Posted on 03/09/2006 2:46:21 PM PST by new yorker 77
Right, no big deal. It just gives folks who hate science anyway a chance to laugh.
You guess wrong, no one will say that.
But the facts are it has not changed at all.
That's a possibility, but I'd be willing to lay money on the proposition that it has changed in some respects, albeit perhaps minor ones.
Not really, no.
Ok ok , geesssh just trying to keep it light.
he stopped evolving?
Of course not, because anything can be rationalized when you don't care about actually matching the totality of the evidence.
These fossils, like virtually all others, were "dated" in accordance with their presumed place on the evolutionary tree.
This is a gross falsehood. Where did you "learn" about science, from creationist pamphlets?
(Check out the criticisms of circular fossil dating even among mainstream biologists).
Ah, right you mean "check out the out-of-context 'quotes' that creationists like to present in ways that dishonestly try to make it appear that 'mainstream biologists' have 'admitted' to circular dating methods"... You *have* been reading the creationist pamphlets, I see.
If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place.
Utter horse manure. Here, try to learn something on this topic for once before you spout any more blatant falsehoods: Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? , and Radiometric Dating Resource List.
I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!
I'm only surprised you posted as few of your "lying claims" as you have -- people ignorant of science usually post giant screeds of anti-evolutionary dogma. At least you were restrained in the amount of ignorance you chose to add to the discussion.
You're babbling incoherently again. I just thought you'd like to know.
Evolution is a fact, lil' tree shrew.
True.
So you didn't bother to evolve you're breaking the LAW!
False. Are you really this ignorant of biology, or do you just enjoy using falsehoods in order to dishonestly ridicule something which doesn't actually deserve it because it doesn't actually make the claim you impute to it?
Don't plan any trips to the Middle US Judicial District of PA, Mr. Rat-Squirrel -- you may be thrown in jail.
Babbling again.
It's hurts evolutionist's credibility.
If evolutionists could be wrong about this. What might they also be wrong about?
Is the fossil record so sparse that this creature could survive for 11 million years without a trace? And if so, what other creatures were alive before or after their alleged dates giving by evolutionists?
Were the fossils of this creature assigned the wrong dates? Were evolutionists looking at fossils that were only a few hundred or thousand years old, and thinking because it is an extinct creature, that the fossils were much older than they are?
Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?
And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?
That's part of the problem that we have with the whole story that evo's keep pushing. How much of it is based on science? Is that science good or bad science? How much is based on assumptions and evolutionary bias? How much is based on false assumptions like rat skirrels being extinct?
We don't know but we suspect A LOT!!!
It's not the death knell. God showing up today with a video tape of just how he created the creatures, which ones were created unique and which ones were the result of natural selection of genetic potential in the originals, where the mistakes in our science are, and answering all of the evolutionist's objections wouldn't be the death knell of evolution.
Because tomorrow some evo is going to print a story about how mentally retarded palm walking Turkish people are proof that man evolved from apes.
No it isn't, but thanks for sharing your misconceptions with us.
This has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution says nothing about how long a species must exist before it becomes extinct.
Your problem WRT the rat-squirrel is soley with geology and physics (which together have built up a mountain of evidence for an old Earth), not evolution.
This from a supposedly well educated naturalist!!! No reappearance or discovery involved.
Oh, relax -- you know what he means.
And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?
I think you're woefully mixed up about the coelacanth, Danny.
So then wouldn't everything in that niche have reamined the same then, if there were no pressure to change. And if there was pressure to change, then why did this one stay the same?
but but that means the evolutionists were wrong about this rat.. P>} No, it doesn't. You folks are fond of misrepresenting evolutionary biology, aren't you?
dang I thought evolution was well THE TRUEST THEORY OF ALL,
More misrepresentation -- it's an overwhelmingly well-established theory, yes, but no one's goofy enough to say that it (or any other theory) is "THE TRUEST THEORY OF ALL", because that's rather a nonsensical way to describe things.
HOW COULD THEY BE SO WRONG.
They weren't. This discovery poses no problems whatsoever for evolutionary biology. Why do you hallucinate that it does?
lets not bring it up in class the kiddies need not know.
Are you always this wild-eyed, or did I just catch you on a bad day?
What, if anything, did the continued existence of this species have to do with the TOE?
Is the fossil record so sparse that this creature could survive for 11 million years without a trace? And if so, what other creatures were alive before or after their alleged dates giving by evolutionists?
Dunno. What, if anything, does this have to do with the TOE?
Were the fossils of this creature assigned the wrong dates? Were evolutionists looking at fossils that were only a few hundred or thousand years old, and thinking because it is an extinct creature, that the fossils were much older than they are?
None of the above. This species lives in an isolated part of the world where few scientists have ever gone. Maybe, in the past, it was more wide-ranging.
Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?
What makes you conclude that the fossils of this species that scientists have concluded are 11 million years old are actually newer?
And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?
What makes you think the old coelcanth fossils were not, in fact, as old as scientists think they are?
Trafficant looks better than usual. Didn't he just get out of prison?
Even Darwin postulated that some species might undergo long periods of little or no evolutionary change -- apparently wallcrawlr is at least 147 years behind on his science reading. But then this comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed his posts.
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.