"Living Fossils" is somewhat of a misnomer. It implies organisms that have survived unchanged for long periods of time. But what if there have not been long periods of time? What if the length of of ages of the various strata are very similar-due to a worldwide flood? Then "Living Fossils" would be expected as some died in the flood and some survived on the Ark or in the water (non-air breathing) during the Flood. And some could be post Flood fossils-like ants in amber. The stasis of organisms argues against evolution and for creation. For example the first Koalas were supposed to have been around 25 million years ago and yet have differences in the mastication bone structure. The age of the bones is assumed. As well, only partial cranial bones have been found in one study so there can be a question of relatedness or simply variation in kind. Relatedness is best seen in the actual production of progeny. Even limited DNA sequence data comparison from fossil to living organisms requires certain assumptions when extrapolating relatedness. Creation of unique life forms, and some variance post creation and the Fall of nature, is more reasonable and requires less assumptions.
RSS Feed