Dinosaur Files

The actual number of species we see in creation is the same always and has not changed since creation?

The fact that all kinds of weird forms of life exist in the fossil record (many of them mutated forms such as dinosaurs etc) does not alter the fact that the very same specues we see in nature today are the same species that have existed since creation. For the fossil record is only a partial record of the lifeforms that lived at the time they were formed. Many lifeforms escaped those mutation-forming events and were as modern as many things we see in nature today. Dinosaurs were mutated forms of modern species. They did not evolve from anywhere. Nor did life itself. It was created. Nor were dinosaurs ancestors to any species. They too were mutated forms, most of them in lowland areas at the time and suffered from those mutagenic environments. Other populations escaped such hazards.

Public Comments

1. The "mutated forms" you talk about are examples of evolution. That's what evolution is. Mutations causing new species. What makes you think the total number of species hasn't changed?
2. The problem with creationsism is that it lacks an essential component of a valid hypothesis: simplicity. Theories should be as simple as possible. You've just dreamed up a whole mechanism where species have wild mutations which exist for a few thousand years and then become extinct again. What proof, or even incentive, do you have for this, besides the fact that it helps your creationist beliefs? Stop trying to pretend what you believe is science. It's not. It's religion.
3. Are you serious? The history of life is the evolution of the species, since the first bacterias burst into life, to the present, evolutions is all around us. Cience has prove the truth of evolution, and separed us from all religious explanations! Don't tell me you believe that God created the species, come on!
4. The biggest problem with your argument is the word "mutated". Dinosaurs were a different life-form all by themselves, not a "mutated" lizard. Why? Mutations would not create such a varied group of "mutants", and most would be dead or infertile. Mutations do occur in nature, but usually it results in the death of the creature, because the mutation changed a vital aspect of the creature. What would cause your "mutation" anyway? Its not like we were nuclear capable, and they were weird radiated lizards, nor has there ever been any evidence of nature causing such enourmous and widespread "mutations". As for your argument that the same speices existing now as when creation occurred, we have found no fossile evidence of humanoids (us) that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs, before, or even a little bit after. When I mean no evidence, I mean nothing, zilch, zero. If there had been humanoid creatures during that time, especially formed like we are, there would be some evidence. That means we would have to have come after they left. Now... to dispel some arguments... yes, some species have survived the test of time, and not changed a whole lot since the dinosaurs were around. One example is the crocodile. They've gotten a bit smaller, but mostly stayed the same. They are one of the few speices that have not changed over the whole of time. yes, some species have avoided being discovered by modern scientists for a very long time, and will continue to do so. There may not have been enough numbers in their population to allow some to be fossilized. However, this is another fault in your "mutation" theory. For there to be as many fossils of dinosaurs as there are, there must have been hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dinosaurs around to get fossilized in the numbers that we see. No "mutation" would account for that, unless you are willing to conceed that maybe a "mutation" gave dinosaurs an advantage, and let them live while others died... can anyone say evolution? I apologize if I went overboard with this. I grow tired of people who would ignore evidence when it suits them, or come up with outrageous theories, untested, unproven theories, to support their views. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email me. I would love to continue this debate! SolarGlare@hotmail.com
5. The premise of your argument is fallacious and totally preposterous! Your claim that the total number of species has remained constant is easily refuted. EXTINCTIONS, there are DOCUMENTED cases of such, therefore rendering the premise of your "question" invalid. Your second claim, that species mutated, is rejected by those that argue FOR creation and it would seem as if you are ignoring that a mechanism of EVOLUTION is mutation and especially those that give advantage to organisms in changing or changed environmental conditions. That state alone renders the remainder of your argument useless and thus mute.
