If we go by the fact that they survive tens or hundreds of millions of years pretty much unchanged:
That wasn’t what Darwin told us to expect.
Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct, let alone the juggernaut that his present day supporters insist:
It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
However, it hasn’t turned out that way. Nature seems not to like such orderly schedules much.
…
Species often explode suddenly into life, as in the Cambrian explosion, which even Darwin found to be a problem for natural selection. (See the new short video from Discovery Institute, The Information Enigma.)
Some of them do not persist beyond the age to which they are adapted. That does not require an explanation.
But others just settle down to long eons where they don’t change much, no matter what the environment. … The cockroach, for example, is still around and still easily identifiable after perhaps 350 million years.
The 350-million-year-old coelacanth fish and the 300-million-year-old horsetail grass survive largely unchanged.
When the coelacanth, supposed extinct for 70 million years, turned up in the Indian Ocean in 1938, it disappointed biologists who hoped for a living proof of Darwinism. It is a living proof of non-Darwinism.
Similarly, a recently discovered 425-million-year-old crustacean showed no significant changes in internal body parts, compared to present-day specimens. One researcher called it “a demonstration of unbelievable stability.” But the stability is only unbelievable if we start with Darwin’s assumption that “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest.” Apparently not. More.
Welcome to the world of stasis. To understand how evolution happens, we need to pay more attention to cases where it doesn’t happen.
Note: No news posting till tomorrow evening due to O’Leary for News’ alternate day job.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
News: That wasn’t what Darwin told us to expect.
Um, the term “living fossil” was coined by Darwin.
Zachriel:
And Darwin said they were anomalous and yet they appear to be the rule.
Thanks for the link Virgil,
Further Darwin said: “These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition.” So Darwin’s opinion was that “living fossils” inhabit confined areas, and have less competition. Cockroaches? Hmmm.
Oh, I understand that Horseshoe crabs have remained nearly unchanged for like 500,000,000 years or something. Another animal that inhabits confined areas with less competition.
bFast: Further Darwin said: These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition.”
1. Evolution still occurs in so-called living fossils, and modern species are usually identifiably different.
2. Anomalous, as the vast majority of multicellular organisms found in, say, the Jurassic either evolved significantly, or went extinct.
3. The quote you provided refers to specific organisms.
4. Generalists also tend to evolve more slowly.
5. Darwin then discusses the conditions conducive to adaptive change.
All of this contradicts the claim in the original post that Darwin didn’t expect so-called living fossils.
All jesting aside, in reality Darwinism is merely a non-falsifiable pseudo-science that is on par with tea leaf reading.
If there is a good design, a really good design – why change it? On the other hand, if it ain’t broke, break it. Innovate or die. Design has plenty of neat design rules. Design is very fascinating. Very.
God thread.
Actually they say most creatures, like horses, have not changed in millions, not hundreds of millions, of years. this alone unlikely is selection was nudging every variation.
In fact most of biology never changed.
our eyes, immune system, organs, all “living fossils’ from the very early ancestors. Those fis critters etc.
We are walking around with most of our pieces from creatures in a common past. Unless they invoke massive convergent evolution.
Your eye ain’t much different then any eye that ever existed. Stasis aplenty.
Robert Byers: In fact most of biology never changed.
That’s right. The world looks just like it did in the Jurassic. That’s why Jurassic Park was such a bore. Might as well take a walk in Central Park.
Jurassic Park was a movie filmed in modern day Hawaii. And if T-Rex had survived until this day – it would still be a T-Rex.
Having trouble logging in to my bornagain77 account
Jurassic World – Official Global Trailer (HD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJJrkyHas78
Zachriel
its really details about much of the looks of biology. The glory of biology , like the immune system and organs has never changed since the original EVOLVED organs etc. YES we are walking around with living fossils in our own bodies if evolution is true.
its not. in reality there is just a common blueprint. then tweeking things.
a t rex had eyes, tongue, legs, butt etc. its relative on what tou pick in segregating them from us.
It would be great if someone took the time to document all the examples of “no evolution” over millions of years. It would be a long long list. So you would have a long list of unevolving organisms and then a long list of those said to evolve. How can you have organisms like the whale evolving extremely fast over 10-20 million years yet have other organisms not evolve hardly at all over hundreds of millions of years? It just doesn’t make sense.
And even if some think it does make sense – everyone is welcome to their opinion – how can you test the hypothesis?
Evolution does happen these days.
Here’s a strong convincing proof:
https://blog.xamarin.com/xamarin-evolve-2016-call-for-participation/
🙂
Robert Byers: its not. in reality there is just a common blueprint. then tweeking things.
While vertebrate evolution is in part a rearrangement of existing elements, it is incorrect to say that the parts haven’t changed. The heart and eye of a human are not the heart and eye of a primitive vertebrate.
tjguy: How can you have organisms like the whale evolving extremely fast over 10-20 million years yet have other organisms not evolve hardly at all over hundreds of millions of years?
As whales were invading a new niche, there was a period of adaptive radiation.
tjguy: It would be great if someone took the time to document all the examples of “no evolution” over millions of years.
A simple thought-experiment, already mentioned above, would be to compare the Jurassic period to today. Would similar organisms comprise each ecosystem, or would they look radically different?
Zachriel:
There isn’t any evidence for vertebrate evolution. So that would be a problem for your bald assertion.
Whales have always occupied the same niche. So that too would be a problem for your bald assertion.
Some more examples:
crev.info/2015/10/mammal-soft-tissue-fossil/
News,
Here is what Darwin told us to expect:
News,
I haven’t looked at all the examples of “living fossils” given, but generally when I read about so-called living fossils I find that they are not as unchanged as is generally believed.
We can see this in the two most famous examples of “living fossils”: the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab.
One thing to keep in mind is that the coelacanth isn’t a species, or genus, or even a family – it’s an entire order. It’s a group with a large amount of diversity. The order Carnivora, for instance, ranges from bears and skunks to seals.
The extant coelacanths differ drastically from fossil coelacanths in size and shape, and while less is known of internal anatomy, we see big differences there as well, such as with the swim bladder.
Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’: a review of molecular and morphological data.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23382020
It’s a similar story with the horseshoe crab:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/horseshoe-crabs-arent-living-fossils-2/