Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Record-Setting Living Fossil Flabbergasts Scientists
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 12/5/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

Posted on 12/05/2003 3:26:16 PM PST by bondserv

New Record-Setting Living Fossil Flabbergasts Scientists   12/05/2003
A remarkably-detailed fossil ostracode, a type of crustacean, has been announced in the Dec. 5 issue of Science1 that is blowing the socks off its discoverers.  Erik Stokstad in a review of the discovery in the same issue2 explains its significance in the evolutionary picture of prehistory:

Over the past half-billion years [sic], evolution has dished up [sic] an almost endless variety of novelties: lungs, legs, eyes, wings, scales, feathers, fur.  So when paleontologists find a creature that doesn’t change, they take note.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Two things about this fossil are exceptional.  (1) It has a “jaw-dropping” amount of detail, such that even small fragile parts and soft tissues were perfectly preserved.  (2) It is indistinguishable from modern ostracodes:
What’s most amazing, ostracode experts say, is how eerily similar the soft-tissue anatomy is to that of modern relatives.  “I was flabbergasted,” says Koen Martens, a zoologist at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 
This fossil, found near Herefordshire, U.K., was found in Silurian deposits estimated to be 425 million years old.  That means that its modern counterparts are living fossils, virtually unchanged for all that time:
Some ostracode specialists are stunned.  “This is a demonstration of unbelievable stability,” says Tom Cronin of the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Virginia.  Whereas ostracodes diversified [sic] into some 33,000 living and extinct species, “these guys have just been plodding along totally unfazed.
This fossil, named Colymbosathon, is also upsetting those who look for evolution in the genes:
Finding a modern cylindroleberid in the Silurian clashes with molecular data, which suggest that the group and related families originated relatively recently, says evolutionary biologist Todd Oakley of the University of California, Santa Barbara.  There’s no conflict for zoologist Anne Cohen, a research associate at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, who thinks Colymbosathon actually belongs to a long-extinct family.  In any case, the new fossil indicates that a basic ostracode body plan was already present in the Silurian.  It could also help [sic] sort out evolutionary relationships of fossil ostracodes.
David Horne (Queen Mary College, London) predicts more “long-lost evolutionary blueprints” [sic] may emerge from these deposits.  “The probability that they will find similarly preserved representatives of other ostracode lineages, and of other arthropods, is both high and extremely exciting.”
1Siveter et al., “An Ostracode Crustacean with Soft Parts from the Lower Silurian,” Science Dec. 5, 2003.
2Erik Stokstad, “Invertebrate Paleontology: Gutsy Fossil Sets Record for Staying the Course,” Science Volume 302, Number 5651, Issue of 5 Dec 2003, p. 1645.
This is just one more of many remarkable, astounding, flabbergasting examples of living fossils.  “Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism.  The Darwinian world is supposed to be a fluid world, filled with diversification, radiation, and innovation.  During the imaginary 425 million years, the continents moved all over the world, animals crawled onto the land and became geckos and crocodiles and birds and caribou.  Mountains rose and valleys sank, and glaciers repeatedly advanced and retreated over much of the planet.  Some animals moved back into the oceans and became whales, porpoises, manatees and sea lions in just a small fraction of this much time, and humans emerged from grunting chimpanzees, invented language and abstract thought, and conquered space.  Is it reasonable to assume that in this slow whirlwind of continuous dynamical change, these ostracodes just reproduced themselves over and over millions of times without any change whatsoever?
    Darwinists are caught in a crossfire of antagonistic evidence.  Only a well-armored Darwinist could be excited about incoming bombshells like this.  Only by wearing Kevlar-lined lead helmets around their brains can they keep the bullets from penetrating and the insides from exploding.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: colymbosathon; crustacean; godsgravesglyphs; ostracode; silurian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-218 next last
To: bert
The species had evolved to a point where it was the fittest. Additional change did not improve the ability to exist.

There were changes, but the individuals exhibiting the change were not successful, not fit, did not survive.

There is more and more evidence that adaptation to an environment is preprogrammed in. The finches would adapt back and forth to the changes in conditions, suggesting it is part of their intelligently designed mechanism.

Darwin was and is wrong! Keep watching the journals. Link

61 posted on 12/05/2003 5:05:02 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Here's the color photo from Science magazine.


62 posted on 12/05/2003 5:05:53 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dinasour
HeHe.

For example, clams, snails, octipi, "intelligent designers"

Are "intelligent designers" further evolved. I tend to believe we are. :-)

63 posted on 12/05/2003 5:06:58 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
Must have been a pretty strange world before the Fall. Without the second law of thermodynamics "past" and "future" don't make any sense because time's arrow points in "both" directions. But I guess the YEC's have figured this out already ;^)
64 posted on 12/05/2003 5:57:34 PM PST by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: bondserv; Kay Soze; VadeRetro; Orblivion; My2Cents; jennyp; snowballinhell; PatrickHenry
“Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism. The Darwinian world is supposed to be a fluid world, filled with diversification, radiation, and innovation.

Sigh. Yet again a creationist reveals that he doesn't have a clue what "Darwinism" actually predicts, or any real understanding of the thing he attempts to debate against. This is called a "straw man attack", since it's like declaring victory after beating up a scarecrow instead of a real opponent.

You say "“Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism.". Well gee, let's see what Darwin himself actually predicted, shall we?

Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, does not strictly correspond with the succession of our geological formations; so that between each two consecutive formations, the forms of life have seldom changed in exactly the same degree. Yet if we compare any but the most closely related formations, all the species will be found to have undergone some change. When a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears. The strongest apparent exception to this latter rule, is that of the so- called `colonies' of M. Barrande, which intrude for a period in the midst of an older formation, and then allow the pre- existing fauna to reappear; but Lyell's explanation, namely, that it is a case of temporary migration from a distinct geographical province, seems to me satisfactory.

