Skip to comments.Eel-like creature identified as 'earliest human ancestor'
Posted on 03/06/2012 10:12:25 AM PST by Renfield
A prehistoric eel-like creature discovered in a Canadian shale bed has been identified as the earliest known ancestor of man.
Fossils dating back 505 million years preserve the relics of tiny, slithering animals which are the oldest life forms ever discovered with primitive spinal cords.
As the precursor of vertebrates the species is also believed to be the direct ancestor of all members of the chordate family, which includes fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals.
The finding means the 5cm long creatures, known as Pikaia gracilens, were the forerunners of animals as diverse as snakes, swans and humans, scientists said....
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
My cousin, Pikaia Gracilens?
So that would mean that reason and logic are also for losers, since science depends on both.
You make a lot of assertions without backing them up.
But, then again, you think reason and evidence are for losers.
Once upon a time I would have argued...but having observed Eric Holder in action......
The “truth” is that man did not “descend” from any animal.....
[[Müller stated, “The facts compiled also imply that the ancestor of all metazoans was a sponge-like organism.” Six years later, an international research group found in a “most comprehensive study” and “with a high degree of confidence” that the sponge “was not the ancestor of all other animals.”4 Even under the wrong paradigm, some evolutionists are getting certain pieces right when they follow the evidence where it leads. Led by researchers at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, the study found “that humans did not descend from a sponge-like organism.” It also suggested that “the nervous system only evolved once in animal history.”4 Creation scientists would clarify that human and animal nervous systems were created once during the six-day creation week just thousands of years ago.]]
There you have it folks, the ‘facts’ show we’re related to sponges! No- wait a minute, We’re realted to eels... Woops, noope, we’re realted to bananas-
[[Where did the early protochordates come from? In 2006, four evolutionists had a fancy way of admitting they did not know: “Despite their critical importance for understanding the origins of vertebrates, phylogenetic studies of chordate relationships have provided equivocal results.”7 Today, conflicting secular stories compete over vertebrate origins. Since there is no evolutionary pattern inherent in any biological information, Genesis must be accurate. God created kinds to reproduce after their own kinds. We can trust our origin (and destiny) to the One who was there “in the beginning.”]]
hmmmm- chordites just appeared on the scene and a link between protochordite and chordite can’t be established? But yet, we’re suppsoedly ‘related’ to chordites? Where’s the direct evidence showing a progression fro m chordite to man? Oh, there isn’t any? Then what the hell are scientists claiming an eel is our ancestor for then if they have NO FACTS connecting us?
Apparently they just need more government funding- must be nice getting paid whopping amounts of money to sit in a cozy lab and ‘argue’ with other folks about ‘facts’ that turn out to not be facts!!!!!
We’re related to all God’s creatures.
got any evidnece to sho that macroevolution is a fact?
There is such thing as the theory of Evolution, there’s just a long list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live ...
Yep. A common genetic heritage. The proof is written in every single gene in your body.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks Renfield. Does this mean we taste like chicken? Because I'd always heard we were indistinguishable from pork.
Do you star as that guy living under a rock in the Geico commercial?
My hovercraft is full of them.
"You vant to go to my place? Bouncy-Bouncy?
(My nipples explode with delight!")
Wrong slut. (It’s Sandra.)