Jump to content


Photo

Live Science & Dinos


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 June 2009 - 04:44 PM

Yahoo has a LiveScience article entitled Do Dinosaurs Still Exist?. In part, they write:

LiveScience writes:

Of course the fatal flaw in the idea that giant dinosaurs still lurk in remote jungles or cold, deep lakes is that all the evidence suggests they died out about 65 million years ago. Many of the lakes said to hide dinosaurs were created only about 10,000 years ago.

If dinosaurs had existed up until much more recently - say, the Nixon administration or even Shakespeare's time - the likelihood of a few remaining, lonely huge dinosaurs might be plausible. But 65 million years is a long time for giant dinosaurs to live and die without leaving any recent fossils.


Ths calls to mind something Vij Sodera writes in his book, One Small Speck to Man: The Evolution Myth. He calls it the Coelacanth Principal (pp. 32-26):

In the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, any creature could have lived at any time before or after the time of its earliest of latest known fossil.


He bases this principal on the fact that before live Coelacanths were found, they were thought to have been extinct for 60-70 million years. Despite this, no fossils between that putative time period and today have been found. Yet the Coelacanth exists today. Why the gap? Of course, this argument is only strengthened by the ever-mounting number of 'living fossils' that exist.

Therefore, on the basis of the Coelacanth Principal, I call 'bunk' on LiveScience!!

Just a little tidbit I thought I'd pass on...

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 June 2009 - 06:28 PM

He bases this principal on the fact that before live Coelacanths were found, they were thought to have been extinct for 60-70 million years. Despite this, no fossils between that putative time period and today have been found. Yet the Coelacanth exists today.


Dinosaurs found above the K/T line were once considered reworked,which means the fossils were eroded and then redeposited into younger strata.Scientists never provided any evidence of reworking,though.It was just an excuse to preserve the current model.New evidence has forced them to realize that dinosaurs did survive at least 500,000 years after the K/T boundary.

New evidence suggests an "isolated community" escaped annihilation and lived on a rocky, desert plateau in North America.

Until now, palaeontologists widely believed the creatures were wiped out 65 million years ago when an asteroid collided with Earth.

Carbon dating of newly-discovered bones in the San Juan Basin proves that these lived for another half-a-million years.


http://www.telegraph.....osaurs-surviv...

I think they are wrong about the carbon dating part because carbon dating could'nt possibily work on such an old timescale,but it does show how assumptions based on fossils are always being revised and far from conclusive.Paleoentology is a historical science and not an empirical one.

Why the gap? Of course, this argument is only strengthened by the ever-mounting number of 'living fossils' that exist.


Here is a list of some living fossils from wiki.

Plants

Amborellaceae – a plant from New Caledonia, possibly closest to base of the flowering plants
Araucaria araucana – the Monkey Puzzle tree
Cycads
Ginkgo tree (Ginkgoaceae)
Horsetails – Equisetum (Equisetaceae)
Metasequoia – Dawn Redwood (Cupressaceae; a borderline example, related to Sequoia and Sequoiadendron)
Sciadopitys tree (Sciadopityaceae)
Whisk ferns – Psilotum (Psilotaceae)
Welwitschia (Welwitschiaceae)
Wollemia tree (Araucariaceae – a borderline example, related to Agathis and Araucaria)

Fungi

Neolecta

Mammals

Aardvark (Orycteropus afer)
Cypriot mouse (Mus cypriacus)
Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)
Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)
Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus)
Volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi)
Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi)
Iriomote cat (Prionailurus iriomotensis)
Monito del Monte (Dromiciops gliroides)
monotremes (the platypus and echidna)
Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
Opossums
Przewalski's Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii, Equus przewalskii or Equus caballus przewalskii, classification is debated

Birds

Acanthisittidae (New Zealand "wrens") – 2 living species, a few more recently extinct. Distinct lineage of Passeriformes.
Hoatzin (Ophisthocomus hoazin) – One living species. Distinct lineage of Neoaves.
Broad-billed Sapayoa (Sapayoa aenigma) – One living species. Distinct lineage of Tyranni.
Bearded Reedling (Panurus biarmicus) – One living species. Distinct lineage of Passerida or Sylvioidea.
Coliiformes (mousebirds) – 6 living species in 2 genera. Distinct lineage of Neoaves.
Magpie-goose (Anseranas semipalmata) – One living species. Distinct lineage of Anseriformes.

