The lamprey has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years. This also proves evolution and billions of years are false.

[SavedByTheLord]

The lamprey has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years. This also proves evolution and billions of years are false.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years? During that time, there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. There was another one supposedly 210 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean affected. Also, there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, all supposedly changing drastically through survival of the fittest, and during the dire fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

Here is a link from evolutionists which show that the lamprey has not changed in all those eons.

A Note on Lampreys | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Here is a link to the vastly changing events that the lamprey would have faced.

Ocean Through Time

ocean.si.edu

One of the worthy opposition objected to this as they strained at a gnat, the word “much” in the article. Yet they have bought the whopper of a lie that man evolved from a sea creature in the same time, and that mankind is the distant cousin of the sea urchin, (swallow a camel), called Uncle Urch. But the article made a big deal that the lamprey had not changed and was the perfection of evolution evolving from a single celled organism in only 250 million years. So, their own scientists called it a lamprey and recognized it as such. BTW, who would buy such a whopper of an explanation for living fossils.

What was interesting about this straining of a gnat is that the person proved that such things as living fossils prove that evolution and billions of years are false, else why the big dance around the obvious. In the movie, “The Verdict”, Paul Newman plays a lawyer who represents a woman who is in a comma from being given anesthesia for surgery even though she had eaten a full meal only 1 hour prior. So, Newman calls the doctor that made this mistake. The doctor had forgot to check the question of the form before giving her the anesthesia. This doctor is an expert in anesthesia. Newman asked the doctor, if a doctor gave someone anesthesia only one hour after eating would that be negligence. The doctor says it would noy only be negligence but criminal. And this person did exactly the same in this case.

 

[Pogo]

The only thing this proves is that your strawman version of evolution is false.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The lamprey has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years. This also proves evolution and billions of years are false.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years? During that time, there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. There was another one supposedly 210 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean affected. Also, there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, all supposedly changing drastically through survival of the fittest, and during the dire fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

Here is a link from evolutionists which show that the lamprey has not changed in all those eons.

A Note on Lampreys | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Here is a link to the vastly changing events that the lamprey would have faced.

Ocean Through Time

ocean.si.edu

One of the worthy opposition objected to this as they strained at a gnat, the word “much” in the article. Yet they have bought the whopper of a lie that man evolved from a sea creature in the same time, and that mankind is the distant cousin of the sea urchin, (swallow a camel), called Uncle Urch. But the article made a big deal that the lamprey had not changed and was the perfection of evolution evolving from a single celled organism in only 250 million years. So, their own scientists called it a lamprey and recognized it as such. BTW, who would buy such a whopper of an explanation for living fossils.

What was interesting about this straining of a gnat is that the person proved that such things as living fossils prove that evolution and billions of years are false, else why the big dance around the obvious. In the movie, “The Verdict”, Paul Newman plays a lawyer who represents a woman who is in a comma from being given anesthesia for surgery even though she had eaten a full meal only 1 hour prior. So, Newman calls the doctor that made this mistake. The doctor had forgot to check the question of the form before giving her the anesthesia. This doctor is an expert in anesthesia. Newman asked the doctor, if a doctor gave someone anesthesia only one hour after eating would that be negligence. The doctor says it would noy only be negligence but criminal. And this person did exactly the same in this case.

You need to study about lampreys proper.

They already have a quite extensive evolutionary record as they adapted to various environments over the course of time.

 

[Viker]

Creatures can reach an evolutionary zenith. So what?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Creatures can reach an evolutionary zenith. So what?

No. that makes no sense as competition and drastic changes and competition in dire changes would have caused evolution,
Did the lamprey put up a sign to its genes that no changes were needed?
Fables

 

[Viker]

No. that makes no sense as competition and drastic changes and competition in dire changes would have caused evolution,
Did the lamprey put up a sign to its genes that no changes were needed?
Fables

You don't care much for simpler more obvious answers?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't care much for simpler more obvious answers?

Not to mention a trivial understanding of biology at best.

 

[siti]

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years? During that time, there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. There was another one supposedly 210 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean affected. Also, there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, all supposedly changing drastically through survival of the fittest, and during the dire fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

Well I already answered this one in another thread:

"The lamprey" is not a thing. Lamprey is the common name for a family of elongated, jawless fish. Whilst it is remarkable that a 360 million year old fossil lamprey strongly resembles modern lampreys, the fossil species is long extinct. There are more than 40 extant species of modern lampreys recognized today...all a bit different from one another and from earlier species that no longer exist. Clearly they have evolved, but even if they had not, they would represent at the very most a single exceptional case that in no way invalidates the general rule...which makes your argument (at best) a fallacy of exception.

