Flaws in evolutionary dating
Is this non-evolution (called ) of horseshoe crabs really the norm for all of life, or are creatures like them simply evolutionary anomalies?Darwin assumed static creatures like horseshoe crabs were deviations from the normal evolutionary processes.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? 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. 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?“Although I had come prepared, that first sight [of the fish] hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled,” he wrote in Evidently, scientists themselves can have strong emotional attachments to their worldviews.The evolutionary worldview may capture one’s mind, in which case obvious questions can go unasked.
Evolutionists, however, commit an enormous scientific blunder by fabricating oxymoronic “living fossil” or “survivor in waiting” rescuing devices to save their theories.Living Fossils: Fixing a Problem of Too Much Time Judy had her problems, but 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.”, does indeed sound like an oxymoron.But its discovery in 1938 by a South African museum curator on a local fishing trawler fascinated the world.” The coelacanth’s discoverer, Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, was the astute curator of East London Museum in South Africa.She had made known to the local fishermen her desire to see unusual specimens. Smith, a chemistry professor and ichthyologist at Rhodes University in nearby Grahamstown, are archived on NOVA’s website.