Reptiles

Pig-nosed turtle
Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials and alligators)
Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri)

Amphibians

Purple frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)

Bony fish

Bowfin (Amia calva)
Coelacanth (the lobed-finned Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae)
Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri)
Sturgeons and paddlefish (Acipenseriformes)

Sharks

Frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus)

Insects

Mantophasmatodea (gladiators; a few living species)
Mymarommatid wasps (10 living species in genus Palaeomymar)
Nevrorthidae (3 species-poor genera)
Notiothauma reedi (a scorpionfly relative)
Orussidae (parasitic wood wasps; about 70 living species in 16 genera)
Peloridiidae (peloridiid bugs; fewer than 30 living species in 13 genera)
Sikhotealinia zhiltzovae (a jurodid beetle)
Syntexis libocedrii (Anaxyelidae cedar wood wasp)

Crustaceans

glypheoid lobsters (3 living species: Neoglyphea inopinata, N. neocaledonica, and Laurentaeglyphea neocaledonica)
Stomatopods (Mantis shrimp)
Triops cancriformis (also known as Tadpole shrimp) (a notostracid crustacean)

Molluscs

Nautilina (e.g. Nautilus pompilius)
Neopilina galateae, a monoplacophorid mollusc
Ennucula superba (Nut clam)

Other invertebrates

crinoids
Horseshoe crabs (only 4 living species of the class Xiphosura, family Limulidae: Limulus polyphemus,Tachypleus gigas, Tachypleus tridentatus and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda)
Lingula anatina (an inarticulate brachiopod)
onychophorans
Valdiviathyris quenstedti (a craniforman brachiopod)

#3 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 June 2009 - 08:36 AM

Could someone please explain to me why "living fossils" are supposidly such a problem for evolution? The only "issue" that I can see is the gap in the fossil evidence but that is NOT a problem. The fossil record is not a perfect record of natural history. Fossilisation is a random and very rare process. We would not expect to find the fossil remains of all animals that have once lived - its absurd think that we would.

The Coelacanth issue simply means we have not found any fossils and that is not to say that we will not do so in the future.

#4 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 June 2009 - 02:00 PM

Could someone please explain to me why "living fossils" are supposidly such a problem for evolution?

View Post

Probably not. But I can explain it well enough that some people will understand.

Suppose we mount 100 cameras in different locations around a city. Each camera takes time-stamped pictures at random intervals for one day, and at the end of the day, we survey the results to see who was where at what time.

My picture is taken at 9:04 A.M and 9:30. Ikester's picture is taken at 3:13, 3:22, 4:04, and 4:55 P.M. The problems arise when investigators claim I went extinct after 9:30 or Ikester "didn't evolve" until 3:13. At first nobody really has a problem with these conclusions.

Then someone finds a picture of you taken at 7:55 A.M. and it is noted that your are present with the team of investigators! They cannot claim you "went extinct", and on the same principle, they cannot claim extinction for anyone else. They can't claim any of their "didn't evolve until" stories either. The entire report is a bust.

Those who've read Darwin's writings know how important the issue of extinction is to his doctrines. Here's a link for those who might care to start. Another can be found in my sig.

http://www.literatur...-man/index.html

The only "issue" that I can see is the gap in the fossil evidence but that is NOT a problem. The fossil record is not a perfect record of natural history. Fossilisation is a random and very rare process. We would not expect to find the fossil remains of all animals that have once lived - its absurd think that we would.

The Coelacanth issue simply means we have not found any fossils and that is not to say that we will not do so in the future.

View Post

The imperfection isn't the problem. The problem is that imperfection is interpreted as if it were perfection, when everyone knows it isn't.

