Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"so, mixing of DNA doesn't produce clones?"

No, it doesn't.

[yellowdoghunter]

No thanks. I don't get my reading material from some rock band from way back when, I leave that for the Democrats.

[blowfish]

And what Myth is in the Bible?

The worldwide flood is a good place to start.

[-YYZ-]

"That's because new, better information has been discovered. Do you think there should be NO speculation on these issues until there is 100% certainty?"

No. I understand that studying the bones of T.Rex allowed them to draw better conclusions about how it likely moved. But looking at bones and a few fossilized tracks can only tell you so much about how these critters lived - the popular dinosaur shows state as fact things that are almost purely speculation, giving fuel to the creationist's claims against the science.

[Zavien Doombringer]

so, then, you have a clone that doesn't have any DNA? Somewhere DNA has to be combined to create...You cannot get life with out life.

[yellowdoghunter]

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I must say that I hope scientists continue to talk down to people, assume they are stupid, etc...it only bolsters the argument that scientists think they are smarter than God.

[Junior]

Dunkleosteus.

I told y'all I was a passable amateur paleozoologist...

[Ichneumon]

That's one big snapping turtle!

Actually, it's a fish.

[aNYCguy]

to make the remark that humans did evolve from something similar sounds like it is wishful thinking that he, a human, likes the idea of being a creation evolved from a fishlike creature, instead of being created by a loving God in His likeness...

Strategerist suggested that humans are likely descended from something similar to this creature, in light of this new fossil evidence. The fact that you've misunderstood his assertion as a "wish" demonstrates a great deal about your understanding of reality.

I'd like to be the first to tell you that reality does not depend upon what you or anyone else hopes or wishes is true, and that making an assertion based on evidence is not the same as closing one's eyes and hoping really hard. Since science is a methodology based upon an understanding of this, you would do well to grasp it before commenting on another science thread.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Not a Myth:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

[VadeRetro]

There's more waiving of arms and flailing about in this thread than there is in any spastic ward. It's the all-too predictable reaction to any new piece of evidence that ringingly confirms the theory of evolution (yet again).

These spastic twitches are the evidences of the fantastic new science of pig-ignorantism. If you don't understand the evidence, if you fill the threads with smokescreens, distractions, evasions, and denials, then there is nothing new and threatening to deal with at all.

[Ichneumon]

But if it makes you feel superior to insult those who believe the Bible, go for it.

That's not what he did. Try reading his posts again.

[js1138]

If that doesn't convince everyone, nothing will.

[VadeRetro]

No, I was beautifully and wonderfully made in God's image.

He shorted you in a few areas.

[mlc9852]

I read his post and responded. I believe he is able to answer for himself, though I am sure he appreciates your help.

[aNYCguy]

You'll have to wait to see the research done in the 23rd century. That's the 21st century science.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I have a great concept of science, I also know that the base of science is with a hypothesis. That hypothesis is on an assumption of a "what if". Now, assuming you declare that this fossil has the origins of all life, you need to prove your hypothesis. Thus, theories are created.

Not wishful thinking, as some, before anyone can believe mankind evolved from any other creature, there has to be evidence of that, not creatures evolving to adapt to thier surroundings. Where is the proof of man evolving?

[Ichneumon]

Not a Myth: http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

Unfortunately, that account violates a huge amount of the real-world evidence, and thus has been falsified.

Problems with a Global Flood

"Polystrate" Fossils

Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"

Dinosaur Prints in Coal

The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood

Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?

Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust

Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust

What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?

Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood

Why The Flood Can't Be Global

The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce

The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See

Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood

Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?

Fleeing from the Flood

Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model

Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood

While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing

More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology

Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood

Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense -- Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science

If you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"so, then, you have a clone that doesn't have any DNA?"

Sorry, that is not a logical deduction from anything I said.

" Somewhere DNA has to be combined to create...You cannot get life with out life."

What does that have to do with what I said? You claimed to be a clone of your parents. As one of your parents was male and the other female, it is obvious that you could NOT be a clone of either one. You are a unique biological organism. There has never been someone with your genome before nor will there likely be one in the future. You only received one copy of the genes your parent's had, one from each at each allele. There were a number of crossovers and some mutations; the copying process is imperfect.

[yellowdoghunter]

When you have to resort to 3rd grade comments, you have already lost the argument. Didn't your mother teach you that????

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Still waiting on someone to explain the complexity of the cell to me or "molecular machinery". Nothing in Darwin's "THEORY" accounts for the complexity of the cell.