The research also highlights a major problem for evolution: How could the soft -bodied organism remain unchanged for 200m years? Did no more evolution take place in that species? Just when does evolution supposedly come to a halt in any group?
This is a major headache for the evolutionary paradigm.

The Earth isn't 6000 years old, no matter what you say, kevin. Do your job, mods.

The research also highlights a major problem for evolution: How could the soft -bodied organism remain unchanged for 200m years? Did no more evolution take place in that species? Just when does evolution supposedly come to a halt in any group?
This is a major headache for the evolutionary paradigm.


Your misunderstanding is epic. 1st, evolution does not require change. 2nd how do you know it remained unchanged? And even if it did, so what? Perhaps there was no evolutionary pressure to change. 3rd, what makes you think there is no evolution in the species?

This is not even the most minor of blips, except to the incredibly ignorant.

The research also highlights a major problem for evolution: How could the soft -bodied organism remain unchanged for 200m years? Did no more evolution take place in that species? Just when does evolution supposedly come to a halt in any group?
This is a major headache for the evolutionary paradigm.

Why do you think that? Species do not turn into another species. Do you have in your mind some kind of system where the children always consume or kill the parents?

Normally what happens is new species evolve to occupy unfilled niches in their environment. The old species usually continues until the old environmental niche goes away.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious to see.

Here for example, predictions of evolution (200 million year old fossils or evolution wouldn't have time happening - the discovery of deep time was partly inspiring, partly an inspiration for our finding of deep time; similar but not identical species) are claimed to be problems.

I had no idea that Republicans were 200 million years old.

It does however, explain their intellectual primitiveism.

The Earth isn't 6000 years old, no matter what you say, kevin. Do your job, mods.

Science should be an open discussion based on the facts. The fact here and in a lot of cases, is that no evolution has occurred. This fact goes against the general evolutionary theory that species will change over time. 200 million years is a long time for no changes to appear, perhaps the theory falls short here? That is all Kevin is saying.

Please please please keep an open mind and not assume everyone who questions the theory thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Assuming this invokes the 'straw man' defense and is a weak escape from honest debate.

I believe what Kevin posted is a valid scientific argument and should not be thrown out because to do so would unscientific in itself.

The Earth isn't 6000 years old, no matter what you say, kevin. Do your job, mods.

Science should be an open discussion based on the facts. The fact here and in a lot of cases, is that no evolution has occurred. This fact goes against the general evolutionary theory that species will change over time. 200 million years is a long time for no changes to appear, perhaps the theory falls short here? That is all Kevin is saying.

Please please please keep an open mind and not assume everyone who questions the theory thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Assuming this invokes the 'straw man' defense and is a weak escape from honest debate.

I believe what Kevin posted is a valid scientific argument and should not be thrown out because to do so would unscientific in itself.



You must be new here. It is not a fact that no evolution has occurred. It is a fact that kevin is a militant young Earth creationist. Don't defend him.