A well preserved fossil of shrimp, having a length of about three inches, was discovered by paleontologist Royal Mapes of Ohio University along with his students. In a future edition of Crustacean Biology…
“The oldest known shrimp prior to this discovery came from Madagascar,” Feldmann said. “This one is way younger, having an age of ‘only’ 245 million years, making the shrimp from Oklahoma 125 million years older.”
The study suggests that the fossil is 360 million years old, so how much supposed evolutionary change has happened since then? Here is a picture that was also published in physorg of the two animals side by side…
They look identical, no evidence or indication that any evolutionary change has happened to this animal which is assumed to be 360 million years old. Yet, one scientist from Kent University suggests…“The fossil is a very important step in unraveling the evolution of decapods (the group in which shrimp, crabs and lobsters belong). However, more finds are necessary.” Really? How does a 360 million year old fossil retain muscles in it’s tail?
“The description of the fossil is not only remarkable because of its age, but also due to its preservation. In this case, the muscles that once made up the tail part of the shrimp were preserved. This is extremely rare in fossils. Feldmann knows why the muscles are still visible: “When the animal died, it came to rest on the seafloor. The muscles then were preserved by a combination of acidic waters and a low oxygen content as the animal was buried rapidly.”
What event or mechanism could have buried this shrimp quick enough before micro-organisms broke down the body? By claiming a discovery like this one is an important step in understanding evolution is like finding a fully functional car with pistons, spark plugs, tail pipe, wheels, windows, already manufactured and looks like the cars of today which tells you nothing on how it supposedly advanced with a progressive slow process. It does indicate animals after their own kind (variants) like the Bible says. What’s really unraveling with this discovery is the story of evolution!
New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism 
Michael has just proven beyond a shaddow of a doubt that he doesn’t understand evolution..
Evolutionary theory DOESN’T predict that creatures HAVE to change, or that they CAN’T remain similar to their ancestors.
If creatures find their nitch, then they may not change.
That’s nothing. Answers in Genesis has just discovered a six million year old fossil of a creationist, and it looks just like Michael!
Creationists never change either.
Oh dear, another silly post from Michael …
Dear Michael: increasing the rate of your postings does not seem to raise their quality – quite the opposite.
I think it is amazing how many “living fossils” there are in the world. Of course Darwinists will say that any fossil they find of these living creatures has to be millions of years old, as long as it fits their pre-determined conclusion to dating.
http://www.rae.org/dating.htm
mcoville: “Of course Darwinists will say that any fossil they find of these living creatures has to be millions of years old, as long as it fits their pre-determined conclusion to dating.”
No, we say they’re millions of years old because those dates fit the physical evidence of geology, atomic physics, and biology. Since these different lines of evidence tend to be independent of each other, we feel more confident in them.
mcoville may recall that there was a time that scientists argued a young age for fossils because knioledge of geology was not as advanced. Then, although the gerology indicted a great age, no physical mechanism for an old earth was known. After radioactivity was discovered, the physics fell into place. Then—especially with advances in genetic analysis (such as mechanisms for tracing ages of proteins) biology confirmed the evidence of the other sciences.
The point is that advances in a number of different scientific fields continue to confirm each others’ estimates of age.
From the creationists’ point of view, the situation gets asymptotically worse. In fact, there is not, and never has been, any positive physical evidence whatever for an age of the earth in the range of thousands of years. None. If mcoville believes otherwise, he can cite a source.
I could, but you would not accept it. Not worth my time to try again.
Typical creationist. All bluff, no substance.
One thing mcoville might ponder. Creationism started as a movement in the 1880s. It is curious, however, that no creationists claimed that the earth was only thousands of years old until the late 1920s and ‘early 30s. Even though the evidence for an old earth was much less strong in those days, creationists without exception—even harry Rimmer—allowed an age as long as the rudimentaery science of that day declared it. The authors of the Fundamentals saw the Earth as old. William Jennings Bryan defended the day-age interpretation of Genesis in the Scopes trial. The majority view entail4ed a pre-Adamic creation that was later destroyed and rebuilt in Genesis 1.
It is passing strange that the rise of young-earth dogma coincides with the ascending path of evidence to the contrary.
One of the causes seems to lie in education. In the 19thC, most clergymen were exposed to at least some science—and many received a large diose. (Darwin started with science in a theological course.) The first of the fundamentalists were learned men. But, as the movement progressed, it appealed more and more to the uneducated, and found itself mired in ignorance. Not only ignorance, but distrust of knowledge in general and scientists in particular. Today, creationism feeds on ignorance.
Another of the alter egos, Del Capslock, tells me that a recent Scientific American article expresses a relevant thought here. In “Climate Heretic” (Nov. 2010, p82-83), Michael Lemonick writes,
“The public needs to understand that in science uncertainty is not the same as ignorance; rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown.”
Olorin, more typical Darwinist strawman attacks and name calling. Your debate skills are so rudimentary, and you wonder why Michael tends to avoid to engage you on his blog. All your arguments have been tried and debunked before, you choose to ignore anything that contradicts your ideology.
I grew up most of life in your shoes. It was through education and a love of science that opened my eyes to recognize the creation theory. Now I feel sorry for you, like a cancer survivor talking to someone who denies their own diagnoses.
Olorin: “no creationists claimed that the earth was only thousands of years old until the late 1920s and ‘early 30s.”
Again, Kris, my apologies for omitting the seventh-Day Adventists. Although the original Millerite church in the 1840s insisted only upon Saturday as the Sabbath, followers realized that this doctrine was feckless unless the creation “days” were in fact 24-hour periods.
However, the SDAs remained small and isolated until the 20thC, and their views on this subject did not inspire or convince others, until George McReady Price’s The New Geology.
Olorin,
It’s okay. I guess I was more eager to mention the SDA view since I was raised as an SDA. But yeah, they were a minor group at the time.
This is a detail that strikes me as ironic:
Many modern Young earth Creationists reject Ellen White as a fraud….And yet they are embracing her when they insist on a 6,000 year old earth, in a certain form anyway, since in her writtings she said that God showed her that the fossil record was deposited by Noah’s flood.
Kris, I found it surprising that George McReady Price, who was so famous as a 6-day stalwart, and who had started before 1900, did not appreciably affect anyone outside the SDA fold. He tried mightily, but he did not—not until after the Scopes trial in 1925, when he and a few others founded the Bible Science Association.
I am also ashamed that my (adopted) Lutheran church was a bulwark of creationism well into the 20thC. The Missouri and Wisconsin synods still are. A cousin was a Missouri synod pastor, but then became an Episcopal priest, and rose to academic dean of their largest seminary, in Manhattan He always bragged that he was the most liberal MS Lutheran in the world.