Marine plankton found in amber

(PhysOrg.com) -- Marine microorganisms have been found in amber dating from the middle of the Cretaceous period. The fossils were collected in Charente, in France. This completely unexpected discovery will deepen our understanding of these lost marine species as well as providing precious data about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous.

This work was carried out by researchers at the Géosciences Rennes laboratory (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), together with researchers from the Paléobiodiversité et Paléoenvironnement laboratory in Paris (CNRS/Muséum national d'histoire naturelle/Université Pierre et Marie Curie) and the Centre de Géochimie de la Surface in Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg 1). It was published in the 11 November 2008 issue of PNAS.

Amber is a fossil resin with a reputation for preserving even the most minute details of insects and other terrestrial arthropods (spiders, scorpions, mites) that lived in resiniferous trees. The forest-based provenance of amber in theory makes it impossible for marine animals to be trapped in the resin.

Nonetheless, researchers from the Géosciences Rennes laboratory have discovered various inclusions of marine plankton in amber from the Mid-Cretaceous (100 to 98 million years BP). These micro-organisms are found in just a few pieces of amber among the thousands that have been studied, but show a remarkable diversity: unicellular algae, mainly diatoms found in large numbers, traces of animal plankton, such as radiolaria and a foraminifer, spiny skeletons of sponges and of echinoderms.

Carried out together with researchers at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, the study of diatoms pushed back by 10 to 30 million years the known date for the appearance of certain marine forms of this type of algae. This new information, taken together with recent data on molecular phylogeny, marks a huge advance in our understanding of the complex evolutionary history of diatoms.

The presence of these marine organisms in the amber is an ecological paradox. How did these marine species become stuck and then trapped in the conifers' resin? The most likely scenario is that the forest producing the amber was very close to the coast, potentially shrouded by plankton-bearing mist or flooded by sea water during storms.

The preservation of marine organisms in amber is an exceptional asset, allowing us to deepen our understanding of these lost species and to have a clear idea about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous.

Citation: Evidence for marine microfossils from amber, V. Girard, A. R. Schmidt, S. Saint Martin, S. Struwe, V. Perrichot, J-P. Saint Martin, D. Grosheny, G. Breton and D. Néraudeau, PNAS, 11 November 2008.

In the same way, moral principles. Traditional societies based their social order on myths and religious explanations. By assuming a purpose in the world, they told people why things are the way they are, and why they should act the way they were supposed to act. In the “animist ontogenies” values and knowledge derived from a single source, and life had meaning in an “animist covenant” as Monod called it. By destroying the ontological base of the animist explanations, - their astronomy, physics, and chemistry, - science also destroyed the foundations of their values.

It wasn't real science like astronomy, physics or chemistry that has destroyed "our" foundations of moral values - it is the "scientists" who are act like the "priests" of naturalism and teach and preach untruths. Do you realize that college and highschool students today are routinely being taught that at one time there was nothing and it became something? That has never even been demonstrated as possible. But that doesn't matter; the important thing to "Academia" is that there is an explanation of how everything came to be without the existence of a moral lawgiver.

The fact is that I have personally witnessed that people believe in ASBE and AFN (All Species By Evolution, All From Nothing) even though they don't have any proof of it or even understand the technical aspect. For many people, ASBE and AFN is nothing more then a faith or a religion!

And remember, it doesn't matter whether a belief is true or not - if the believer merely takes it on faith and believes it without actually knowing, then it is a faith and a belief - not science to that person! And incidentally, regardless of whether the professors have the actual evidence, for the masses, ASBE and AFN is just a faith by which they order their lives. That's why so many people do things that they know are harmful to others. They think that all came from nothing, and that there is no God, and no moral law giver and no universal right and wrong.

By way of back ground, I grew up on a small family farm. We raised swine, goats, cattle, chickens, and invariably, barn yard cats. As it turned out, I was always interested in the science behind the scenes of everything that I saw around me. Furthermore, of course I was heavily involved in the running of the farm, including nearly all aspects of animal husbandry. So the process of life is not foreign to me.

There are two kinds of evolution - that which I have seen, specifically that no calf or kid we had born on the farm was ever perfectly base-pair by base-pair identical to either of its parents. Okay, that's change. That's evolution by the most literal meaning of the word. But the other kind of evolution is that which I have not seen - which is one kind of animal eventually evolving to another. Some call it macro vs micro, but that upsets others. So I just say "That which I have seen, and that which I have not seen."

And what I have seen simply does not prove that which I have not seen.