These several facts accord well with my theory. I believe in no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants of a country to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of modification must be extremely slow. The variability of each species is quite independent of that of all others. Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of modification in the varying species, depends on many complex contingencies, -- on the variability being of a beneficial nature, on the power of intercrossing, on the rate of breeding, on the slowly changing physical conditions of the country, and more especially on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species comes into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, that it should change less. We see the same fact in geographical distribution; for instance, in the land-shells and coleopterous insects of Madeira having come to differ considerably from their nearest allies on the continent of Europe, whereas the marine shells and birds have remained unaltered. We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organised productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life, as explained in a former chapter.

-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

So gibber about how "stability" for some species is not a prediction of Darwinism all you like, but you're completely and ignorantly wrong. It most certainly *is* a prediction of Darwinism, and has been since 1859. You're only 144 years behind in your scientific knowledge, which at least puts you well ahead of the many young-Earth creationists who are blissfully unaware of the 18th Century (not a typo) evidence for an old Earth (the vast age of the Earth was accepted of necessity long before either Darwin or radiometric dating were even around, contrary to what the YECs would have you believe).

If you want to disagree with what Darwin *actually* said on the matter, feel free, but you do your position a disservice when you reveal that you haven't the slightest idea what predictions he actually made, while not letting that stop you from attacking what you made up about what he said or didn't say.

It's as if creationists believe a priori that evolution must be stupid and wrong and dishonest, therefore any stupid, wrong, and dishonest thing the creationists dream up about evolution must actually be a position that evolutionists hold and therefore a valid target. I can think of no other explanation for such behavior.

It would be refreshing if for a change creationists would actually learn what evolutionary science *actually* says and then provided arguments against *that*. Instead, almost without exception I have to spend my time explaining to them why they're finding fault with what they *imagine* evolution is about instead of what it actually *is* about.

It's like someone arguing against the Bible on the grounds that Adam and Mary wouldn't have been able to get Moses on the ark in order to evade the Four Horsemen. All too many creationist critiques of evolution are similarly based on poorly grasped and jumbled bits and pieces of the actual big picture.

66 posted on 12/05/2003 6:36:15 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Darwinists are caught in a crossfire of antagonistic evidence. Only a well-armored Darwinist could be excited about incoming bombshells like this. Only by wearing Kevlar-lined lead helmets around their brains can they keep the bullets from penetrating and the insides from exploding.

Do even *you* believe this hyperbole?

This discovery is intriguing in a "well would you look at *that*" sort of way, but your orgasm over your hope that it is any sort of "bombshell" that somehow causes any problems for evolutionary science is just goofy.

67 posted on 12/05/2003 6:41:57 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Adam and Mary wouldn't have been able to get Moses on the ark in order to evade the Four Horsemen.

WOW! I didn't know that. No wonder Moses was not on the ark. :-)

On a more serious note, you are so right in that post. I hope folks read it completely and truly ponder what you are trying to convey.

68 posted on 12/05/2003 6:46:43 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
[Thunderous applause!]
69 posted on 12/05/2003 6:53:05 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There is no trump card the evolutionist cannot play. Once it is assumed that all of existence is due to natural, impersonal forces, the rest can be "explained" easily.
70 posted on 12/05/2003 7:17:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Is not EVERYTHING evloving?

Well.. I'm TRYING to, but my doctor suggests that I REMOVE the polyps. Maybe they'll allow me to digest food more efficiently and I can eat less, but who knows??

71 posted on 12/05/2003 8:30:39 PM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I thought you were leavin'.........
72 posted on 12/05/2003 8:50:11 PM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; bondserv
So gibber about how "stability" for some species is not a prediction of Darwinism all you like, but you're completely and ignorantly wrong.

Yes. Creation Science is an oxymoron. Creation Science is bludgeoning with willful ignorance.

The same people will be back again dumb as a stump tomorrow with the same posts you have rebutted so well today. It's the name of the game. It's all they have. When you join a cult, what's outside of it doesn't count for much anyway. The only real world is what's inside.

73 posted on 12/05/2003 9:14:12 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

Doesn't seem to be a strong argument in favor of Darwinism. They need far faster changing than this reveals.

Behe's model seems to tell the story......designer.
74 posted on 12/05/2003 9:26:36 PM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Thanks for the ping!
75 posted on 12/05/2003 10:29:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer
That doesn't go to why a creature who has found it's nitch in it's respective environment can produce the diversity of life we see in such a short period of time.

You seem to believe these things can happen at a rapid clip, despite the evidence in that there were many mass extinctions, which shut down the majority of the long drawn out changes that could lead to what we see today.

Utter foolishness by any stretch of the imagination. This evidence clearly goes to the fact that there has been little time since the creation of the various life forms we see today. Why do you seem to have such a strong desire to ignore the obvious implications?

A billion years with little to no change clearly flies in the face of Darwinian theory. A slight advantage developed in an "evolved" organism competing for the same resources eliminates the chances of a less capable predecessor living in the same nitch.

Deducing and reasoning among Evolutionists has lead to the fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium. Sad really.
76 posted on 12/05/2003 11:50:54 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
but your orgasm

Just to clear things up, the commentary within the article (In Green) was not provided by me (bondserv). It was provided by the staff at Creation-Evolution Headlines.

77 posted on 12/05/2003 11:54:21 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Save it for the idiot echo chamber.
78 posted on 12/06/2003 12:07:22 AM PST by John Valentine ("The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Save it for the idiot echo chamber.

You guys play rough!

79 posted on 12/06/2003 12:14:39 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
You guys play rough!

Reality is a harsh mistress.

80 posted on 12/06/2003 3:43:10 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-218 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson