Posted on 03/05/2012 12:08:48 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
CALGARY — It seems an inglorious beginning, but some scientists are now convinced humanity's origins can be traced to an ancient, flat, fishlike worm.
A team of researchers subjected the 505-million-year-old Burgess shale fossils of Pikaia gracilens to the latest technology and found evidence that could settle a decades-long debate about the primitive species.
Notably, that they had the seeds of a spine.
"We can see and discern the positive location of the notochord and the nerve chord. This was not obvious at all, you needed these techniques to see it," said Jean-Bernard Caron, the curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Caron is the co-author of a study to be published Monday in the British journal, Biological Reviews. The lead author was English paleontologist Simon Conway Morris.
The earliest explorers of the Burgess shale collected specimens of Pikaia in 1911. But the creature was overlooked as an ancestor of the earthworm.
"They had no idea it might be something more important to us then, at first sight," Caron said.
(Excerpt) Read more at vancouversun.com ...
Most Democrats never evolved beyond that.
Seeds of a spine? Clearly not the ancestor of modern republican congresscritters
“It seems an inglorious beginning, but some scientists are now convinced humanity’s origins can be traced to an ancient, flat, fishlike worm.”
Uh no.
I’ll take Genesis 2 over these scientists
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (KJV)
(dons flameproof suit)
Arrakis, here we come! Or is it Arrakis, from thence we comed?
CALGARY — It seems an inglorious beginning, but some scientists are now convinced Congressional Republican’s origins can be traced to an ancient, flat, fishlike worm.
A team of researchers subjected the 505-million-year-old Burgess shale fossils of Pikaia gracilens to the latest technology and found evidence that could settle a decades-long debate about the primitive species.
Notably, that they had the seeds of a spine.
From page 284 of Steve Jones' modern update of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and titled "Darwin's Ghost," we have ...
"One set of genes is found everywhere. It translates the information coded in the DNA and allows it to make proteins. The job is so essential that such structures changed little over millions of years."
I have millions of little swimming worms.
I disagree....this also from the article: "Notably, that they had the seeds of a spine. "
Given that "A Spine" for any politician is a genetic anomaly, I'd think that the flatworm is a more advanced lifeform.
From page 284 of Steve Jones' modern update of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and titled "Darwin's Ghost," we have ...
"One set of genes is found everywhere. It translates the information coded in the DNA and allows it to make proteins. The job is so essential that such structures changed little over millions of years."
It is certainly possible that spinelessness is an advantageous trait that promotes incumbency.
Yes, but these types of worms cannot be sluts. ;-)
<-- Yup!
Snap! Snap! Snap!
typical ‘science’ gibberish.....
Evolution is only a theory.
God said He took a rib from Adam and formed Eve. Every human since then is a descendent of Eve. So, humans did not evolve from a worm or apes or anything else.
Yes, yes, it’s always something ridiculous. A chimp, a worm, an amoeba.
I know better.
No, you cannot live as you like if your evolutionary success has been underpinned by the formation of stable, successful and inter-dependent, non-parasitic societies, which itself is underpinned by the ethics of reciprocity - to not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
It nevertheless escapes me how expanding our understanding of the physical processes of this world somehow impacts the premise that there is a Creator.
I could never muster up enough faith to believe in evolution. My hat is off to the true believers of that religion. If only more Christians could have that kind of faith....
“Some” scientists are convinced. Probably the same ones that are convinced increased taxes will make the ocean recede.
This thread is begging for a Helen Thomas pic.
Because for some it is “magic” or NOTHING.
Unless God created the world using magical mystical miraculous means - they think there is no need for a God if God used the natural laws HE designed to carry it out.
The Bible says that I am formed “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. I was also formed via cellular processes involving DNA. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”, or is it possible that cellular processes involving DNA were also involved in the creation of Adam?
I wonder how impressed God is with that idea?
According to Creationists the Heavens proclaim that God cannot really be trusted - as he made a universe that consistently looks billions of years old using any of several independently measured features - but he was just foolin’; because it is really only a few thousand years old.
Creationism is very much like “last Thursday-ism”; the idea that the entire world was created with a false memory and a false past just last Thursday.
Great! Even if correct, any measure or estimate using the “true” age of the universe (last Thursday) will lead nowhere and to nothing; while an estimate using the “incorrect” age that the universe only “appears” to be - will be accurate, explain data, and lead to further discovery and application.
