If evolution is true how come some organisms like pic related remained unchanged for 450 million years?

How do we know it's DNA has remained the same for 450 years, it may have mutated a lot but just look the same on the outside

Have humans evolved in the like 200 years?

they could have ran a dna test on a fossil and live one but chances are they didn't cus they are dumb

Does DNA even survive that long?

i hope this is bait.
the term "living fossil" was coined by Darwin himself in On the Origin of Species. In one section Darwin discussed the platypus and the lungfish, two "living fossils".
"these anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition."
There you go. Consistency in habitat and lack of competition for food/mates.

No. The record is around 100,000 years.

Sickle-cell anemia is an interesting case of human evolution.

...

It's far older than 200 years though.

This, it wouldn't be so widespread otherwise, any genetic conditions that have mutated over the past 200 years would most likely be within a small number of individuals so likely not known about or cataloged

Okay guys you might think i'm weird, but i think American women's breast shape and size has changed over the years based on mens wants.(not including augmentation) If you look back 50 years youll see cute perky tits, in the last 20 years its big tits, and now cute perky tits are on the rise again. I swear you guys this is real

American women are also much fatter than they were in the past though.

That's not evolution, if this is true then if anything it's due to increased oestrogen in water and chemicals in food or something

I just wanna see some more tits you guys

Can't be bothered to google i see

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-of-horseshoe-crabs.html

...

They arent unchanged, they just look pretty much the same on the outside

they are already perfect beings, there is little to improve

jesus... would go to jail for

why would you need to? she's like 20

do you mean you'd rape her?

Because they're capable of surviving in their current state. No environmental condition has made one mutation or another more beneficial to survival or reproduction.

If evolution is real how come you're still such a gigantic faggot?

Evolution is a meme science, there's some truth to it but most of it is bullshit. Blatant contradictions are simply explained away by pointing to the huge timescales involved or some other bullshit justification.

"no"

Was about to say exactly this.

Don't believe any 'muh evolushiun' fag that has plagued Veeky Forums in the past months

yeah evolution is just a me-me

lmfao

Veeky Forums is skeptical of evolution

pmsl

>not understanding what you are attempting to argue against
>being this retarded

This may be a science board but it's still on a website of contrarians

this, bad bait

A large amount of mutations are silent.
They can happen in an area with no coding capability or regulatory function.
A fair amount of mutations can happen in a protein without a significant impact to function, so long as they are outside of the active area that actually handles the enzymatic function or don't impact the folding too significantly such that a membrane protein for instance still has sections of the correct polarity to be able to anchor itself into the membrane (I think).
And most importantly a large amount of mutations are simply synonymous. Each amino acid in a protein (and 3 different stop signals) corresponds to 3 letters of genetic code with 4 possible letters in each position. That's 64 possible combinations for 20 amino acids and 3 stop signals.

These mutations will continue to happen in the population but aesthetically and functionally there will be no difference.
If a mutation is not silent then it will be either statistically positive or statistically negative. In a stable population with little genetic drift these statistics determine which allel fixates. A well adapted population will most likely not experience a fixation of a new allel as the new allel will not be statistically positive.

We do not have genetic records from fossils, only phenotypical. We do not know how well the DNA of current and ancient members match. However, given what we know, it's safe to assume that there were changes invisible to the fossil record.
Saying that there weren't any would require a mechanism for DNA repair and conservation that would pretty much be the cure for cancer (all cancers), for which we have no evidence.
The alternative you seem to be suggesting (creation as-is) may have some seeming explanatory power regarding the finding of a fossil that looks very similar to modern species, but it comes with a sleugh of other problems - chief among which is that even creationists have been forced to admit the existence of evolutionary mechanisms and DNA change, and that creationism totally fails to explain many other observations (for starters, we would expect to find all kinds of species fossilized everywhere, without strata, changes, or transitions. Rabbits in the Cambrian, Humans alongside T-Rex). Nobody doubts changes in genes and their frequencies (falsely subdivided into micro- and macroevolution by proponents of creationism) produces visible changes in species (wolves to dogs, the variety of isolated bird populations, microbe adaptations etc.) - to find a species that survived the ages unchanged is a contradiction, even for them. So, to answer your question, mutations are a must, for both proponents of evolution and creation alike (unless said DNA conservation mechanism exists).
The idea of fitness/adaptation maxima that punish phenotype changes fits best into the mosaic of other evidence we have.

Those things are alien species. No better way to describe it. Their blood carries oxygen and Fe ions like no other organism does.

