A Question on Evolution

I don't get into the debate of evolution that often - when I do..I get

Bob LeChevalier...

... you make a fool of yourself.

really involved but in total it's not that often - however a question I
saw yesterday seemed interesting enough to share here.

I was in a board discussing the new find of a squirrel-rat like
creature (notice I didn't say it was really mixed but "like"). Anyway,
this creature was supposed to be extinct for 11 million years and was
recently found alive.

Initially, I was posing the question of how, if this creature had so
few like creatures to mate with over time, it could survive 11 million
years. However, someone else had an even better question that I want
to share here.

This creature that was to be extinct for 11 million years is almost
identical to the current day one. The question I heard was: "If this
creature is supposed to be 11 million years old, how is it that it
didn't evolve (change) over time and still looks exactly the same?"

Bob LeChevalier...

Actually, it isn't "exactly" the same, any more than you are "exactly"
the same as a neanderthal man. It is recognizably the closely
related. Specifically, the species is in the same family as that
found in an 11 million year old fossil.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0004626C-B176-1410-B17683414B7F0000

As to why it didn't change much - it had no reason to do so.
Presumably the wilds of Laos are not all that much different now than
they were 11 million years ago. On the other hand, because it didn't
change, it is still confined to this tiny niche of the world. Rodents
who changed were able to, and did, move to other places in the world.
Any members of this family that tried it either died out, possibly
after evolving into something more suited for their environment.

The cockroach hasn't changed all that much in a couple hundred million
years, but it still is quite viable.

Wide Eyed in Wonder...

It sounds like what it shows is that species don't change into others.

Bob LeChevalier...

Sometimes.

They stick around...right? For example, how do you know all of the

Bob LeChevalier...

Sometimes. I am as much a homo sapiens as Julius Caesar, so we are a
species that has stuck around for a little bit.

species were not there from the start? The assumption that they change

Bob LeChevalier...

Because there is no fossil record showing that they are there "at the
start". There were billions of years with no fossil remains of any
land species at all.

is BASED upon the fact that some die off and other mutated species
remain due to their mutation. Isn't that the basis of Darwin's work?

Bob LeChevalier...

Oversimplification. A species may mutate and both forms may remain,
but in different ecological niches. But eventually yes, some species
die off which makes room for the mutated species.

Well, if the original didn't die off, how do you know all the species

Bob LeChevalier...

It did.

The current species is not the exact same species of 11 million years
ago. It is a member of the same family, and thus similar. But
remember that a lion and a tiger are in the same family as a housecat.

were not all there from the start?

Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html

DZ...

It's not "the same creature". It looks the same as other rodents of
that family only to the extent of being classified to the same
family. For example, guinea pigs and porcupines are in the same family
of rodents, but they are hardly the same.

Good question.

Dark Man...

No, it is a simple question.

If a species fits into an ecosystem well any genetic shift will loose
out to the original form. Therefore, the species does not "change"
because it odes not need to.

The crocodile is a perfect example.

http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/animal_facts/crocodile.html

Close your bible for a while and open a biology book.

cary...

And the answer is: why do you think it didn't?

It's not like all the members of an entire species one day
evolve into something else. Individual members do, small
populations do; there's not some magic whereby changes in
one group are mystically transmitted back to the entire species.

Your question is like asking "If domestic dogs are descended
from wolves, how come there are still wolves?" Some lineages,
starting with wolves, have been changed -- largely by
human selection, probably -- into the dogs we know today.
This descent with modification does not require all
wolves to have changed.

So some wolves look pretty much like
their ancestors did ten million years ago.
Which would lead that guy to ask "Why did wolves
not change into something else, given all that time?"

And the answer is "Some did".

Anno Domini...

Nevertheless, evolution says that men are descedants of rats.

Sadly, men have evolved to the point of being completely duped by
demons..... just as the Bible predicted 2000 years ago.

1Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils"

This phenomenon could be better described as "de-volution". Abraham,
Joshua, Moses and King David would've laughed you into oblivion had
you suggested to them that the ancestors of men were rats.

Wide Eyed in Wonder...

OR...all the kinds were there the whole time and some flourished more
at different times, due to their advantages. Right?

Dave Thompson...

Not according to the fossil record.

Please do a bit of reading.

Wide Eyed in Wonder...

There was no fossils of this creature for 11 million years, yet it was

Bob LeChevalier...

Of course. But in Laos, we haven't been able to look for several
decades, so it is quite possible that we will find the "missing link".
But that doesn't mean that we expect to find human skulls mixed up
with dinosaur bones (unless our name is Ed Conrad or perhaps Ken
Clifton).

there...right?

Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html

cary...

I'm looking at a couple of trilobite fossils here on my desk as I write
this, one from the Devonian and one from the Silurian.

There are no trilobites today. Nothing else found in the quite extensive
fossil record from the early Paleozoic exists any longer either. All
have gone extinct.

And conversely, no fossils of animals living today are found in these
early rocks. They simply were not around at that time.

Which makes it very difficult to imagine that "all the kinds were there the whole
time and some flourished more at different times, due to their advantages".

Dave Thompson...

You have some reference that this was the only fossil?

I know you want to get into some debate comparing the existence of god to
some missing fossils, but it won't work.

Wide Eyed in Wonder...

They say it was extinct for 11 million years BECAUSE there was no
fossils found from the period in between...unless you are willing to
say carbon dating can be wrong.

cary...

I'm perfectly willing to say that in anyone carbon-dated this beastie
to 11 million years, not only are they wrong, they're side-splittingly,

Harvey...

No, it doesn't. Theories don't speak. And presuming they did, evolution
never "said" that. If you don't understand what "common ancestor" means,
saunter outside, have a look at a tree, and see if you can fathom any
difference between the leaves on it and the trunk.

It seems likely you'll have difficulty with this, but persevere. Try
pressing one of the leaves in your Bible; then try pressing the trunk in
it. See if comprehension dawns. Failing that, bang your head against the

Dave Thompson...

News articles are generally slanted towards the lowest common denominator
(think you wrt science) and delete important details or generalize in such a
way as to be misleading to the under educated. For instance in a recent
article the article made the same kind of generalization about the Platypus
but in fact the animal has gotten smaller and lost teeth. When you want
details, don't rely on the newspaper.

Dave Thompson...

I said rapid change is not required. The squirrel didn't change rapidly, did
it?

Dave Thompson...

Evolution is evolution. Change eventually produces new species, as it has
with humans.

Even ID says this kind of change within a species occurs...to

Harvey...

Er... can you explain how you got your premise from what he said? For an
effort to get it straight, it seems a remarkably crooked path.

You've been given a couple of good examples of animals that haven't
changed their form much in millions of years so far in this thread. You
can add sharks to it, and plants like the ginko. Instances of lack of
change in form isn't much of an argument against the existence of
evolutionary pressure... it's an indication of a form that competes well
against it.

Dave Thompson...

The original ancestor of humans and chimps does not remain. I feel like you
creationists just don't hear things so I'll repeat myself - Humans did not
descend from chimps, we descended from a common ancestor with chimps.

Please do yourself a favor and find out what evolution actually is. I'll bet
you're still insisting it means life from non life. Sheessssh.

leaf, and compare that with banging it on the trunk.

Harvey...

Praise "Bob".

Dave Thompson...

You need to keep your lies a bit less complicated.

First you claimed it didn't evolve, now you say it was extinct.

Which is it, and provide a reference.

...unless you are willing to

Dave Thompson...

The conclusions you jump to are baffling.

can't-get-your-breath falling-over wrong.

Kenny Clifton
-author of the Red Letter Stories
http://www.christianjedi.com/redletterstories.html