So Creationism, even if “correct” is absolutely useless in terms of explaining data, making predictions, and enabling further discovery.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Probably more impressed than with those who seek to make Him a liar.
Science answers the question "How?" while faith answers the question "Why?". Neither is dispensible.
If I run into such a one, you can be sure I'll let 'em know.
If one assumes natural means were used, that is useful because natural means are understandable, measurable, predictable and replicable.
If one assumes miraculous means were used, that is of no use because they are not understandable, measurable, predictable or replicable.
Right now a star is forming off in the universe. To my mind that star is just as “created by God” as our own - and it makes sense to me that the same means were utilized in both instances.
If one assumes our Sun was formed via gravity and nuclear fusion - then measurements and predictions of other stars formed via that mechanism will be applicable to our own star.
If one assumes that our star was formed via miraculous means - then measurements and predictions of other stars formed via gravity and nuclear fusion should be of no use in predicting the behavior of our Sun.
Parasitic flatworms having external suckers for attaching to a host.
First name Sandra???
"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'"
Have always wondered what that means--maybe the DNA helix?
Yer preachin’ to the choir, amd.
Why I have yet to have my religious faith called into question, my conservative bonafides denied, and told why I am just like HitlerStalinSanger. ;)
The clowns that think-up these pipe dreams are far from being scientists.
The objectivity that is required for science requires something that all of them lack: Honesty.
Satan setting the trap:
>> I have always found this approach to Creationism to be awfully limited, and ultimately dishonoring to the Creator... as though a person is saying “God can only have created the world in the way I understand and believe Him to have done it. Period.” <<
That is the classic strawman that the liars that wish to be considered “scientific” here usually employ. But of course no creationist has ever offered “God can only have created the world in the way I understand and believe Him to have done it. Period.”
What creationists usually state is that YHWH did it in the manner that he stated in his word, and the more than 100 places in his word that clearly state that evolution was not used, are completely accurate.
The lost, dishonest unbelievers that sham as scientists of course reject that emotionally, and hatefully.
Quite a pickle until you realize just who is in control :o)
.
The best scientists I’ve run across are all Christian believers who recognize Scripture gives them an edge and a blessing as to where to look next and what searches are foolhardy. They are still rigorous academics, mathematicians, and educators, well skilled in rationalism, empiricism, and faith through Christ.
The most ignorant scientists I’ve met are those who ignore spiritual truth. (I never could understand how anybody who ignores Scripture could ever be trusted in research.)
Very insightful and thought provoking comment.
The Killer Angels by Michael Sheera
At Gettysburg before the charge:
“…While ago we sat around a fire, talked on Darwin. Evolution. You read about it?”
“Ah?”
“Charles Darwin. Theory of Evolution.”
“Can’t say that I have. There are so many things rattling about.”
“Theory that claims that men are descended from apes.”
“Oh that. Oh yes. Well I’ve heard—distastefully—of that.”
“Well. We were talking on that. Finally agreed that Darwin was probably right. Then one fella said, with great dignity he said, Well, maybe you are come from an ape and maybe I am come from, an ape, but General Lee, he didn’t come from an ape.’ “
I believe every word that is in God's word, the Bible. I believe in one Creator who is God the Father, God the Son (Who is my Lord Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Lord God worked miracles and continues to work them... and I believe that the Creation account in Genesis is nothing less than absolute truth.
This is my testimony and I stand by it, regardless of the names I may be called by people who do not know me. And what is also true is that I don't think that any human fully understands the whole Truth of the creation story, apart from my Lord Jesus.
I think that the way in which God did it is exactly according to the Genesis account, from God's point of view... an act that created an Earth millions of years old. I don't make God out to be a liar, and I don't think He made the earth to fool us, and I will not be party to any lie from the pit of Hell.
People argue over this like they were there and saw it happen. Not a one of us knows the truth of it like my Lord does, and being astonished at His act of Creation is one of the joys I look forward to in Heaven.
Bottom line? I don't claim to know things I don't know... and I don't think any of us is as smart as we'd like to think.
The Earth doesn’t appear millions of years old; it looks almost new. Landslides happen every day, and hills deep with clay soil are everywhere. If the Earth were just 10,000 years old, that would not be so.
A geologist that I work with often, mapping slides, says that the California coastal mountains cannot possibly stand another 1000 years.
I think DR Humphreys has it right in his Starlight and Time.
Inglorious beginnings: Experts trace humanity's origins to ancient worm
I'm NOT complaining about a duplicate thread, just adding a cross reference...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.