Living Fossils

[kalnet 1,198]

Evolution and natural selection have played a role in the ever-changing landscape of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. Although species evolve as they find their niche and adapt to new opportunities, some animals have remained relatively unchanged over the course of history.

 

These animals are known as living fossils. Compared to the animals on this list, humans are relative newcomers to this planet. Homo sapiens emerged out of Africa a mere 200,000 years ago.

 

Many living fossils are considerably older than humans and other mammals; some have even outlasted the dinosaurs. In this slideshow, take an up-close look at animals that have persevered virtually unchanged through the ages and continue to thrive today.

 

 

Horseshoe Crab

 

The horseshoe crab could hold the distinction of being the oldest animal species still in existence.

 

Dating back to the Paleozoic era, the horseshoe crab existed on Earth before the dinosaurs and soldiered on through several mass extinction events.

 

In 2008, a horseshoe crab fossil, the oldest in existence found so far, dated back to around 445 million years ago, according to a report by LiveScience.

 

 

Triops Cancriformis

 

The tadpole shrimp, Triops cancriformis, is another contender for the title of oldest living animal species. This shrimp is related to the horseshoe crab so its longevity should come as no surprise.

 

According to a report by The Telegraph, the tadpole shrimp as it appears today is virtually identical to a fossil of a specimen that lived some 200 million years ago just as dinosaurs rose to prominence.

 

Despite the animal's remarkable endurance, the tadpole shrimp is currently listed as an endangered species.

 

 

Coelacanth

 

Once thought to be extinct in the same event that killed off the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago, the coelacanth is a lobe-finned fish that sparked a debate over whether this species represented a missing link between aquatic animals and four-legged terrestrial creatures, according to National Geographic.

 

The animal was rediscovered in 1938 and only two species of coelacanth still exist today. In 2007, a fossilized coelacanth fin was found dating back roughly 400 million years.

 

 

Common Snapping Turtle

 

Snapping turtles as we know them first walked the earth some 40 million years ago, but they have been virtually unchanged over the past 215 million years of their evolution, according to Tortoise Trust.

 

Although not among the most endangered tortoises and turtles according to the Turtle Conservation Coalition, the snapping turtle is listed as threatened.

 

 

Nautilus

 

The nautilus is the most primitive cephalopod in existence, a group that includes the most complex squid and octopus.

 

Dating back to more than half a billion years ago, the nautilus reached the high point in its evolution during the Paleozoic era about 505 million to 408 million years ago.

 

Several species of nautilus still survive today -- relatively unchanged from their ancestral counterparts.

 

 

Goblin Shark

 

Goblin sharks are rare, deep-sea dwellers with a unique elongated nose that distinguishes them from other sharks. They're also ancient, and are between 112 million to 124 million years old as a species.

 

Around 2,000 different species of fossil sharks have been discovered, according to the ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research. The earliest sharks predate the dinosaurs by more than 200 million years.

 

 

Hagfish

 

Hagfish may have had to endure a less-than-flattering name since scientists first described them in the 18th century. However, these famously ugly marine animals have existed for about half a billion years.

 

The hagfish also represents an important evolutionary step in the development of vision. These ancient fish may have been among the earliest animals to evolve more complex, camera-like eyes as opposed to the strictly photosensitive vision possessed by more primitive species. As such, the hagfish represents a kind of missing link in the evolution of the eye.

 

 

Mouse Deer

 

Compared to other animals on this list, the mouse deer, better known as a chevrotain, is a relative newcomer. For a large mammal, however, it's relatively old.

 

This animal is among the only survivors of a group of hoofed mammals that lived some 35 million years ago.

 

 

Oarfish

 

The oarfish has a flattened, snake-like body that grows up to almost 10m long. It has a bright red dorsal fin and a crest of long stiff rods, or fin-rays, on the top of its head.

 

This strange and harmless fish is seen occasionally at the surface and may even be washed on to the shore. Because we see it so rarely, little is known about the oarfish's lifestyle. Its stomach contents reveal that it feeds mainly on tiny animals that drift through the water.

 

 

Frilled Shark

 

The frilled shark has been called everything from a “sea serpent” to a real-life “Loch Ness Monster” over the years in places where it lives, such as southeast Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, West Africa, Chile and the Caribbean.

 

When open, the frilled shark’s mouth reveals 300 trident-shaped teeth aligned in 25 rows. Aside from its unmistakable toothiness, the mouth looks larger than that of other sharks because its jaws terminate at the back of the fish’s head instead of underneath the skull. The head appears to be all mouth, capped off at the throat region with six frilled gills, hence its name.

[Kinode 3,056]

 

 

*_*

[WakelessDream 2,278]

Interesting read o_o I've seen the Nautilus thingy before, I can't put my finger on where though. I like how most of these species are water/ocean based.

[SoraDaxjer28 263]

Sounds like these species survived the Flood. There was no way they could have all survived such "mass extinctions" unless something miraculous would have occured.