Anyway, to continue with my background: As I grew, I began exploring other areas of science, including electronics, physics, mechanics, and even a touch of chemistry. What I found was that it all made sense, and it was all well demonstrable. For example, I can tell you that a transistor behaves in a certain way, and if you doubt me, all I have to do is show you it actually behaving that way.

So I'm used to getting to the bottom of things, and understanding science. To me, the real sciences (like physics, chemistry, etc.) are not a mystery, and do not require large amounts of faith.

All Species by Evolution and All From Nothing, on the other hand, do appear to me to require huge amounts of faith. I've been asking people for their best evidence and so far it's not very good. The "Skeletal progression sequences" they've offered contain like about 17 incomplete often pasted together skulls, for example which are supposed to be evidence that the first is related to the last with a million generations inbetween. Often times the difference between a start and an end species is no more drastic then is present between the great dane and the teacup poodle. In other words, I want to see some evidence that actually proves the kind of evolution that I haven't seen.

Does any of that make sense? I tried my best.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Can you show me your best evidence of that? How do you know? I want to know too. Did you see them? Or do you just have faith in something you've never seen from hearing it from somebody you've never met?

Sorry, I'm going to go out on a 'limb' and trust that the features discussed below DO actually exist. Next time I'm up in Maine or Alaska I'll see if I can find any decomposed beached whales to examine personally. Hopefully no one has gotten there earlier and 'altered' them to trick me.

Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

4. Vestigial evidence The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.

Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

I skimmed over the article you pasted from and linked to. Again, it's more talk but it doesn't take the inquiring reader to any report of actual evidence. If evolutionary science were real science, I wouldn't keep going on these wild goose chases and coming up dry.

Furthermore, the article you referenced is crafted in response to creationists - it is a "Debunk creationism" article. My attitude about this topic is "Forget creation, forget everything except the science of evolution: Where's the actual proof? What makes these claims rise to the level of true science? If this is science, then I can know it too without needing 100% pure faith. I too can see the evidence for myself."

In the article you referenced, we read "In many embryonic whales, external hind limb buds are visible for a time but thendisappear as the whale grows larger." and so on. I'm thinking "So are these like the human "gill slits" which are caused by developing organs which have nothing whatsoever to do with breathing and aren't even slits but bumps."

As you can see, for the common man, "All Species by Evolution" really is at best an issue of faith, not science.

Granted, it is true that people advocating and teaching ASBE and AFN do say that it is science, but my conclusion has thus far been that they do so because they want to give it a false sense of validity even though it is a faith.

-Jesse

“What do you call it when a particular body part within a given group of animals, a bone for example, diminishes/changes gradually over time to the point where it no longer serves any purpose at all? The keys here are: gradual change, over time.”

Well, there are two options.
A: the body part in question has no purpose and is slowly diminishing. (Devolution/loss of information)
B: The body part in question has a purpose and the Evolutionist is either stupid or lying.

An example of A is small creatures who live in perpetual darkness loosing the usability of their eyes due to devolution, or, the loss of usable information.

An example of B can be obtained by talking to any Evolutionist.

Gradual change over time?

Where did those whales come from to lose those legs you claim they have?

You say gradual change over time is responsible for them loosing their legs, so how did they come into existence in the first place if gradual change causes them to loose body parts?

Since your a whale expert, please post the scientific names of the bones that are devolving, as well as the scientific names of everything that is connected to them...

Like I said before, Evolutionists define as vestigial any body part whose function they don’t understand.

So, why don't you get that vestigial tailbone of your removed ;-)

For whatever it's worth, this appeared on FoxNews.com yesterday:

God and Evolution Can Co-Exist, Scientist Insists

Thursday, November 20, 2008
By Robin Lloyd

NEW YORK — A scientist is going public with his Christian belief in God and acceptance of evolution in the wake of the Dover, Pa., school trial and recent, high-profile scholarly writings that have highlighted the contradictions between religiosity and science.

Karl W. Giberson, a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, Mass., is hardly alone in holding both views (Francis Collins, who headed up federal Human Genome Project, is one widely-known example of a Christian scientist), but the nation's current cultural climate allows such a person to easily make a splash.

Giberson has rejected fundamentalism, but remains a believer as well as a scientist. He has staked out a middle ground when it comes to the battle between Christians and Darwinists, stating that they can be reconciled with one another.

He is sympathetic toward the motivations of creationists and scientists alike, though he is fed up with much of intelligent design as well as with hard-core atheists.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455504,00.html

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.