fact.
Why even ask a question if you're going to reject the answers before you even hear them?
I have no idea exactly when lions and tigers appear in the fossil record, but I do know that it's a lot more recently than 40 million years ago. There are, however, species that have stayed more or less the same for that long due to being well adapted to their environment. Modern populations wouldn't be identical to those existing 40, 50 or 60 million years ago, but in most of the ways that count, there wouldn't be major differences. Many species of shark are a good example of this. To understand why this happens, you need only spend some time studying natural selection.
If you follow the link, you'll notice his source for "40 million year old" tiger and lion fossils is none other than the illustrious Harun Yahua, man more famous for proving that FISHING LURES haven't evolved in hundreds of millions of years...
40 million year old lions and tigers....? More made-up shit, by any chance?
There were sharks and crocodiles about even longer than 40 million years ago, but they were bigger than today's. And even if they were identical it would in no way whatsoever disprove evolution. Some species not evolving is not the same as all species not evolving.
Not as pathetic as your question, I promise you.
"The oldest remains of a tiger-like cat, called Panthera palaeosinensis, have been found in China and Java. This species lived about 2 million years ago, at the beginning of the Pleistocene, and was smaller than a modern tiger. The earliest fossils of true tigers are known from Java, and are between 1.6 and 1.8 million years old. Distinct fossils from the early and middle Pleistocene were also discovered in deposits from China, and Sumatra. A subspecies called the Trinil tiger (Panthera tigris trinilensis) lived about 1.2 million years ago and is known from fossils found at Trinil in Java.[18]"
Is it gullibility, stupidity, ignorance, smugness or obnoxiousness that is your most pathetic characteristic?
"I was just told that certain animals have not evolved for over millions of years because 40 million year old fossils were found that are exactly the same as the animals that exist today"
It's simple. The person who told you this was a lying creationist.
You were just told something that your confirmation bias has made you accept as the truth without any evidence to prove it so!
So that means biology must have lied to you!
Some animals will change more than others I doubt a 40 million year old species is exactly the same as its modern counterpart however.
What part of the phrase "certain animals" do you not understand?
It means a few very specific animals, like alligators and cockroaches.
And even though they haven't evolved very much, they have still evolved.
No, Mitch, people have explained it right. He doesn't want to know.
What I can't comprehend is why he didn't bring up the fact that the great white shark has looked about the same for eons. It has, of course, developed offshoots that evolved into other types of shark, but the basic idea 'shark' has just kept working.
Once again a creationist shows that he/she doesn't even know what evolution is. Nor is it willing to find out. Or listen when told. They are so used to dogma ruling their lives that they assume everything is dogmatic. The concepts of evidence and proof mean nothing to them because their worldview doesn't require it. This is especially evident when they do try to provide evidence or refute someone else's - their evidence and refutations are either blatant lies, circular reasoning or....dogma. They only need an authority spouting dogma, and if their authority is spouting creationism, then anything against that has to be a lie. I actually feel pretty sorry for them.
@Patrick
As for why they've remained largely unchanged, what would they need to change? They're already fairly fast and strong (Tigers being the second largest land-dwelling carnivore after the polar bear), and they have no natural predators as adults (vultures and hyena predate on lion cubs, as do other male lions looking to establish harem within a pride.) They pretty much run Africa, from a zoological standpoint, so they don't need to evolve anything else. They do just fine as is.
Lions and Tigers have certainly changed, in the last 4 million they've changed, I'm pretty sure we don't even know their 40 million year old ancestors for certain as that time frame allows massive generational change.
Modern Human is less than 2 million and the previous ancestors aren't certain because of there being several humanoid possiblities as canadates. The real kicker is that there's mega thousands of creatures just 10 million years ago that don't exist today.
"Why do atheists make things up in regards to evolution?"
What colour is the sky in your dimension, Frizby?
If Creation is 'fact' (as you fundies claim), then why are Lions and Tigers genetically compatible*?
Ligers. Tigons.
I love the smell of destyroyed arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.
*- And don't give me that 'kind' bullshit, neither. Lions = Africa. Tigers = India/Siberia. Geography makes all the difference, breeding-wise. Otherwise, we'd be seeing more Ligers/Tigons than Lions/Tigers.
They are not exactly the same. Their genetics are not the same as they were millions of years ago. They are different species,and if you took a species of 'crocodile' from 40 million years ago, it probably couldn't/wouldn't breed with any crocodile that we have today.
Why would something evolve alot if it doesn't have to? Organisms can be very well suited to their environment and so don't change significantly for millions of years.
What's so hard to understand about that?
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.