>Those things are alien species.
>Raising horseshoe crabs in captivity has proven to be difficult. Some evidence indicates mating takes place only in the presence of the sand or mud in which the horseshoe crab's eggs were hatched. It is not known with certainty what is in the sand that the crab can sense, nor how they sense it.

>we do not have genetic records from fossils, only phenotypical

uh yes we do

we know that the reef fish families present on the rudist reefs of the tethys were morphologically similar / identical to the fish families present on reefs today

we also know they were eons apart genetically, through genome analysis

evolution says that allele frequencies CAN change in a population over time, not that they MUST change

Because evolution is a product of adaptation.

Granted, but I had the fossils OP was talking about in mind. DNA doesn't really last that long.

this is true, challenge retracted

They probably evolved a lot I'm response to parasites. But those adaptations aren't visible at a gross anatomical level.

Does anyone here think it's a coincidence that the same people who doubt evolution, or the scientific method in general, are also completely incapable and unwilling to actually study and find information on their own?

Anyone?

....and tend to originate from /pol/ ?

agreed

Unless you're talking about a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium with no consideration for mutation then I'm pretty sure it does say that.

Do you have any evidence of that ? or are you just another misinforming SJWtard ?

You're wrong, what they do is thoroughly research for any perceived inconsistency and ignore everything else.

What you're describing isn't research. Research implies the basic ability of finding relevant information, including the use of necessary criticism to compare and test the validity of that information.

But you have a point in that what you just said, is probably what they're doing, while thinking they actually researched something for real.

dunning-kruger effect

aka dumbing-cruder

Well, yeah. Can't argue with that.

Objectively speaking, the world needs a Dunning-Kruger test. Like, a fucking real one. Something that you can ask the dumbfucks to do and then point to the results instead of bothering to answer.

I know it wouldn't help against them. Dumb people rarely seem to understand their position, precisely because of DK. But it would enable people to leverage the social environment against them. Instead of wasting an inordinate amount of time providing 10 different forms of proof of why someone is wrong, when that someone fucking never even understands what was just explained to him, and then getting back to square one... you could just point to the test, the score and that description in the table going "You're too dumb to understand, move the fuck away", and then point to the door.

It wouldn't even matter whether the little fuck understood what just happened or not, since everyone else would see the score and people being as dumb as they are, they'd instantly jump at the chance to call someone stupid to feel smart themselves, effectively giving that original tard that well-deserved social slap in the face.

That would be so beautiful. And so relaxing too I imagine.

>ctrl+f orthogenesis
>0 results

That would be neat. The complete lack of self-awareness of some people can be frustrating to deal with.
But I dont even think it is stupidity all the time. The worse thing is being unwilling to learn something new and the inability to handle criticism. For some people getting corrected just means that they were wrong and that cant be true, because they are clever and awesome. So they stay ignorant
Well nevermind, it IS about stupidity

Mutations only continue to exist un environment suitable for them. Like bacteria become more immune because the normal types gets killed by medicines, while 1-2 mutated types survived.

So if a significant mutation happened at the bottom of the oceans where these things live, like being less pressure resistant, they will die out.

Get with the times grandpa, there's a thing called punctuated equilibrium, time isn't that important in evolution.

Stable environment.

I actually really hate when biologists say that organisms have remained unchanged like that. Do we have DNA samples of them far back in the past? Perhaps they have small differences in soft organs that didn't fossilize or maybe they have differences in the immune system. To say that they remain unchanged would be assuming a lot.

more importantly how are these things so successful?

is there another animal that's generally been around for as long?

Crocodiles?

have existed less than half as long as horseshoe crabs

Is this bait?
It has to be bait.

More proof evolution is an evil satanic lie. I'm supposed to believe that over the span of 450 million years humans came from fucking hamster like creatures while these things didn't change one iota? Get fucked.

jellyfish and a lot of other less complex organisms.

The overall shark "design" is also pretty classic

I get where you are coming from, but I assume they just want to point out how remarkable the consistency in the phenotype is

>jellyfish
>700 million years

goddamn

An unusual species, Turritopsis dohrnii, formerly classified as T. nutricula,might be effectively immortal because of its ability under certain circumstances to transform from medusa back to the polyp stage, thereby escaping the death that typically awaits medusae post-reproduction if they have not otherwise been eaten by some other ocean organism. So far this reversal has been observed only in the laboratory.[58] At least one professor at the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory at Kyoto University in Japan has concluded that there are three species of jellyfish that are immortal, and says their immortality may hold the key to immortality for human beings, as he says that genetically they are not that much different from humans.[59]
will human be able to reach that or is the human body to complicated?

What's illogical about that picture? The vibrations from the french horn are stimulating her.

You must be a virgin or have a boring sex life.

Because they did not need to.