• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

Temporal Renegade said:
From Fark.com:
'WND claims that 95 million year old octopus fossil disproves evolution because "It looks just like a modern-day octopus".'

Prepare to be dazzled by the logic...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92747
Click to expand...
The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years.
 
[Channeling an IDer] Oh, yeah? Well, what about.....about...um..........FERNS! Huh? What about THEM?[/Channeling an IDer] :D
 
Even the "Cambrian explosion" – a period scientists claim is half a billion years old – in which most complex animals appear to have rapidly formed, with no trace of evolutionary ancestors, is somehow used by scientists to prove evolution.
Click to expand...

!!!
 
Don't you just love it, when people who seem to not believe in science, always try to explain it?
 
Cainkane1 said:
The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years.
Click to expand...

And the quote he uses even states that the octopus fossil is different to modern day octopi i.e.:

.... yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species....
 
Now don't jump all over me because I'm not an IDer and I do accept the theory of evolution. However I have to say this kind of scenerio, and it isn't the first time, has always confused me. I don't understand why an animal would not evolve at all for 82 million years. Even the shark changed in size. I mean "perfectly suited to the environment" would mean that the enviroment never changed in that time as well. It seems a little too slick of an answer.

Maybe explain it a bit more? For those of us who aren't afraid to admit they are dummies when it comes to evolution!

:hit:
 
truethat said:
Now don't jump all over me because I'm not an IDer and I do accept the theory of evolution. However I have to say this kind of scenerio, and it isn't the first time, has always confused me. I don't understand why an animal would not evolve at all for 82 million years. Even the shark changed in size. I mean "perfectly suited to the environment" would mean that the enviroment never changed in that time as well. It seems a little too slick of an answer.

Maybe explain it a bit more? For those of us who aren't afraid to admit they are dummies when it comes to evolution!

:hit:
Click to expand...


Read the article and look at the quote I extracted - the fossil is not the same as a modern day octopus.
 
Yes I read it, however the assertion was made that it was the same. Then the answer was posted "Silly goose! That's because it was perfectly suited to the environment!"

And as I've stated I've heard that comment posted many times with regard to fauna, insects and other life forms that appear to be the same in fossils as it is in modern times. Like the colceanth? (sp?)

It just never made any common sense to me that certain creatures wouldn't ever change because they are perfectly suited to the environment. But the environment certainly has changed in 80 odd million years.

To my uninformed ears, that statement sounds as nonsensical as "Godididit"

I have to be honest .
 
truethat said:
Yes I read it, however the assertion was made that it was the same. Then the answer was posted "Silly goose! That's because it was perfectly suited to the environment!"

And as I've stated I've heard that comment posted many times with regard to fauna, insects and other life forms that appear to be the same in fossils as it is in modern times. Like the colceanth? (sp?)

It just never made any common sense to me that certain creatures wouldn't ever change because they are perfectly suited to the environment. But the environment certainly has changed in 80 odd million years.

To my uninformed ears, that statement sounds as nonsensical as "Godididit"

I have to be honest .
Click to expand...

Why? Sincerely why is that "nonsensical" in any way shape or form?
 
Darat said:
Why? Sincerely why is that "nonsensical" in any way shape or form?
Click to expand...

He explained it

"
It just never made any common sense to me that certain creatures wouldn't ever change because they are perfectly suited to the environment. But the environment certainly has changed in 80 odd million years.
"

Though he shouldn't have said "nonsensical". It sounds with sense - it just sounds wrong. Godditit sounds nonsensical.
 
As I stated several times now, because it suggests a static environment that stays the same for 82 million years. If an animal exists that is "perfectly suited to the environment" it would suggest that the environment would not have changed significantly in that time. Keep in mind we're not talking thousands of years. We're talking in some cases hundreds of millions of years.
 
truethat said:
Yes I read it, however the assertion was made that it was the same. Then the answer was posted "Silly goose! That's because it was perfectly suited to the environment!"

And as I've stated I've heard that comment posted many times with regard to fauna, insects and other life forms that appear to be the same in fossils as it is in modern times. Like the colceanth? (sp?)

It just never made any common sense to me that certain creatures wouldn't ever change because they are perfectly suited to the environment. But the environment certainly has changed in 80 odd million years.

To my uninformed ears, that statement sounds as nonsensical as "Godididit"

I have to be honest .
Click to expand...

Has the environment that the Octopus occupies changed? The basis for natural selection is that species will adapt to fill niches. As environmental pressures change so those niches change. Some become extinct as their specialisation was too specific to a particular niche. Generalist creatures ride such changes more easily.

However, there are many types of octopus and change has occurred. To simply note that one type of fossil is quite similar to one type of modern octopus demonstrates nothing. It is nice that they accept there are fossils of that age though :)
 
truethat said:
Now don't jump all over me because I'm not an IDer and I do accept the theory of evolution. However I have to say this kind of scenerio, and it isn't the first time, has always confused me. I don't understand why an animal would not evolve at all for 82 million years. Even the shark changed in size. I mean "perfectly suited to the environment" would mean that the enviroment never changed in that time as well. It seems a little too slick of an answer.

Maybe explain it a bit more? For those of us who aren't afraid to admit they are dummies when it comes to evolution!

:hit:
Click to expand...

There is no imperitive for a creature to evolve or change greatly. This article offers what I think is a more balanced view

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090319-octopus-fossil-picture.html

It is interesting that they have found five fossils in Lebbenon, but have named three new species from the find. So in reality these fossils are very much like modern octopus, but enough differences exist to be considered seperate.
 
Ok so the articles show that the octopus has changed.


So this takes me back to what I consider a nonsensical argument.


The statement was made on here

The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years.
Today 08:33 AM
Temporal Renegade Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?
Click to expand...


And I stated that I've heard this sentiment many times and I find it to be nonsensical.

The octopus DID change so the statement is false. The idea that an environment (even the one just surrounding the octopus) has not changed in a significant way in 95 million years is nonsense.

The fact is the animal has changed and is evidence of a "transitional fossil"

What I'd like to know is why so many people will make the assertion that the FACT that the animal hasn't changed, proves that it was perfectly suited to the environment.

I find this to be a false statement filled with illogical conclusions. Right up there with Goddidit.

But it rarely seems to be corrected. Just curious why?
 
If Evolution were true why are there still single cell organisms?

Shouldn't they have evolved?
 
Warning.
The following question is asked rhetorically and satirically to illuminate a couple of flaws in popular thinking about evolution.
It in no way reflects my attitudes about race.

"Why are there still brown skinned Humans?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom