Amazing Fossils: Do They Help Darwin?

CEH ^ | March 19, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Amazing Fossils: Do They Help Darwin?

March 19, 2009 — Some remarkable fossils have been found recently. According to the reports, scientists are not sure what to make of them, even though evolutionary language is liberally applied to the interpretation...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

From the article:

“Sudden appearance, well-adapted creatures, stasis, lack of clear lineal descent – these are not what Charles Darwin would have liked to see.”

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Shorter CEH: New Evidence for Evolution Only Weakens Case for Evolution!

[stormer]

Once again you breathlessly provide us with the “last nail in the coffin” when in fact all that is demonstrated is that scientists are working as hard as ever learning about the past and the role of evolution.

[FrogMom]

Over here!

[gracesdad]

OH MY GOSH!!! Scientists aren’t sure what to make of them!!! That certainly disproves evolution.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks FrogMom. I sometimes ping these topics from FR's own "other GGG" (GodGunsGuts), but usually only post something like this, and generally only after things have simmered down. I was in the process of doing just that in a few others, weird coinky-dinky. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[2nd Amendment]

I didn’t believe in evolution until scientists found a transitional fossil of an oyster. It was called “oysters on the half shell””

[GodGunsGuts]

==Shorter CEH: New Evidence for Evolution Only Weakens Case for Evolution!

Wow, 160 mya octopuses that are virtually identical to modern octopuses. Or spiders who were spinning their webs 140 mya just like the spiders today. Ever wonder why evolution never seems to be doing anything? Creation is of course the much better explanation.

[FrogMom]

I love stories like this! Was reading NG in the docs office. It was about these fabulous dinosaurs and detailed what they ate, how they hunted, their social groups and even what color they were.

And then they showed the fossil from which they drew their conclusions. Looked like a 3 inch piece of rib to me.

The fabulous dinosaurs were contructed entirely out of the imaginations of these people.

[editor-surveyor]

"Once again you breathlessly provide us with the 'last nail in the coffin' when in fact all that is demonstrated is that scientists are working as hard as ever learning about the past and the (non-existant) role of evolution."

Now there's a brave statement of faith if I ever saw one!

At this point, the compendium of evidence refuting the assumed premises of evolution is too massive to even contemplate, yet here is a little one regurgitating what his spiritual guide taught him.

[stormer]

“...the compendium of evidence refuting the assumed premises of evolution is too massive to even contemplate...”

LMAO - I have a feeling that contemplation isn't high on your list of priorities. If it was, perhaps you would have actually made an attempt to understand the irrefutable evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

[stormer]

Why bother with the doctor when your expertise is so vast?

[editor-surveyor]

"the irrefutable evidence supporting the theory of evolution" :o)

See Post 20

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...if nothing else, they are certainly master story-tellers!

[the long march]

The thing that is most interesting about science is that it is supposed to deal with the gathering and understanding of data. It is NOT supposed to force preconceived solutions onto things that are not understood. Perhaps you evolutionsts are right that over the years ( pick a number any number) that things have evolved. Or perhaps there was a Prime Originator. I consider evolution to be as founded in scientifc fact as oh I don’t know how about global warming. See climate does change. Is it warming? Is it cooling? Is it man made? Can man do anything at all about it? The point is that jumping to conclusions rather than just sticking with the data almost always leads one astray

[the long march]

ONG Now I have seen the light. I too can believe. Why didn’t I see this before? I love it

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

One must carefully regard the punctuation at that site. The anti-evolution remarks frequently lack quotation marks. I assume that means they are the words of the anti-evolution blogger, not remarks made by the scientists, biologists, etc.. Notice, no quotation marks. It's inserted. "represent devolution, not evolution." That comment would seem to be debatable.

[Natural Law]

"Sudden appearance, well-adapted creatures, stasis, lack of clear lineal descent – these are not what Charles Darwin would have liked to see."

That is not only wrong, it is grammatically incorrect. The author should have said 'these are not what Charles Darwinn would have liked to have seen'. Grammatically correct, but still wrong. Rapid change is referred to as macroevolution.

Even ordinary evolution by selection of the fittest can be extraordinarily fast. There are examples of new characteristics evolving observably such as the growth of resistance to antibiotics in bacteria, the resistance of insects to DDT and the resistance of rats and mice to warfarin rat poison. In each case resistant strains were selected in only a few generations, taking only a few years. School children know of industrial melanism in the peppered moth. A rare dark variety of the moth began to outnumber the common speckled variety because of industrial pollution. Normally the speckled variety was adequately camouflaged on clean lichen-covered tree bark but pollution killed the lichen and blackened the bark making the speckled variety conspicuous. Natural selection was effected by foraging birds. The dark mutant found the blackened bark excellent camouflage and the birds missed them. The house sparrow, introduced into North America in the middle of the 19th century has evolved into several distinct sub-species in only about 110 generations. Some plant species have separated in only 50-100 generations. Experimenters with fruit flies claim to have shown speciation to occur in only 12 generations.

Lake Nabugabo became separated from Lake Victoria by a sand bar only 4000 years ago. Today the sand bar is still only three km across yet it has enabled five species of haplochromis to evolve. They are amongst the newest species we know and illustrate how quickly speciation can occur even in vertebrates when a population gets isolated.

Closely related species are nearly identical in the protein coding parts of their DNA but differ enormously in the repetitive sequences in the introns. G.A.Dover proposed that it is the differences in the apparently functionless repetitive sequences that determine the species. When these satellite sequences differ two animals cannot successfully mate. They, at best, produce sterile hybrids like the mule.

Even complex changes can be easily quantified. A computer model for the development of the eye from photosensitive skin can take as little as 360,000 generations. In short lived or rapidly developing species that could be accomplished in less than 100,000 years.