Living Fossils, Luck, and Other Reasoning Problems

The article featured below this introduction was almost skipped, since "living fossils" and evolutionary excuses have been done here a few times already. However, it turns out that it's worth examining, since it's not a list of inconveniences to evolutionists. No, it's much more.

Image credit: Pixabay/Kylienne

Although some anti-creationists have claimed that we came up with the term living fossil, it was Darwin's invention. The purpose is to identify annoying critters that didn't follow evolutionary rules, refusing to evolve after millions of imaginary Darwin years. They're doing fine (thanks for asking), and their fossilized counterparts are essentially unchanged. Evolutionists come up with rescuing devices such as stasis (it didn't have to evolve, so it didn't). But this fundamentally flawed thinking pattern has also led to other concepts that do not exist in nature, the lab, or anywhere except the imaginations of evolutionists. That ain't science, pilgrim, that's excuse-making. Throwing alleged millions of years at something is not going to prove evolution or disprove the Creator.

. . . living fossils cause their own troubles for evolutionists. In his review of a new book about such creatures, science writer Colin Barras observed “that peculiarly oxymoronic moniker, too, has survived—for around 150 years.” The term “living fossil,” first used by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species, does indeed sound like an oxymoron. However, it suits the way evolutionists apply it to their theory.

Their central problem is time—in this case, too much of it. If evolution is all about creatures changing over time, how do evolutionists account for the many groups of creatures that, in the broad sense, did not change? The time involved in these cases is not trivial. In their way of thinking, you shouldn’t be able to compare a 400 million-year-old fossil fish to its living counterpart and find no major differences.

Time can be an evolutionist’s ally. Darwin appealed to incomprehensibly vast eons to smother any mental reservations about the impossibility of one kind of organism evolving into fundamentally different kinds. His thinking goes like this: If organisms have an enormous number of chances to change over eons, by sheer luck the seemingly impossible just may happen. But vast eras of time may also be an enemy to his theory. Why have horseshoe crabs changed hardly at all in 450 million years when fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals all supposedly emerged in succession in 550 million years from some “primitive” organism? Is this non-evolution (called stasis) of horseshoe crabs really the norm for all of life, or are creatures like them simply evolutionary anomalies?

To read this insightful article in its entirety, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: The Fatal Flaws of Living Fossils".