Posted on 11/07/2014 2:43:53 PM PST by Alter Kaker
Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs, evolved from terrestrial creatures that made their way back into the water over time.
But the fossil record for the lineage has been spotty, without a clear link between land-based reptiles and the aquatic ichthyosaurs scientists know came after. Now, researchers report in Nature that they've found that link — an amphibious ancestor of the swimming ichthyosaurs named Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.
"Many creationists have tried to portray ichthyosaurs as being contrary to evolution," said lead author Ryosuke Motani, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California Davis. "We knew based on their bone structure that they were reptiles, and that their ancestors lived on land at some time, but they were fully adapted to life in the water. So creationists would say, well, they couldn't have evolved from those reptiles, because where's the link?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I heard it explained that the human cappilary system is so complex...and most notably so vast...that FOUR such systems laid out in a line end to end would reach THE MOON/
systems that complex.....would be the LAST THING to be an evolutionary “feature”.
“Evolution is extrapolated.”
HERE HERE!
I don’t disagree with that. In fact it is very seldom that cross species procreation (or whatever term applies across the board) takes place. Even then a close relationship between species must be present.
Horses, donkeys, mules... probably not truly a different species
We can manipulate, but in the wild it just doesn’t normally happen.
So yes, within species there can be morphing based on surroundings. As you said, there is not traditional evolution taking place the kind that would exemplify the transition of a single cell amoeba to present day man.
I agree. It is extrapolated.
Jesus said “I am the Truth” not “I am telling you the Truth” thus when people study the creation, they are studying the work of Christ, He is the very Truth. I don’t even read these stupid missing link / christians beware stories, plain silly....
The flat-earth hypothesis is still plausible?There is a modern misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief. This has been referred to as the "myth of the flat Earth." [Russell, Jeffrey B. "The Myth of the Flat Earth". American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved March 14, 2007.]
Flat-earth was never "settled science" and accepted nearly as widely as you may have been lead to believe. So the point the OP made stands very well that saying something is "settled science" is nearly always hubris and bravado.
No...the point I’m making is that wannabe science writers and atheists have taken the science and have tried to use it to negate the notion of a transcendent God who has set a moral standard for men to follow. They will shout down or even try to destroy the careers of legitimate scientists who express a faith or at least cite evidence or data that suggests that maybe some higher power has been tinkering around the edges of our matter universe. The global warmists want to put folks in jail for speaking out against their faulty data.
The problem with doing science correctly is that it is done by human beings, many of which have no insight as to when their personal agendas have colored their experimentation and their data analysis!
what is seen can not be unseen. sadly for us
Thanks for the ping!
Perhaps you were only kidding.
Now, please be gentle. I am not well versed on the TOE/Creation debate, but hasn't the theory of Organic theory of life spontaneously generating life almost universally refuted by Origen of Life scientists? It was as if life miraculously appeared with organization, ability to reproduce, and genetic information in the form of nucleotide/nucleoside bases. You say of chemicals (not life) is far fetched. So you have confused me.
But that is not what I wish to ask you.
So, if I may ask. The theory of evolution is a theory originated as thought in the mind of Darwin. Most Darwinists are Naturalists (Phhysicalists). That is to say that their belief is that ALL THERE IS, is physical matter and energy (interchangeable at times). So, most philosophers agree that knowledge is WARRANTED, TRUE, BELIEF. One may believe the moon is cheese but that is not warranted and not true,....so that belief is not knowledge. That warranted belief can only be guaranteed IF AND ONLY IF that belief was formed by cognitive faculties functioning NORMATIVELY (i.e. how they are supposed to function).
Now if knowledge exists (i.e.TOE) and IF properly functioning cognitive faculties are required to acquire that knowledge , then the notion of properly functioning faculties require a Designer.
If so this shows evolutionary naturalism or if you wish metaphysical naturalism is false, OR IF TRUE, it is irrational to believe in evolutionary naturalism because according to the theory evolution, natural selection adapts only for survival value - NOT TRUTH. It selects for BEHAVIOR - not truth. It selects for behavior, not knowledge.
Now if darwinists/physicalists affirm and are consistent they must affirm No GOD and therefore owe us an explanation as to what it means to have a properly functioning cognitive faculty which will result in WARRANTED TRUE BELIEF (Knowledge) and if they cannot, they should abandon the folly of believing that they have a rationale for any belief they hold. In other words they have no reason to believe anything is true
As Jaegwan Kim said, "Physicalism (Methaphysical Naturalism) exact a high epistemological price.
P.S. I thought it was a nice touch in the article that the 'scientist' said this amphibian must have lived a happy life. But how can he arrive at such an assertion in a mindless, pitiless universe (Richard Dawkins)
>> That is to say that their belief is that ALL THERE IS ...
Their views amount to nothing more than the dismissal of others’.
Not a *proven fact.*
Were you there to observe it, every step of the way?
Evolution is presumed to have happened based on an interpretation of forensic evidence.
For all the years of debate on the crevo threads, the evos pounded into people that nothing in science can be proved, only disproved, and now you're coming along and telling us that it's *proven*?
No. You're not moving the goalposts.
Simply dumping large amounts of uncontrolled energy in a system does not automatically result in order.
For order to occur, work must be done. What's the source or work?
IN addition to my statements about organic chemical reactions requiring strict controlled procedure (refinement of product, controlled energy, etc.) to arrive at a desired result of less complex molecules than say, DNA, or cell membranes, it’s simply extremely unreliable, or statistically absurd, to expect for complex organic molecules such as DNA to form spontaneously. See #48. The idea that life was formed on its own without direction is absurd, or extremely improbable.
And all such lab work to try to *prove* that life happened spontaneously only goes to prove the the opposite, and scientists don't even realize it.
Simply setting up the conditions and procedure demonstrates that intelligence, order, work etc need to be done.
Unless they want to try to convince us that what they're doing in the lab is meaningless, spontaneous, random, not intelligently directed activity.
And at that point, they may not get any argument out of me.
There isn't one, as far as I can tell. The fossil record cannot be reconciled with microevolution, as species exit the fossil record as they entered it. Macroevolution is the only logical alternative, but as yet, no one has proposed even a remotely probable mechanism.
Personally, I suspect divine intervention in various stages of Creation, such as the Cambrian explosion. But that's simply speculation.
For Christians, the God of Creation is the God of the Bible. Science and Revelation cannot contradict. When science seems to contradict Scripture, either the science is wrong, or our interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
Currently, as far as I can tell, we are a long way from a synthesis.
What monkey did you supposedly evolve from? Has that been determined yet?
On the matter, I believe that Eden was a nursery, while Adam, Eve, and the animals were in there, for an unknown time, animals lived and died outside of Eden. They left in some “modern” time. As I mentioned in post #48, the idea that complex molecules formed without intelligence and/or effort is absurd. To date, the intelligence of the laboratory supervision in Organic Chemistry makes spontaneous life formation improbable to the point of absurdity.
I suspect that there may still be missing links wandering around in the brains of evolutionists. Look, the entire theory of macro-evolution is so absurd that it takes a wild imagination to buy any of it.
“Look fellas, I can fly, I can fly!! Landing? Uh oh.”
Thus a wondrous mutation was nipped in the bud. *Sigh*
Alter Kraker your post is completely laughable. Are Ichthyosaurs newly discovered? Why, no, they are not! We discussed this ‘happy’ little creature on freerepublic at least 3 years ago, http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2790543/posts, yet science actually has known about this creature since 1834.
As usual these evolution posts carry very little credibility.
For my money what is even better than the vast majority of mathematicians overwhelming rejection of macroevolution, is the mere idea Shannon proposed with the theory of information. TOI completely trumps TOE for one overwhelming and obvious reason - the act of debating this nonsense itself.
Think about it, all code proves an intelligence is needed to author it. We’re talking not just about the written and spoken word, let alone grammar and language formation, we’re also involving all the accumulated knowledge of man, available to all who can access the internet and all the technology that makes this possible.
Why, it’s more obvious than the nose on your face that mankind is uniquely and vastly different from all the rest of the animal world in all that we have created. Created in the image and likeness of God!
And yet that is still not the epitome of this senseless debate because not only did language have to originate with an intelligence to teach Adam and Eve the art of conversing, sharing and accumulating this knowledge but that same higher intelligence was most obviously the author of all the vast array of unique lifeforms expressed in the DNA code.
And you and your ilk are more than happy to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of His Words?! The one in whom with live and move and have our being! I say it is utterly ridiculous to try to inform your lot any further.
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.