6. This is a very interesting question - which, before I answer, I am going to share a discussion I had with a certain Christian Based Religion (I will not name them as I don't want to start controversy) for background. The basis of my argument was that we can see evolution around us - even on a small scale. Polar bears in the arctic, brown bears in the forest. They responded that it was part of God's plan - as He created the world and therefore knew where He was going to put all the animals. I then asked, so how could Noah collect 2 of every animal when the ark didn't sail until after the rains started? If as you say, God created a polar bear in the Arctic and the brown bear in temperate forested regions, Noah could not possibly have collected those two separate species. If however, he only collected 2 bears, from which all other bears have descended that is evolution in action on a small scale. At this point I was thrown out of their church. But that gives you the answer that whether through God's Plan or Evolution, each species is constantly changing and adapting and from this new species are being born, and old species die out. I guess we will never know what the specific species count at any one time is, so cannot say definitely whether there are more or less.
7. I cant 'argue' with your expertise on the matter, though I do wonder if there is supposed to be a Question here you are seeking an answer to! I can only assume from what you state that you are very, very old - old enough to make this 'A Statement of FACT.' Ok, given that you are not 'old enough,' then as I understand it, your statement is one of 'belief founded on various data and criteria that you have as 'Information,' and not of what you refer to as 'fact.' Given that 'we do NOT KNOW just How Many species that there are alive today, and what I understand is that this number provides a percentage figure from which are extrapolated 'an estimated number' of species. And this in turn apparently increases the number on a monthly basis. So, as i understand it, it seems to nullify the point that you are trying to get across. No! I might possibly be in error ....somewhere.! Regards. Sash.
8. No no no - lol - don't be silly. No truly rational human believes this anymore!! This mentality has gone the way of the flat earth - are you a flat-earther too??
9. Three "questions" in a row from Creationists. It is all propaganda and completely contrary to the aim of Yahoo Answers which is to share knowledge. And what ought to be the aim of a science forum, to debate ideas and pool information, in an enquiry after truth, "Questions" like these pollute the atmosphere here and do not reflect the workings of an enquuring mind. They are the work of an organised group of fundamentalist Christians making an intervention and hoping to gain converts, Their assertions are prescripted and oh so predicable Can I suggest that if you are annoyed about this, like I am, you not only give their questions and responses a massive thumbs down, you make an abuse report, too? Interestingly, as science advances, Creationism is mutating (or are they just shifting their ground?) see the link below
10. More ID propaganda !! Cherrypicking your facts and presenting them as solid proof is not going to work, but keep trying anyway - it's amusing. I also find it amusing that your username is 'democracynow' - in what way is a theocracy a democracy ?
11. In any scientific investigation you have to start with no opinions and use evidence to form a hypothesis which is then tested by others. The problem with so called intelligent design theorists is that they start with a predetermined idea (that God created everything) and then pick and choose scientific evidence to support it. Creationism is not a valid scientific viewpoint because it does not follow any of the rules that apply to scientific arguments.
12. I like to defend the dinosaurs that you have slendered shamelessly. Dinosaurs were animals very well adapted to their environment with a variety of different species. Some were ferocious predators some were munching vegetables like a big cow. There were not weird mutants. You see modern animals as perfect forms, choosen to appear after the creation. There is no evidence of creation only evidence for evolution, futhermore there is no evidence that modern animals are the choosen ones. Even if you only consider our time, animals become extinct even in non polluted areas. Exploration in modern time reveals weird animals in particular in the jungle and in deep sea. If you believe in creation why you do not believe that dinosaurs were created? If you do not accept science then your question should be posted in the religion section.
13. No rudeness intended but... The question is sub-pseudoscience and not worth pulling to bits. There is loads of evidence for evolution at every level. A simple explanation of the mechanics of evolution will help with your confusion about mutations, especially with regard to your belief that older organisms are mutated in relation to newer ones. DNA mutation is something that can be quantified through time and is the basis of modern phylogenetic study. My advice would be to consult a scientist (or scientific text) on matters of science leave priests and pastors to their collections. Good text to start would be "scientists confront creationism". Be open minded. It's still possible to believe in a creator and recognise the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it just makes it more difficult to accept the argument that the religious texts are supposed to be taken literally. In fact it is difficult to accept them literally from any perspective.