"Living fossils" also demonstrate stasis, a problem which most evolutionists are reluctant to acknowledge in any way, lest their "theory" be thought actually subject to falsification. I see the thread is still open.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1670

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 June 2009 - 08:25 PM

Could someone please explain to me why "living fossils" are supposidly such a problem for evolution?


Because you won't provide a theory that can be tested so we do it for you.

The only "issue" that I can see is the gap in the fossil evidence but that is NOT a problem. The fossil record is not a perfect record of natural history. Fossilisation is a random and very rare process. We would not expect to find the fossil remains of all animals that have once lived - its absurd think that we would.


Then why do you claim evolution is true because no rabbit has ever been found in the cambrian?Are'nt you shooting yourself in the foot by claiming the fossil record is incomplete and then turning around and saying the fossil record supports evolution.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

#6 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 07 June 2009 - 08:29 PM

Could someone please explain to me why "living fossils" are supposidly such a problem for evolution? The only "issue" that I can see is the gap in the fossil evidence but that is NOT a problem. The fossil record is not a perfect record of natural history. Fossilisation is a random and very rare process. We would not expect to find the fossil remains of all animals that have once lived - its absurd think that we would.

View Post


The problem 'living fossils pose to evolution is quite simple: they demonstrate a lack of evolution over a putative period of millions of years. Time and again, we find fossils that are supposedly millions of years old virtually identical to their contemporary progeny. Why the lack of evolution?

Sodera explains the problem under the heading Constancy of form is evidence against evolution:

Crocodiles can be readily distinguished from alligators by looking at their jaws: the fourth tooth in the lower jaw of the crocodile is visible when the mouth is closed whereas in an alligator all the teeth fit into sockets and are hidden from view. But since having all its teeth hidden is not detrimental to an alligator, we can safely conclude that it is unlikely to be detrimental to a crocodile. Thus, since the development of the different teeth is governed by different genes, all of which must be susceptible to mutations, then over a long period of time (200my should be ample) we should expect to find all manner of tooth arrangements in crocodilians , none of which would be particularly advantageous one over the other, including, for example, alligators with protruding teeth. But this is not the case, again suggesting strongly that crocodilians cannot have been around for millions of years.

One Small Speck to Man: The Evolution Myth, pp. 49-50


Posted Image

Crocodile

Posted Image

Alligator

In other words, 'living fossils' scream STASIS, which is the polar opposite of evolution.

Incidentally, such stasis in the fossil record itself is what lead Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibria:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

[...]

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'"

Gould, Stephen J., "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14


So, in a 'masterful move', Gould reinforced the unfalsifiability of evolution. He observes the lack of evidence for evolution, which lack of evidence he later used as evidence for evolution ala punc eq! I always wanted to ask Gould how he thought the fossil record would differ if he believed Genesis were true.

#7 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 06:56 AM

In other words, 'living fossils' scream STASIS, which is the polar opposite of evolution.


Evolution says NOTHING about stasis. You are forgetting the environmental factors that drive natural selection. If an animal is well suited/adapted to its habitat, and that habitat remains un-changed over millions of years then there is no reason/pressure to evolve.

Because you won't provide a theory that can be tested so we do it for you.
Then why do you claim evolution is true because no rabbit has ever been found in the cambrian?Are'nt you shooting yourself in the foot by claiming the fossil record is incomplete and then turning around and saying the fossil record supports evolution.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

View Post


But that is the point - you can't prove a negative. Until rabbits are found in the Cambrian then evolution is considered the most likely explantation. If they are found then evolution would indeed proved to be false. On otherwords this is a TESTABLE theory unlike creationism. Every new fossil that is found is a potential evolution destroyer, however they are all found as the theory predicts.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:06 AM

Evolution says NOTHING about stasis. You are forgetting the environmental factors that drive natural selection. If an animal is well suited/adapted to its habitat, and that habitat remains un-changed over millions of years then there is no reason/pressure to evolve.


Random mutations just stop,eh?

Now you know why evolution says nothing about stasis.