I am more concerned though, about your math skills (or rather lack thereof) than your ability (or lack thereof) to reason coherently...for instance, how do you draw the conclusion that something that remains stable for 360 million years "refutes billions of years"? Are you aware that 360 million is in fact less than a billion?

 

[siti]

Did the lamprey put up a sign to its genes that no changes were needed?

No, "the lamprey" did not put up a sign, "the lamprey's" natural environment did...that's how it works, genetic variation is filtered by natural selection...if a genetic variation confers no survival advantage it is less likely to propagate through future generations (and, of course, vice versa)...across the natural world there are examples of species that are almost completely unrecognizable (at least superficially) compared to their evolutionary ancestors of just a few million years ago and some, like lampreys, that are still (at least superficially) a spitting image of their long-lost forebears after hundreds of millions of years...most are somewhere in between these two extremes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, "the lamprey" did not put up a sign, "the lamprey's" natural environment did...that's how it works, genetic variation is filtered by natural selection...if a genetic variation confers no survival advantage it is less likely to propagate through future generations (and, of course, vice versa)...across the natural world there are examples of species that are almost completely unrecognizable (at least superficially) compared to their evolutionary ancestors of just a few million years ago and some, like lampreys, that are still (at least superficially) a spitting image of their long-lost forebears after hundreds of millions of years...most are somewhere in between these two extremes.

But the environment changed drastically and that was pointed out in the op. So the lamprey would have evolved.

 

[siti]

But the environment changed drastically and that was pointed out in the op. So the lamprey would have evolved.

"The lamprey" (as you are fond of calling this family of species) did evolve...as I'm sure I've mentioned...

There are about 40 species that exist today and they differ quite widely...

... in size - the smallest about 100-150mm and the biggest reaching 1.2m

... and in feeding habits...some are carnivorous and predatory, some feed on carrion and some are non-carnivorous ...

..some feed in the sea and migrate to fresh water to breed and some are exclusively found in freshwater habitats...

If, as you claim, "the lamprey" has not evolved, where did 40 distinct species come from?

By contrast, the extinct species that dates to 360 million years ago was just 42mm long, had quite different mouth parts with fewer and rather different teeth than any of the modern species and did not have the same juvenile forms or life cycles as modern lampreys (which is known because fossils of juveniles of the species have been found).

Obviously there has been a lot of evolution going on.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

"The lamprey" (as you are fond of calling this family of species) did evolve...as I'm sure I've mentioned...

There are about 40 species that exist today and they differ quite widely...

... in size - the smallest about 100-150mm and the biggest reaching 1.2m

... and in feeding habits...some are carnivorous and predatory, some feed on carrion and some are non-carnivorous ...

..some feed in the sea and migrate to fresh water to breed and some are exclusively found in freshwater habitats...

If, as you claim, "the lamprey" has not evolved, where did 40 distinct species come from?

By contrast, the extinct species that dates to 360 million years ago was just 42mm long, had quite different mouth parts with fewer and rather different teeth than any of the modern species and did not have the same juvenile forms or life cycles as modern lampreys (which is known because fossils of juveniles of the species have been found).

Obviously there has been a lot of evolution going on.

Look there is a link to the article of one species of lamprey having not evolved in 350 million years.
It is from your own guys who go out of their way to say it did not evolve.
Please address that since it prove evolution and billions of years are false.

 

[ChristineM]

This also proves evolution and billions of years are false.​

What this actually proves is that the lamphrey has evolved into its nich and is happy to stay there.

Try the horseshoe crab next

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This also proves evolution and billions of years are false.​

What this actually proves is that the lamphrey has evolved into its nich and is happy to stay there.

Try the horseshoe crab next

Yes the horseshoe crab also proves evolution and billions of years false. There was no niche as there was large changes during all those eons.

 

[Father Heathen]

Evolution is about adaptation. Some species have gone through less change than others because they had little need to when it came to survivability.

 

[Father Heathen]

Btw, the inability and/or refusal to understand something does not falsify it. The shortcomings and failings are yours, not the theory of evolution's.

