Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists

Washington Post ^ | November 5, 2014 | Rachel Feltman

[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?"

[cloudmountain]

SHUDDER!

[Persevero]

Agreed. There is demonstrably no such thing as macro evolution.

[gop4lyf]

While I can appreciate your taste in redheads, I prefer this one.........

[right way right]

The universe screams that it was created by design.
A designer would need to exist first.
If evolutionist want to argue about the wheres and whens, let them toil in vain.
Man made in the image of God is evident in the mere creativity of man again,it is a reflection of God, but abused by the sin of mankind, they bring there own peril being steeped in such pride and arrogance.

[JimSEA]

Observed Speciation

[TigersEye]

It is not logical that a the genome would allow a species to lose gills, grow lungs, lose lungs and grow gills.

Both the Cartorhynchus and the Ichthyosaurus had lungs so, ... non-sequitur.

[JimSEA]

My post # 125 has four examples. Also, this Scientific American article goes into greater depth. The quick definition of speciation is the evolution of a population that can no longer produce non sterile with the "parent" population.

[piytar]

Thank you!

[Bill93]

“Really? Your faith is that fragile?”

FYI, the “/s” after his post is a sarcasm tag.

[EEGator]

She is very easy on the eyes.

She was good in House of Cards.

[Theo]

“Settled science.” Like global warming. Gotcha.

[Theo]

You’re a puzzle. You claim to believe in God, and yet you ridicule those who believe Scripture. What kind of Christian does that, mocks those who believe what the Bible clearly says?

Do you think that “all this” came about by cycles of death? Or do you believe that death is the result of sin, as Scripture clearly says, in both Old and New Testaments?

Or are you smarter than the clear teachings of Scripture, which say plainly that death entered the world through sin?

[TigersEye]

Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Probability and common sense.

Are the laws of Thermodynamics and Probability "settled" science?

[metmom]

Really? Your faith is that fragile? I believe in evolution and God. If observed reality doesn't match your understanding of scripture, did it ever occur to you that your understanding of scripture might be off?

Maybe the *objective* scientific observations are off.

Based on scientific evidence, how old was Adam on the day he was created?

[metmom]

Since when is ANYTHING in science *settled*?

It’s settled until some new knowledge comes along to unsettle it. It’s never a fact, just a hypothesis, always subject to challenge.

[metmom]

Archeoraptor.....

[demshateGod]

It works both ways doesn’t it? Paradigm. Your science is socially constructed and situated.

[metmom]

Evolution is observable.

Variation within species is observable.

Evolution is extrapolated.

[metmom]

All offspring have different genes from their parents. In history there has not been one child with the same genome as its parents. Genomes don't change overnight. They evolve over time.

And when they have different numbers of genes, then what?

I know what happens when human children have a different number of genes than is normal for humans, and it is NEVER good.

So explain how the numbers of genes could change over time to produce the variety of life we see on the earth today.

[ctdonath2]

“Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Probability and common sense.”

Nope. All operate in the totality of the universe, not just our thin crust on a small planet. Localized order can, and by probability & physics will, arise spontaneously; it may not last long (say, a few million years on the thin crust of a small planet) but it happens. Common sense, ya know.