Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
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 ...
The superstition that animals turn into other animals is widespread in our day much as the vain notion of geocentricity in its own time. Coppernicus and Gallileo put the lie to it.
Another huge problem for evolution is the human footprint within the dinosaur footprint in the Taylor Trail tracks. It has been sliced and the basal layers found to match the contour of the depression, which eliminates carving/hoax.
You don't get to assume the conclusion in the premises unless you are operating (as I believe evolutionists are) from a standpoint of faith (as I believe many who espouse that viewpoint do because, frankly, having a God to whom to answer is a bit uncomfortable for some). The very notion that the age of the rock in the geological column defines the fossil's age, while the fossil's age (as interpreted through Lyellian long ages) determines the age of the rock serves as a prime example of the type of circular reasoning which forms the bedrock for the GToE. The entire notion of the linear relationship between the geological column and age is an a priori assumed without supporting evidence (and sorry, radiometric dating does not count since you don't know the original parent-t-daughter ratio but must assume it).
Remember that observational science (what can be measured, observed, repeated predictably) differs vastly from historical science, since neither a global flood nor billions of years worth of mutations can be replicated in a lab.
In your science, what are the evolutionary predecessors of Homo sapiens?
(Hardly a red herring)
If you will but consult the illustration in the WaPo article you can easily see that the ichthyosaurus was definitely gay. Apparently adoption was not an option.
BTW, that fossil thing should have never been dug up. God buried it deep for a reason.
Look at bonobos and chimpanzees, closely related, but evolving differently after being separated from each other by the Congo River (which they're afraid to cross).
Nah, the Chimps are afraid. The smarter Bonobos could cross in a heart beat. I too have relatives for whom I would not cross that river.
The problem here is noting the differences between Darwin’s finches versus the stretch and improbability over time there are changes such as the natural selection of say, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or Darwin’s finches, in which there is a speciation based on which of a population survive in a given niche, which narrows the gene pool of the population due to isolation or killing off of the others, resulting in one prevailing, but many leaps and forming new classes involves many more steps, and higher improbability. We haven’t found everything in fossils, either, so we need the best given explanation, which is that early life is largely archaebacteria similar to what we find in the Yellowstone hot springs that live off sulfur and extreme temperatures.
Indeed. Never argue against a position someone holds due to their emotions. You get nowhere fast.
Science is merely the study and observation of things God has created.
After years of observing that life produces life. Trees begat trees, animals, insects humans, the same,etc
I have come to the conclusion that: In the beginning LIFE (GOD).
Never seen life arise out of rocks, soup, or anything else. Guess some scientists need to refute this simple observation.
Other than that, If God is God, I hardly think he needed evolution.
See an animal that resembles a cross between two different animals? Sure, see it all the time - a platypus looks like a cross between a duck and a beaver. Raccoon looks like a cross between a big rat, a fox, and a zebra. Does it mean they came from one or the other and “morphed” into another animal? Of course not. I people see what the want to see (matrixing) and one kind doesn’t turn into another kind. It might mean they are created by common creator who prefers what’s worked in the past. These evolutionist “intellectuals” are just oo dumb to be open to the idea of a much higher intelligence than themselves...
Amen. That’s why I dislike debating evolutionists...
Proverbs 26:4
proof of devolution
I don’t know, but I personally believe that God created many planets with sentient life on them, and he operates far faster than the speed of light to excercise his caretaking skills to all of those planets. My, how C.S. Lewis was so far ahead of his time in making The Chronicles of Narnia.
What evidence?
The more separate species they find, the less evidence there is for the dream of evolution.
This “find” is no exception.
Settled? You are obviously not a scientist. Consensus is not science.
According to Darwin himself, for his theory to be valid, millions of transitional fossils would have to be found GRADUALLY changing from one species to another. Furthermore, there would need to be millions of transitional fossils along each branch of the so-called “tree of life”.
Darwin assumed that the fossil record of his time was so incomplete because not enough people had been looking hard enough. He also said that if the millions of transitional fossils were not found, it would throw serious doubt onto his theory.
In point of fact, the fossil record is remarkably consistent, showing nothing but abrupt changes where new, whole-cloth, advanced species suddenly appear out of nowhere.
A single so-called “missing link” means nothing.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Smaller next time, please? Dang near pissed my pants.
>> “ I believe in evolution and God” <<
.
Then you have a mighty strange god.
The one that gave us the scriptures said over 100 times that every creature reproduced after its own kind.
.
Indeed. And the vastness of what we don’t know about creation is seemingly boundless in comparison of what we think we know.
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.