 

[siti]

...there is a link to the article of one species of lamprey having not evolved in 350 million years.

No there isn't...if you mean the article you linked to in the OP it categorically doesn't say that at all in any way shape or form...

Here is what it actually says verbatim but with my bold and underline:

<<Agnathans (a superclass of cartilaginous jawless fish including lampreys and hagfish) have been on earth since before the dinosaurs. And they haven’t changed much. Fossil lampreys that are 360+ million years old look like modern species...>>

There is nothing else in the article that even relates to the evolutionary history of lampreys, so this has to be the part you have interpreted to mean that lampreys "have not evolved in 350 million years"...it just doesn't say that, does it? And it certainly doesn't say anything about "billions of years".

In all honesty, I'm inclined to advise you not to try to get too deeply into subjects like evolutionary biology until you have mastered the rudimentary skills of reading and arithmetic...but then you seem to be able to write reasonably well (the content is mostly gibberish, but you do seem to be able to form grammatical sentences) and you seem to be able to trawl the internet in search of support (albeit flimsy, imaginary support) for your obviously deeply held aversion to the notion of evolution...

...I can't believe that you are intentionally setting out to deceive...

...so what is really going on here...are you really incapable of comprehension when you read stuff like this, or is it a psychological disconnect arising from fear of losing your grip on a tenuous faith by acknowledging the truth?

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you (maybe I should have PM'd it), but I can see you have posted an enormous number of threads like this in which you (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresent what has been written to inform the public about scientific facts. I understand the motivations of people like Kent Hovind and Ray ("Bananaman") Comfort...they're making millions out of telling lies about evolution...others like Michael Behe, although he has made a fair packet out of his pseudo-science nonsense, probably just realized he wasn't going to make the grade as a real scientist...but I presume you are not making any money out of it and you are definitely not going to make it as a scientist (even a disreputable and dishonest one).

You're not persuading anybody one way or the other...I'm guessing even fellow believers cringe when you post some of this stuff. So what's in this for you?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No there isn't...if you mean the article you linked to in the OP it categorically doesn't say that at all in any way shape or form...

Here is what it actually says verbatim but with my bold and underline:

<<Agnathans (a superclass of cartilaginous jawless fish including lampreys and hagfish) have been on earth since before the dinosaurs. And they haven’t changed much. Fossil lampreys that are 360+ million years old look like modern species...>>

There is nothing else in the article that even relates to the evolutionary history of lampreys, so this has to be the part you have interpreted to mean that lampreys "have not evolved in 350 million years"...it just doesn't say that, does it? And it certainly doesn't say anything about "billions of years".

In all honesty, I'm inclined to advise you not to try to get too deeply into subjects like evolutionary biology until you have mastered the rudimentary skills of reading and arithmetic...but then you seem to be able to write reasonably well (the content is mostly gibberish, but you do seem to be able to form grammatical sentences) and you seem to be able to trawl the internet in search of support (albeit flimsy, imaginary support) for your obviously deeply held aversion to the notion of evolution...

...I can't believe that you are intentionally setting out to deceive...

...so what is really going on here...are you really incapable of comprehension when you read stuff like this, or is it a psychological disconnect arising from fear of losing your grip on a tenuous faith by acknowledging the truth?

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you (maybe I should have PM'd it), but I can see you have posted an enormous number of threads like this in which you (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresent what has been written to inform the public about scientific facts. I understand the motivations of people like Kent Hovind and Ray ("Bananaman") Comfort...they're making millions out of telling lies about evolution...others like Michael Behe, although he has made a fair packet out of his pseudo-science nonsense, probably just realized he wasn't going to make the grade as a real scientist...but I presume you are not making any money out of it and you are definitely not going to make it as a scientist (even a disreputable and dishonest one).

You're not persuading anybody one way or the other...I'm guessing even fellow believers cringe when you post some of this stuff. So what's in this for you?

And I pointed that out in the op. So, your objection makes no sense. Your own evolutionists stated that it had not changed much in 350 million years which is impossible because its environment did.

 

[siti]

And I pointed that out in the op. So, your objection makes no sense. Your own evolutionists stated that it had not changed much in 350 million years which is impossible because its environment did.

Oh Lord! There's none so blind...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh Lord! There's none so blind...

... than an evolutionist.