| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: New discovery confounds evolutionists |
 |
|
Four-legged animals walked on earth '18 million years earlier than previously thought'
Telegraph, Jan 11 2010
A recently-discovered set of fossilized footprints show that the first tetrapods - a term applied to any four-footed animal with a spine - were treading open ground 397 million years ago, well before scientists thought they existed.
"It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak," said Professor Jenny Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University.
Philippe Janvier of the Mus�um National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris said the finding was as significant as "the first footprint of Neil Armstrong on the moon"
The find also challenges the commonly-accepted notion that tetrapods colonised the surface from lakes or river beds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6945194/Four-legged-animals-walked-on-earth-18-million-years-earlier-than-previously-thought.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:47 am Post subject: Re: New discovery confounds evolutionists |
|
|
| The Telegraph wrote: |
| "These prints push back the divergence of fish and four-legged vertebrates by almost 20 million years," said Janvier. "The evolutionary tree as we consider it now remains the same, but the timing of the tree changes." |
They don't sound confounded, they seem open to new evidence and willing to revise the existing body of knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's why evolution is a meaningless tautology. No matter what evidence there is that refutes it, it's somehow no matter how bizarre, part of the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| That's why evolution is a meaningless tautology. No matter what evidence there is that refutes it, it's somehow no matter how bizarre, part of the process. |
It's almost like science -- rather than being dogma -- is simply a process of trying to understand the world, and does so by adapting itself to new knowledge. Scientific theories tend to get things wrong long before they get things right; it takes time and study to come to a working model which approximates reality.
Only the religious seem to have a problem with this intellectually sound process with a proven history of providing for us. I guess I'd be real insecure too if I believed in magical invisible people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| That's why evolution is a meaningless tautology. No matter what evidence there is that refutes it, it's somehow no matter how bizarre, part of the process. |
I've yet to see any evidence that refutes evolution. How about you provide some?
That's what science is. Creating a theory and then adapting and revising when new evidence found.
Would you rather they come up with an idea and then stick their head in the ground and ignore any new evidence that pops up? We've already got the YECers doing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A theory? Technically it is not even a theory - it is unable to be "tested". It is a hypothesis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| A theory? Technically it is not even a theory - it is unable to be "tested". It is a hypothesis. |
The theory has been tested a number of times. Bacterial tests have been done, in-laboratory tests using foxes have been done, and things like dog breeding are actually some of the longest-running examples of "evolution experiments" in existence. All of them conclusively prove the same thing: life-forms change over time in response to environmental factors which cause selection for specific traits to occur.
It can be tested, and it has been tested. Anyone saying otherwise is ill informed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dog breeding is an example of changes within a species not a species becoming another species.
So you subscribe to "Ther Hopeful Mosnter Theory" where a fully formed bird hatched from a rfeptilian egg? The gaps are so large and embarrassing that this ridiculius theory was put forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Dog breeding is an example of changes within a species not a species becoming another species. |
Evolution occurs within the boundaries of species as well, Olivencia. Indeed, if it didn't, sufficient evolutionary changes to lead to speciation could never occur. You pretty clearly don't even understand the theory you're whining about. You just think it's incomptabile with your Bible, so you attack it rabidly without any real comprehension of what you're actually attacking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Macro-evolutiuon is fine...micro-evolution is not.
You dodged addressing my question. Did a fully formed bird hatch from a reptilian egg? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Macro-evolutiuon is fine...micro-evolution is not. |
You can't even keep your terminology straight. Micro-evolution (evolution within a species) is what you consider fine. Macro-evolution (evolution at or above a species level, which leads to speciation) is what you consider "not fine."
| Olivencia wrote: |
| You dodged addressing my question. Did a fully formed bird hatch from a reptilian egg? |
Of course not. Anyone saying the theory of evolution posits that it did just plain doesn't understand the theory of evolution. I ignored it because it was such a ludicrious question that no one actually familiar with evolution could ask it. As such, I had assumed you were joking. Sorry, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My bad about the terms. Thanks for the clarification.
Joking? No, it was actrually a theory put forth by an evolutionist because the gap was so wide and yes insurmountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
My bad about the terms. Thanks for the clarification.
Joking? No, it was actrually a theory put forth by an evolutionist because the gap was so wide and yes insurmountable. |
It's neither wide nor insurmountable. Plenty of transitional forms between "insurmountable" forms have been observed. I'm not going to dig them back up for you, but if you're actually interested in it, send a message to tomato. He posted some of them in the last big discussion about evolution, maybe he still has the links.
Either way, evolution is a valid theory, which is testable, and has been tested. Zero scientific evidence against evolution exist, and it's observable in the world itself. The problem some religious individuals have with evolution is that they consider it incompatible with their creation myths, nothing more. This is why the only real challenge to the theory of evolution comes from the religious right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
Macro-evolutiuon is fine...micro-evolution is not.
You dodged addressing my question. Did a fully formed bird hatch from a reptilian egg? |
Yes, of course. And we sprung forth from last generation's 'monkeys'. Seriously?! What kind of response are you expecting from a question like this?
It belies an incredible ignorance in regards to evolution and natural selection.
'Gaps' are being filled every year. Transitional fossils are being accumulated all the time. Of course, for every one transitional fossil you get some fundamental creationist claiming it creates two more gaps, so....
Nothing is cast aside or ignored. New evidence is continually being taken in, questioned, tested, and applied. It is adaptive.
Again, there's no sticking a head in the sand and hoping evidence just disappears.
| Olivencia wrote: |
A theory? Technically it is not even a theory - it is unable to be "tested". It is a hypothesis. |
It's tested daily and refined.
Unlike, say... 'god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Olivencia wrote: |
My bad about the terms. Thanks for the clarification.
Joking? No, it was actrually a theory put forth by an evolutionist because the gap was so wide and yes insurmountable. |
It's neither wide nor insurmountable. Plenty of transitional forms between "insurmountable" forms have been observed. |
Two of the more 'popular' transitional fossils:
Dinosaurs to birds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Fish to tetrapod:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
