http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_saving_sturgeon
Its supposedly been 65 million years since the dinosaurs went extinct. This article is about a fish that scientists say has survived since the time of the dinosaurs. I am assuming they believe this because they found a sturgeon from before 65 million years ago according to their dating methods.
Now here is the problem...Over millions of years we are supposed to evolve. They clearly state this fish survived from the dinosaurs. To give you an idea of how much something is suppossed to evolve, here is an artists rendition of what a human was 45 million years ago.
As you can see, for over "45 million years" we have changed quite a bit. Yet for some reason, this fish is unchanged over a period that is possibly twice as long or more. Why didnt evolution touch this fish? Its not like it didnt have the opportunity. Some sturgeons produce 1000s of eggs. One Pallid sturgeon (another fish that hasnt changed in 70 million years) was once found with 170k eggs inside it. That many eggs should be more than enough for evolution to get a foothold, right?
Lets also not forget the Coelacanth fish that the oldest fossil of it is 400 million years old. Then those pesky fisherman found one alive and unchanged in the 1970s which really threw a wrench in their sprockets.
Kind of sucks for you evolutionists doesnt it? To claim something has been extinct for millions of years only to find it alive and well and unchanged. But hey...keep collecting monkey heads and put them next to each other and then put a human skull on the end. Maybe you can lead the thinking of some people, but you cant argue with the evidence that you yourself have found which completely contradicts what you believe about evolution.
Its supposedly been 65 million years since the dinosaurs went extinct. This article is about a fish that scientists say has survived since the time of the dinosaurs. I am assuming they believe this because they found a sturgeon from before 65 million years ago according to their dating methods.
Now here is the problem...Over millions of years we are supposed to evolve. They clearly state this fish survived from the dinosaurs. To give you an idea of how much something is suppossed to evolve, here is an artists rendition of what a human was 45 million years ago.
As you can see, for over "45 million years" we have changed quite a bit. Yet for some reason, this fish is unchanged over a period that is possibly twice as long or more. Why didnt evolution touch this fish? Its not like it didnt have the opportunity. Some sturgeons produce 1000s of eggs. One Pallid sturgeon (another fish that hasnt changed in 70 million years) was once found with 170k eggs inside it. That many eggs should be more than enough for evolution to get a foothold, right?
Lets also not forget the Coelacanth fish that the oldest fossil of it is 400 million years old. Then those pesky fisherman found one alive and unchanged in the 1970s which really threw a wrench in their sprockets.
Kind of sucks for you evolutionists doesnt it? To claim something has been extinct for millions of years only to find it alive and well and unchanged. But hey...keep collecting monkey heads and put them next to each other and then put a human skull on the end. Maybe you can lead the thinking of some people, but you cant argue with the evidence that you yourself have found which completely contradicts what you believe about evolution.