 

Therefore, there's really only been 1 "mass extinction" throughout history. Technically, no species would have gone extinct. All of them would've been on the Ark and safe.

 

Also, the Flood's Aftermath would have been enormous. Such a cataclysmic event would have turned the Earth completely unstable. This would have resulted in the Ice Age, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Volcanoes, etc. Fossils are only a remnant of the Flood's Aftermath. It doesn't take a higher-level Scientist to figure that out.

 

Am I Correct?

[Elijah Gravenhorst 480]

I do hope that any budding evolutionist that sees this realizes that the only way for a fossil to be formed is through intense pressure applied very quickly and settled before the dead animal or plant has time to decompose. IN OTHER WORDS, fossils cannot just form by themselves, fossilization is a phenom that could only have happened in the case of a massive disaster such as the FLOOD. It really bugs me when people think that they are more advanced or smarter than other people simply because they buy into the theory of evolution. It doesn't take higher intelligence to believe what everyone else believes.

[allen95 208]

♥♥♥♥♥ awwww sooo cute ♥♥♥♥♥

[replika13 455]

 

Also, the Flood's Aftermath would have been enormous. Such a cataclysmic event would have turned the Earth completely unstable. This would have resulted in the Ice Age, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Volcanoes, etc. Fossils are only a remnant of the Flood's Aftermath. It doesn't take a higher-level Scientist to figure that out.

 

Am I Correct?

 

O.o???

[Zola 3,038]

Just a foreword, lets keep this polite and respectful, because everyone is entitled to believe what they will, and I respect that, but I wanted to add some ideas to this discussion.

 

Firstly, a species doesn't have to die off all at once for it to become extinct. If there is some change, be it quickly or slowly, that a species can't find a way to handle, it's going to eventually die off. Any member of that species at any time during its existence could fall into a tar pit or be covered by sediments during a storm or a volcano or a flood or whatnot, preserving the body's shape long enough for minerals to replace it and create a fossil, or in some cases, like being frozen, preserving the actual body for long periods of time.

 

I think that fossil layers are beautiful. You can look through thousands of years in centimeters, and try to see what things were like in ancient times. Have you ever been in a deep slot canyon? You can almost feel the vastness of time in each of the deepening layers of the walls.

 

I am a hardcore Christian, but I also know that species change over time. Bacteria are a prime example of this, becoming immune to medications and mutating to live in pretty much every environment every day.

 

Science is a way for us, teeny tiny humans that we are, to try to understand the world around us, and it is a beautiful thing. I really honestly think that science and religion don't have to be opposites, like they are often made out to be. In fact, in my own personal experience, I feel that they support each other in some pretty fantastic ways. Just thought I'd say that.

[SoraDaxjer28 263]

Just a foreword, lets keep this polite and respectful, because everyone is entitled to believe what they will, and I respect that, but I wanted to add some ideas to this discussion.

 

Science is a way for us, teeny tiny humans that we are, to try to understand the world around us, and it is a beautiful thing. I really honestly think that science and religion don't have to be opposites, like they are often made out to be. In fact, in my own personal experience, I feel that they support each other in some pretty fantastic ways. Just thought I'd say that.

 

True enough. The Bible does say that God wanted Man to study the Earth in detail. It mainly depends on what you start your observations to determine how the overall outcomes will be.

 

Do you agree?

[Zola 3,038]

It mainly depends on what you start your observations to determine how the overall outcomes will be.

 

Could you explain this sentence? I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. Sorry! http://kh13.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/happy.png

[Ultima Spark 753]

You go this far and you don't mention the Queensland lungfish? Also I keep confusing "living fossils" and "Lazarus taxon" -___-

 

O.o???

 

Pretty much.

[SoraDaxjer28 263]

Could you explain this sentence? I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. Sorry! http://kh13.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/happy.png

 

In other words, I'm saying that Evolution is primarily built on assumptions. Creation (God creating the world and everything within it) is built on everything God has told us through the Biblical text.

[Zola 3,038]

In other words, I'm saying that Evolution is primarily built on assumptions. Creation (God creating the world and everything within it) is built on everything God has told us through the Biblical text.

 

You are right, though observation would be a better word choice than assumption. Evolution, the idea that things change over time, is based solely on observation, which is kind of what science is all about. No one ever said that it was perfect. Our perspective is just too small on this little planet. There are some questions we can't answer right now, or maybe ever. It really is a lot about our limited perspective, in both directions. The bible says that the Lord created the world in six days, and on the seventh he rested. Who are we to say that a day for the Lord is the same as a day for us? And who are we to say how he even did any of it?

 

I think that you could say we're all little children, drawing a crayon picture of the universe. I do think we can all be mature about other peoples pictures, and when we eventually move on, we will get to show our pictures to our friends upstairs. They might smile, and point out the things we got right, and then maybe laugh a little and help us understand what parts we didn't draw quite right. But for now, It doesn't really make sense to ignore observations just because they don't work out with the crayon picture we think we want. You just have to take what you know, do your best, and have faith that everything will work out.