Evolution? Really? They say that the penguin fossil is 62 million years old. But if that is true why is it the same penguin as todays penguin?

@Bushranger According to evolution things change right?

@Carazaa not you, apparently...

@Yulianna 👍

@Carazaa Your understanding of evolution appears to be somewhat lacking. If an organism is well adapted for its environment, there will be little to no morphological changes. Someone else raised the issue of sharks, a genus that has had very little change for millions of years because it is very well adapted to its environment.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to question what you read on creationist websites.

@Bushranger Your understanding is lacking! An animal does not change much,it might get bigger or smaller but a penguin is a penguin is a penguin. We did not come from fish! If we did where did the first cell come from??

@Carazaa So many confused ideas there. There are more than one species of penguin, with different appearances and, to some extent, different lifestyles. So yes, overall they are still penguins, there are significant differences between them.

I know you have significant difficulty with the idea of common descent, because it disagrees with your religious views. I also know that you have had this explained to you in the past, so I'm not even going to bother trying to do so again.

If you opened a discussion with the idea of evolution, why are you now talking about abiogenesis? The two topics have nothing to do with each other. But, again, you've been told this numerous times as well.

@Bushranger You are confused! There is DNA and soft matter in dinosaurs its not possible that they are old fossils. More and more they find proof that disprove the old fossils!

@Bushranger If we discuss where your cells come from or mine we MUST discuss the first cell first!

@Bushranger Lets discuss common descent from the first cell shall we?

@Carazaa I would suggest you do some more research into that false claim. Also, if dinosaurs were so recent, why are they so low down in the fossil record? I bet your answer will be distribution due to density during the Biblical flood. But, again, what has that to do with evolution?

@Bushranger We have to be logical! The truth is they don't know so don't pretend to know, please!

@Carazaa Discussing the first cell would be a total waste of time. You will stick with the creationist claim that everything was created in its current form. You'll also probably make the claim that it would be impossible for a cell to come into existence spontaneously. The latter claim being one that I have only heard creationists make.

We have been over this before, you will not even consider the possibility of anything that disagrees with your religious beliefs and will not question anything that sites like answers in genesis say.

But, if you have some real evidence to support your claims, please present it.

@Carazaa [quote]where did the first cell come from?[/quote]

From a slightly simpler self-sustaining chemical system

Why? Where else would it come from?

@Carazaa [quote]The truth is they don't know so don't pretend to know, please![/quote]

So the presence of dinosaur fossils consistently below that of mammals, in rock strata that has been dated to millions of years ago and the lack of any mixing of fossils isn't evidence? Having a Masters in science (even though you refuse to say what field), you should have some understanding of how science works and also be able to look for appropriate sources for information.

@Bushranger Its not a waste of time at all. I gave lots of proof about 10 articles a few weeks ago and Im done with proving evolution wrong! and this is just one more point, actually a million more points for creation. The penguin has only changed in size in "65 million years", yeah right!

@Carazaa [quote]According to evolution things change right?[/quote]

What changes is the frequency and distribution of specific alleles, and that is driven by constantly changing environments

That isn’t 'according to evolution'... that [i][b]is[/b][/i] evolution

@Bushranger I gave you 20+ sources!

@newjaninev2 right as I have quoted many times👍

@Carazaa So your objections to evolution are based on a claim that the frequency and distribution of specific alleles do not change?

is that a fair summation of your claim?

@Carazaa So what? They are exceptionally well adapted to their environment and their environment hasn't changed all that much in the time they have been around. The oceans still exist, fish are still there to catch, predators are still around to be evaded. Perhaps the most significant changes would have been to breading practices. For example, little penguins outside the antarctic area raise their young in burrows, as opposed to on ice. But differences have arisen between penguin species. Also, if the only difference was size, isn't that an example of evolution? Sharks have been around in pretty much their current form for around 400 million years. If the form works, why change it?

@newjaninev2 [quote]What changes is the frequency and distribution of specific alleles[/quote]

And, if I'm not mistaken, that does not necessarily mean there would be a change in the phenotype that would be easily observable. Many changes can occur without the species undertaking significant physiological changes. I just wish creationists would get that idea.

@Carazaa [quote]I gave you 20+ sources![/quote]

If I remember correctly, those sources were all creationist and/or Christian apologists. If you could present proof from a peer reviewed source I'd be much more impressed.

@Bushranger youre talking to a brick wall of ‘faith’ in non sense and magic books

@Bushranger [quote]Many changes can occur without the species undertaking significant physiological changes[/quote]

Yes, precisely.

I wrote something around that (quite some time ago), and I’ll see if I can drag it out of my archives... it might be helpful

@TryingtoLava But at least @Carazaa is polite and does present some of her own ideas. Unlike many other creationists on here.