But that is the point - you can't prove a negative. Until rabbits are found in the Cambrian then evolution is considered the most likely explantation. If they are found then evolution would indeed proved to be false. On otherwords this is a TESTABLE theory unlike creationism. Every new fossil that is found is a potential evolution destroyer, however they are all found as the theory predicts.


Until evidence of evolution is found,creation is the most likely explanation.Arranging fossils in the order that fits the predictions is circular reasoning.

Stasis for millions of years does not verify slow gradual change.


Thanks.

#9 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:20 AM

Until evidence of evolution is found, creation is the most likely explanation.
Thanks.

View Post


The evidence for evolution IS extremely strong. But even it it was'nt it would not make the the case for creationism any stronger as thaht has no real testable evidence. Creationism has to stand and fall on it's own merits, irrespective of whether evolution is true or false.

Science does not work like that. It does not assume the intervention of a supernatural entity as a default fall back position. Without a workable theory the alternative is "we don't know" and not "god did it". For all other fields of science, we would not assume that just becasue we don't know how/why something works therefore "god" makes it work - it's simply that we don't yet understand.

#10 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:38 AM

After doing a bit of research it looks like the coelacanths found in Madagascar are neither the same type of coelacanth fossils that have been found in rocks that are 360 million years old nor the same type of coelacanth found in shallow marine strata that are about 80 million years old. The 360 million year old coelacanths are smaller, lack certain internal structures found in modern coelacanths and belong to a different genera and suborder. The modern coelacanths belong to a different genera than the 80 million year genera. Technically speaking, the modern coelacanth of the genus Latimera has no fossil record. Only the order and suborder that it belongs to has.

"One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order Coelacanthini."
Coelacanth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London.


The Coelacanth is not a problem. It has remained within a stable environment for millions of years. Random mutations are only preferentially selected if they are advantageous and that only occurs if there is an external pressure applied to the population (environment change for example, or the introduction of a new predator). It Coelacanth certainly HAS changed (see above) but only very slowly. It is obviosuly well suited to its environment and therefore has little benefit to change.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:49 AM

pdw709, I really thought you were above this type of equivocation. :lol:

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:52 AM

You know there is a huge difference between Cambrian cyanobacteria and living cyanobacteria. One's dead and one's alive... :lol:

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 June 2009 - 11:30 AM

Your overlooking the obvious evidence of creation.If evolution predicts increased diversity and complexity,then why do we have ~80 species of Coelacanth in the fossil record and only 3-5 living today?

No selective pressure,eh? :lol:

#14 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 June 2009 - 11:54 AM

Evolution says NOTHING about stasis.

View Post

Perhaps Gould simply misunderstood evolution? Of the fossil record, he observed that 'two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism' were stasis and sudden appearance. Until Gould (with the earlier outlier Goldschmidt), evolution was understood exclusively in terms of gradualism. Even today, there are those who reject Gould's punc eq (e.g. Dawkins). As stasis is incompatible with gradualism, it is incompatible with gradualistic evolution. So, contrary to your assertion evolution does say something about stasis: it shouldn't be a feature of the fossil record.

Incidentally, Punc Eq is an example of Remine's observation that evoluttionary theory adapts to the evidence as fog adapts to a landscape.

You are forgetting the environmental factors that drive natural selection. If an animal is well suited/adapted to its habitat, and that habitat remains un-changed over millions of years then there is no reason/pressure to evolve.

View Post


First, it is absurd to suppose that an environment/habitat remain un-changed over millions of years. You also have to accept that animals just stayed put in the same region for millions of years.

And what of Kimura's theory of neutral evolution, which he proposed to get around Haldane's Dilema (and the related fact that you can't be mutating important, functional genes wihtout doing serious damage to an organism. From Wikipedia's entry on Neutral theory of molecular evolution:

The neutral theory of molecular evolution is an influential theory, which was introduced with effect by Motoo Kimura in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The theory states that the vast majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random drift of selectively neutral mutants.[1] Although the theory was received by some as an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Kimura maintained, and most modern evolutionary biologists agree, that the two theories are compatible: "The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution" (Kimura, 1986). However, the theory attributes a large role to genetic drift.

