In this illustrated talk by Genesis Apologetics speaker Caleb LePore, ‘the time capsule of creation,’ living fossils, is opened, revealing the true history of planet earth, not one of millions of years of evolution, but a recent creation in which animals and plants produce more of their own kind.
in Animals, Arguments Evolutionists Shouldn't Use, Biology, Countering the Critics, Genesis Apologetics, Marine Biology, Nature, Paleontology, Problems with Evolution, Speciation, Video, Why Creation Matters, Zoology
Living Fossils: The Time Capsule of Creation – Part 1
Caleb LePore
11 Views
2 Comments
There are several problems with your claim that the coelacanth is evidence for recent creation and that it is a “living fossil.” You are using an outdated article from 1988 that was written before a second species of coelacanth, L. menadoensis, was discovered in 1998. You also seem to rely on just one source without researching the fish at all. Modern coelacanth differ from their fossilized ancestors in many ways. There are several differences in skeletal structure, modern ones have an ossified swim bladder to help them survive at great depths, and modern coelacanths are much, much larger that ones that are preserved in the fossil record. Are you aware there have been 80 extinct species of coelacanth found? It’s as if you are aware of only one. The coelacanth genome was completed in 2013. The scientists found the fish has gone through a process of slow and gradual evolution over tens of millions of years that would be expected from a relatively small population living in an extreme and isolated environment. Here’s a link to them discussing it and at 10:00 they explain why the fish should no longer be considered a “living fossil.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldgaqoCSnE
I realize you are a newby at this, but do your research before you make more videos and maybe you won’t appear so ignorant about the topic you are speaking on.
Hello Bill,
Thank you for your comment and for sharing your concerns. I readily admit that I am a fallible creature and that I have made mistakes in the past, so I am open to correction. However, in this instance, I still think that my original statements (including those by National Geographic) are correct.
First, as I clearly stated in a later part of my presentation, the biblical creationist position is not that animals don’t change at all (i.e. produce variations or adapt to their environments), just that they don’t gain any meaningful new genetic information that codes for new structures. Young-earth creation scientists (i.e. Rob Carter, Don Batten, Jonathan Sarfati, etc) agree that speciation and adaptation does occur, but neither of these processes involve the gaining of meaningful new information that codes for new structures, which is really what is meant by ‘evolutionary change.’ (see http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4-argument-natural-selection-leads-to-speciation) Therefore, although not stated explicitly in my presentation, when I use the term ‘living fossil,’ I use it broadly to refer to any creature that has not changed in an evolutionary sense (in that it has gained new structures or genetic information) since its appearance in the fossil record. I use this definition because I believe it clarifies what this issue is all about, which is whether or not evolutionary changes (not speciation or minor variations) have occurred over supposedly vast ages.
Using this definition, it is clear that the coelacanth is a dead ringer candidate for a ‘living fossil.’ Although minor variations have occurred (such as in size and color), including adaptations (for example, the modern coelacanth’s loss of its calcified or partially ossified swim bladder for deep swimming, or the dormancy in its one lung; see http://news.discovery.com/animals/living-fossil-coelacanth-has-an-obsolete-lung-150915.htm), it has remained basically unchanged, which is the point of my citation of the NatGeo article. Note that this is still a point that most will agreed on: http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004105667/animated-life-coelacanth.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=lede®ion=caption&pgtype=article.
Now, regarding the evolution of the coelacanth genome, I think that this is another great example of the difference between observational and historical science. We both have the same genomes in the present. If all we had was the current gene sequences of the coelacanth, it would be impossible to determine its ‘evolutionary history,’ since we can only see it as it is now. However, as one of the scientists in the video explained (at around 8:10), the conclusion that the coelacanth genome has evolved (albeit, very slowly) was not determined by the coelacanth genome alone, but by comparing it with comparable sequences from other vertebrates, including the lungfish. Then, using the unproven assumption of common descent (i.e. ‘branching’), an evolutionary history of the coelacanth genome was pieced together. Notice that the key assumption being made is that the coelacanth shares a common ancestry with the lungfish and other vertebrates; in other words, they determined that the coelacanth has evolved by assuming that the coelacanth has evolved! This type of circular reasoning was noted by ICR geneticist Dr. Jeff Tompkins in a recent Acts & Facts article: http://www.icr.org/article/genetic-clocks-verify-recent-creation.
I would highly encourage you to check out the rest of my presentation on Youtube (I will be posting the other 3 parts on TCC soon), which includes many more examples of living fossils (including several recent ones) and my refutation of one of the most common arguments against ‘living fossils.’ Thanks for watching!
Blessings,
Caleb