Fossil Find Is Oldest Land Animal

Scientists have decided that a fossil found near Stonehaven in Aberdeenshire is the remains of the oldest creature ever to live on land. It is thought that the one-centimetre millipede which was prised out of a siltstone bed is 428-million-years-old.

Experts at the National Museums of Scotland and Yale University have studied the fossil for months.

They say the find is the earliest evidence of a creature living on dry land, rather than in the sea.

The discovery on the foreshore of Cowie Harbour was made by an amateur fossil hunter, Mike Newman.

To recognise his role in the significant find, the new species - Pneumodesmus newmani - has been named after him.

Scotland has the best palaeozoic, pre-triassic, pre-dinosaur, sites in the world

Mike Newman Fossil hunter The Aberdeen bus driver, who lives in Kemnay, told the Sunday Herald newspaper: "I knew that the site had been re-aged, that it was older than originally thought, so I went down there.

"I knew that any terrestrial-type things with legs found there could be early and important.

"I had found millipedes there before, but this one had evidence of the holes that showed it actually breathed.

"I'm interested in particular in fossil fish; I describe the fish in scientific journals, but things like this creature I pass on."

He added: "Scotland has the best palaeozoic - pre-triassic, pre-dinosaur - sites in the world.

"There's more sites in the small country of Scotland than the whole of the US and Russia put together.

"It's a fantastic place for these very old invertebrates. Just think, the first air-breathing creature crawled out of the swamp at Stonehaven."

The fossil is believed to be some 20 million years older than what had previously been thought of as the oldest breathing animal - a peculiar spider-like creature chiselled out of the chert - a kind of rock - at Rhynie, also in Aberdeenshire.

The millipede had spiracles, or primitive breathing structures on the outside of its body, making it the oldest air-breathing creature ever to have existed.

The site near Stonehaven is well known in fossil collecting circles for its arthropods - spidery animals such as sea scorpions.

Everything is lofted upon the *Accretion disk formation thingy.

So ya..Billions and Millions of years.

But that is just a Theory...

Recently....some of this thinking from the early days of Immanuel Velikovsky..comes the ident for energy interaction known as the **Electric Universe model.

Ok..just a theory too right?

Well then...for a theory..it is certainly speaking to more tangible realities being discovered.

NASA/JPL comment that Mercury is a capture..

Venus is being looked at differently...a few Jpl'rs who post on the web see Venus as sliding into its orbital config just recently as time goes.
alot of technical data here as to why Venus is cooling off and displaying properties of immense heat convection with electrical interface activity.
Venus's Plasma sheath streams all the way to earth....only a while ago..it *Glowed as the gas's were excited.
This is why mans mythology speaks of Venus having *Horns...why cultures worshipped the Bull and the Cow.
Mars..both Mars and Venus appear to have had divergent orbital paths in realtionship to the Sun and the distance to Jupiter.

Again..Mythology speaks to their transient movement and the detriment that occured as they neared Earth and each other.

Our Moon...maybe not our only moon..but a recent capture..with past Mythology speaking to a moon in nearness to the earth.
Tiahuanaco is also called.."The city of the Falling Moon"[ Did the fragmentation of a former moon cause a gravametric energy event over time which caused vast volumes of water locked below the Earths surface to erupt out as the planets crust fractured?...the cause for the sea level rise hundreds of feet circa 12,500-9,500 BP..the Flood story?....a Sun ending age to the Mayans?

Shift:
Little Io is currently..[Current..bad humor]..currently undergoing Electrical intefrace with Jupiter.
Orbiter Galilleo suffered repeated computer glitches when it flew too close above the plumes of the electrical jets on Io.

In some terms....Jupiter is Electrically Machining Io.

Mars has some big Impact sites..obviously they lanced deeply into the planet...but Mars also has scarring which indicates Cathode/Anode interaction....Valles Marineris may be the tear from the pressure wave which the impactors sent inertially thru Mars's core.
Then too..V.M. might be an electrical interface scar ..and yes..the image exceeds ones imagination..but then mans Mythology claims Mars and Venus passed ear each other..as in the Illiad..they warred..and Mars was cut in the midsection by Pallus Athena and his guts spilled out type thing..and he roared in pain.

Ya..kinda bizzare story speak.

They have discovered Energy ribbons rocketing thru the Universe..light years accross..dragging electrically charged plasma fields in tow like frieght cars..
some article links below

Electrical Currents and Transmission lines in Space

Electric Serpent

Energy magnitudes are being discovered and perceptions of how things work and are formed is being changed...soon the old Accretion disk books and Billions/millions of years thingy is going to get the heave ho.

When the plodding Billion/million of yr thingy acretion disk constructis removed..one must ask.."Where then do planets and other orbiting forms issue from"?

Thats the challenge now...so we will see who is right in the future.

Electric Universes view..or the old view.

Should mans Mythological ident be true....then our Earth was once in a orbital config near Saturn...our world was shrouded in a different sky

This may seem hysterically funny to convey..but then..if Venus proves to be a recent capture...If Mars [at least NASA tenativley admits had a different orbital config]..yes if Mars proves to have been drawn into her orbit recently..then the testimony of Ancient Man does not seem so Drug induced....but relative to how they percieved the changes occuring.

Well then..the invite to sudy Eelctric Universe..consider mans Mythology and Catastrophism...or
rather dull...lengthy ///inch by inch increment history....with no as yet discvoered transitional forms : )

I love the story of the coelacanth.

Me too.

For years and years Evolutionists believed that ancient fossils could not be virtually identical to modern-day ones because of the inherent change which takes place in species evolving into other species.

No, they didn't, but thanks so much for demonstrating your poor understanding of what position "Evolutionists" might actually hold.

Yet again an anti-evolutionist 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 imply that stability of a species is not a prediction of Evolution, eh? 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"

The prediction (based on the nature of variation and selection) is that some species will change far less than others, if at all, and this has been part of Evolution 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).

But what's funny is that even if you had been correct on that point, you'd still be wrong because of your next mistake:

Then they found the coelacanth fossil, which is ancient and yet is virtually identical to modern-day ones.

No, it isn't "virtually identical", but thanks for playing. It has changed so much from its ancient forbearers that it is assigned to not only a different species, but to a different genus entirely.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Even though it should have provoked their thinking about the whole idea of the evolutionary basis of different species, they managed to turn it around and somehow declare that it is, after all, consistent with evolution.

Because, indeed, it is. The facts are, that is -- not the incorrect story you got from creationist sources. Try reading the primary scientific literature sometime. It's still clearly part of the same family, but that's hardly the same as being "virtually identical", which it most certainly is not.

If you always work backwards from the answer you always get the right answer.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. What you overlook is that being able to actually "work backwards" while still matching the existing theory is further confirmation of the existing theory.

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.