[...]

According to Kimura, when one compares the genomes of existing species, the vast majority of molecular differences are selectively "neutral." That is, the molecular changes represented by these differences do not influence the fitness of the individual organism. As a result, the theory regards these genomic features as neither subject to, nor explicable by, natural selection. This view is based in part on the degenerate genetic code, in which sequences of three nucleotides (codons) may differ and yet encode the same amino acid (GCC and GCA both encode alanine, for example). Consequently, many potential single-nucleotide changes are in effect "silent" or "unexpressed" (see synonymous or silent substitution). Such changes are presumed to have little or no biological effect. However, it should be noted that the original theory was based on the consistency in rates of amino acid changes, and hypothesized that the majority of those changes too were neutral.

A second assertion or hypothesis of the neutral theory is that most evolutionary change is the result of genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. A new allele arises typically through the spontaneous mutation of a single nucleotide within the sequence of a gene. In single-celled organisms, such an event immediately contributes a new allele to the population, and this allele is subject to drift. In s*xually reproducing multicellular organisms, the nucleotide substitution must arise within one of the many s@x cells that an individual carries. Then only if that s@x cell participates in the genesis of an embryo and offspring does the mutation contribute a new allele to the population. Neutral substitutions create new neutral alleles.

Through drift, these new alleles may become more common within the population. They may subsequently be lost, or in rare cases they may become fixed, meaning that the new allele becomes standard in the population.


This is related to Sodera's example regarding the arrangement of croc teeth. Such arrangement being selectively neutral, and given that mutations themselves are random, it is contrary to evolutionary expectations that croc teeth should exhibit such a constant configuration over the duration of millions of years.

Your point about lack of selection pressure is entirely beside the point here.

Every new fossil that is found is a potential evolution destroyer, however they are all found as the theory predicts.

View Post

Au contraire. First, Gould proposed Punc Eq precisely because the evolutionary theory was contrary to the fossil record (i.e. the evidence). Secondly, you seem to be unaware of the fact that evolutionary paleontologists are regularly surprised by what the find. For instance, early last year LiveScience reported on the Oldest Horseshoe Crab Fossil Discovered:

One of the fossils of the new genus of horseshoe crab (Lunataspis aurora) was photographed under water to show some of the fine details. Credit: G. Young, The Manitoba Museum
Nearly a half a billion years ago, tiny horseshoe crabs crept along the shorelines much like today's larger versions do, new fossil evidence suggests.
Two nearly complete fossil specimens discovered in Canada reveal a new genus of horseshoe crab, pushing their origins back at least 100 million years earlier than previously thought.

[…]

Primitive looks

Analysis of the recent finds also indicates the ocean creatures haven’t changed much over the eons.

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.
"This body plan that they've invented, they've stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."


In 2001, National Geographic reported on a Tiny Fossil From Early Jurassic Fills New Niche in Mammal Evolution :

An animal whose skull was found embedded in a 195 million-year-old fossil from China was as tiny as a paper clip. The discovery of it, however, has big implications for our understanding of how mammals have evolved.

Scientists say the new species, which they named Hadrocodium wui, is the closest known relative to existing mammals that has been found so far.

According to the Chinese and U.S. scientists who analyzed the fossil, the tiny creature had a skull only 12 millimeters (about half an inch) long, a total body weight of two grams (less than one tenth of an ounce), and teeth that suggest it ate small insects.

Most significant, its body structure was like that of living mammals, especially with a brain cavity that was unusually large in proportion to the animal's overall body size and middle-ear bones that were completely separated from the jaw.

This finding was a surprise because scientists previously thought mammal features such as these did not emerge in the evolutionary pathway until some 45 million years after the period from which the fossil dates, the Early Jurassic. This means the tiny creature lived in the shadow of dinosaurs, at a time when a class of mammal-like reptiles was thought, until now, to be the closest link with modern mammals.

[…]

The new finding and other recent discoveries around the world "suggest that there's more diversity among early mammals than we thought," said Compton.


In 2006, National Geographic reported on Dwarf Dinosaurs Discovered in Germany :

Meet the smallest of the biggest.

Compared to other sauropods—long-necked, small-headed, plant-eaters—a newfound dinosaur species is downright tiny.

The largest sauropods, the brachiosaurs, were the biggest land animals ever, measuring 85 feet long (26 meters long).

The new species, however, grew to only 20 feet (6.2 meters) long.

Researchers found 11 different specimens of these dwarf sauropods, both adults and juveniles, in Germany. The animals lived on an island, a type of environment where limited food resources often encourage species to evolve into smaller forms over generations.

The quarry where the 150-million-year-old fossilized bones were found, near the town of Goslar in northern Germany, was part of an island during the late Jurassic period.

[…]

The fossils were found in an unlikely location, according to Mateus.

"This was not supposed to happen," he said, "because all those layers were supposed to be marine layers containing only marine animals. We didn't expect to find dinosaurs, but we did."

[…]

The researchers expected to see juvenile features—bone filled with the blood vessels that allow growth—because no one had ever seen an adult sauropod so small.

But they were surprised: They mainly saw the kind of fibrous bone structure typical of adult bones.


In 2007, LiveScience reported that the Rise of Modern Mammals Occurred Long After Dinosaur Demise:

The giant asteroid that slammed into Earth 65 million years ago might have marked the beginning of the end for dinosaurs, but it was a mere speed bump in the evolution of modern mammals.
That is the conclusion of a new landmark study, detailed in the March 29 issue of the journal Nature, which maps the evolutionary relationships among nearly all mammals alive today.
The findings challenge a popular claim that the dinosaurs’ demise was what allowed the ancestors of modern mammals to stop cowering in the shadows of "terrible lizards" and flourish.


Science Daily’s report on the same find states:

A new, complete 'tree of life' tracing the history of all 4,500 mammals on Earth shows that they did not diversify as a result of the death of the dinosaurs, says new research published in Nature.
The study was undertaken in the UK by scientists at Imperial College London and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). It contradicts the previously accepted theory that the Mass Extinction Event (MEE) that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago prompted the rapid rise of the mammals we see on the earth today.


In 2007, LiveScience wrote about an Ancient Lizard Missing Front Limbs:

Remains from a 95-million-year-old marine creature with nubs for legs is clarifying how some lizards shed their limbs as they crept through evolutionary time and morphed into slinky snakes.

[…]

Scientists initially collected the fossil during the 19th century from a limestone quarry in Slovenia. For nearly 100 years, the little lizard remained in a collection bin at the Natural History Museum in Trieste, Italy, before Caldwell and a colleague found it in 1996 during a visit to Europe.
The scientists were surprised to find the lizard’s forelimbs were too small to be useful for walking, while its hind limbs appeared to be functional.
"For some oddball reason, the forelimbs were lost before the rear limbs, when you would think it would be the opposite," Caldwell said. "The front limbs would be useful for holding onto dinner or digging a hole, but it must be developmentally easier to get rid of the forelimbs."


cont. in next post...

#15 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 11:55 AM

Your overlooking the obvious evidence of creation.If evolution predicts increased diversity and complexity,then why do we have ~80 species of Coelacanth in the fossil record and only 3-5 living today?

No selective pressure,eh? :lol:

View Post


Overall, diversity has increased since the beginning of life. This increase has however been interrupted numerous times by mass extinctions. Diversity appears to have hit an all-time high just prior to the appearance of humans. As the human population has increased, biological diversity has decreased at an ever-increasing pace.

Just because an animal is alive today, it doesn't automatically make it more complex than an animal that lived in the past. There are lots of "simple" creatures that have existed for millions of years; bacteria for example. Besides, complexity is a hard concept to measure. Would you say for example say that the human eye is complex? The animal kingdom clearly shows that the human eye is a very inferior organ to that of other species.

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. For example, a more "primitive" animal may be better able to withstand extreme environmental changes and therefore survive a mass extinction event whereas it's more "complex" cousins may be wiped out.

#16 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 June 2009 - 11:57 AM

...cont. from previous post

In 2007, National Geographic reported on a New Fossil Ape May Shake Human Family Tree:


Fossil teeth found in Ethiopia might represent a previously unknown species of great ape that lived in Africa ten million years ago, paleontologists report.

The find not only fills an important gap in the fossil record, the Japanese and Ethiopian team says, but could also demolish a working theory of human evolution.

[…]

Experts had speculated that the common ancestor of all apes and humans had left Africa and split off into separate species.

Among the new species was the ancestor of African apes and humans, which returned to Africa sometime around seven million years ago. Molecular analyses of fossils from Europe and later African species seemed to back up this hypothesis.

The recent fossil discovery, however, means that ancient gorilla-like apes lived in Africa as far back as ten million years ago.
"Based on this fossil, that means the split is much earlier than has been anticipated by the molecular evidence," said Berhane Asfaw, a study co-author at the Rift Valley Research Service in the Ethiopian capital of Adis Abeba (Addis Ababa).

"That means everything has to be put back."


[…]

The scientists found the ape's canine on the last day of their field work in early 2006.

An assistant named Kampiro picked the fossil out of the rocky terrain after the team had done surveys by foot over about 62 miles (100 kilometers).

The team found the molars during a second dig in 2007.

"When I saw the first big molar in the March survey, wow, was I surprised," said Yonas Beyene, a member of the research team.

[…]

Other researchers agree that the data Suwa's team has right now are very limited.

Nonetheless, the experts say, the find does seem poised to overturn old ideas that were based on the lack of a fossil record rather than on solid evidence.

"We just can't use the absence of evidence as an evidence of absence," said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a paleontologist with the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.


I could go on and on and on. Here, we have evolutionists encountering surprise after surprise in the fossil record. The articles linked above consist of two parts: the report of the find followed by the rationalizations necessary to reconcile the find with evolutionary theory.

What was that you were saying about ‘all fossils being found as the theory predicts’?

Until rabbits are found in the Cambrian then evolution is considered the most likely explantation. If they are found then evolution would indeed proved to be false. On otherwords this is a TESTABLE theory unlike creationism.

View Post


I will make a prediction: If there is ever a rabbit - or similar animal - found in the Cambrian rocks, evolutionary theory will - after a period of fierce debate over the details - simply adapt to the new evidence. If you think this unlikely, reread the news stories above.

Your assertion that creationism is untestable is a tired, ignorant smear.

#17 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 01:19 PM

Perhaps Gould simply misunderstood evolution? Of the fossil record, he observed that 'two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism' were stasis and sudden appearance. Until Gould (with the earlier outlier Goldschmidt), evolution was understood exclusively in terms of gradualism. Even today, there are those who reject Gould's punc eq (e.g. Dawkins). As stasis is incompatible with gradualism, it is incompatible with gradualistic evolution. So, contrary to your assertion evolution does say something about stasis: it shouldn't be a feature of the fossil record.

View Post


Evolution does not state that all animals must evolve. Some species, given a constant unchanging habitat can remain in so called "stasis", the Coelacanth is an example.

I could go on and on and on. Here, we have evolutionists encountering surprise after surprise in the fossil record. The articles linked above consist of two parts: the report of the find followed by the rationalizations necessary to reconcile the find with evolutionary theory.

What was that you were saying about ‘all fossils being found as the theory predicts’?

View Post


There are different levels of prediction. Knowledge about the evolution of modern man is still a complex and hotley debated subject. New research/fossils are constantly changing knowledge of human evolution and science is accommodating the changes as required - thats how science works. This is also what happened for the first 100years or so after dinosaur bones were first discovered until enough bones/information was uncovered for a consensus to be formed. Rabbits in the Cambrian however is a different thing entirely as it would fundamentally attack the founding principles of evolution. It would run counter to the overwhelming DNA evidence and would demand a significant explanation.

#18 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 01:27 PM

Your assertion that creationism is untestable is a tired, ignorant smear.

View Post


Okay then....please educate me as i'm obviously ignorant in this matter as you say.

Please set out a test and/or prediction that would directly support creationism?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users