Re: Limits of Kinds

Glenn Morton (
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:50:58 -0600

At 10:19 PM 11/10/97 -0600, wrote:

>Speaking of inconsistent, I have a question. Supposing we grant you
>evolution of everything from simple to complex. Then what would cause
>some species to drop out of the race? For example, horseshoe crabs
>still look like they did in the Cambrian (?). If the horseshoe crabs
>evolved along with everything else up to their present form, why did
>they suddenly put the brakes on and remain unchanged (stasis) for 600
>million years while everybody else kept racing onward and upward? Are
>the crabs immune to mutations? Are you being consistent, my friend?

First off, they didn't stop changing. Horseshoe crabs do NOT look the same
today as they did in the Permian. Go see Moore, Laliker and Fischer,
Invertebrate Paleontology I forget the page. The permian horseshoe crab is
a whole lot different from those you pick up on the east coast today. It has
its shell swept outward today's is an ovoid form. The Jurassic was almost
circular in shape. In fact, not a single "living fossil" that I have
investigated is the same as what is alive today. This includes ginkgoes,
coelecanth and all the others. What the anti-evolutionists are doing is
saying that the ginkgoes look like today. Well ginkgo is a genus, not a
species. This is like saying that there were trees in the Pennsylvanian
thus trees have remained unchanged over that time. They use a high
hierachical category to make the claim.


Foundation, Fall and Flood