It's based on this picture. Looks like a couple of globs to me.
Posted on 04/22/2009 10:13:59 AM PDT by Boxen
ScienceDaily (Apr. 19, 2009) — New evidence gleaned from CT scans of fossils locked inside rocks may flip the order in which two kinds of four-limbed animals with backbones were known to have moved from fish to landlubber.
Both extinct species, known as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, lived an estimated 360-370 million years ago in what is now Greenland. Acanthostega was thought to have been the most primitive tetrapod, that is, the first vertebrate animal to possess limbs with digits rather than fish fins.
But the latest evidence from a Duke graduate student's research indicates that Ichthyostega may have been closer to the first tetrapod. In fact, Acanthostega may have had a terrestrial ancestor and then returned full time to the water, said Viviane Callier, who is the first author of a report on the findings to be published in today's issue of the journal Science.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Both of them, Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, reportedly tasted like chicken.
We don't see evolutionary trees any more, because every time evolutionists look at the evidence they come up with a different tree. Different features yield different patterns of differentiation, in contradiction to evolutionism which demands that the same tree should be produced no matter which evidence is studied. (That is, if chickens and parrots are more closely related to one another than either are to alligators, then that should be true regardless of what characteristics of each is studied.)
This has gotten downright farcical. When are they going to admit the obvious and abandon the falsified assumption of common ancestry?
It's based on this picture. Looks like a couple of globs to me.
It seems that these species became fat and enlarged their fossil fuel usage. Their AC usage caused a significant increase in the ozone hole and the resultant global warming and cosmic ray impacts caused an increase in water temperature and death to their species.
As they say, "Fore warned is Four Armed"! or "Quae Cum Ita Sunt. Since these things are so."
Such sturm und drang!
“Quae Cum Ita Sunt. “
Hey, keep it clean! This is a family forum.
But I thought the science was is and peered reviewed? Guess peer reviewed means until the next peer reviewed.
That's not true. Let's say all 3 had a common ancestor. The line splits, but both branches have characteristic X. Branch A retains X and eventually produces alligators. At some later point, Branch B divides again (B1 and B2), and one of those branches (-> chickens) retains X while the other one (-> parrots) loses it. B1 and B2 are more closely related to each other than either are to A, but one of them shares characteristic X with A while the other one doesn't. Evolution has no problem with that scenario.
Think of it in terms of human families. 150 years ago my ancestor moves from Ireland. He and all his family still in Ireland have blue eyes. He has two children, who have children, and so on. A few generations later, you see that one American cousin has blue eyes but another has brown eyes, while all the Irish cousins still have blue eyes. Nevertheless, the two American cousins are more closely related than the blue-eyed American cousin is to anyone in Ireland.
ggg ping
If A and B diverged 100 MYA ago, while species C diverged from the ancestral stock of A/B 500 MYA, then cladistics should pretty consistently (not absolutely but pretty consistently) be consistent in showing A and B as closer than either to C, all other things being equal. Yes, there can be an occasional exception, but the failure of the ‘evolutionary tree’ paradigm in the last 10 years is indicative of the absence of common ancestry. The religious fundamentalists just won’t let anyone admit any paradigm _except_ common ancestry.
If Satan is busy planting all of these confusing fossils when is he finding time to inhabit those who live in Hollywood and Washington D.C. ?
Read my tag line and the translation
Do you have a particular example of this failure that you think disproves common ancestry?
That's aside from the fact that you're moving the goalposts. Before, you said evolution required that cladistics should absolutely show A and B as closer than either to C, no matter what trait we looked at. Now we're at "pretty consistently."
I'm referring to the general acknowledgement within the evolutionary community that meaningful evolutionary trees can no longer be built. Or rather, that they can be built for a particular set of characteristics but that there is no confidence the resulting tree will reflect real biological history and thus should not be taught as such. That's aside from the fact that you're moving the goalposts. Before, you said evolution required that cladistics should absolutely show A and B as closer than either to C, no matter what trait we looked at. Now we're at "pretty consistently."
That's because in my original post I was refering to cladistics studies that are based on compilations of characteristics, not just one single data point. With one single data point you can get erratic results as in the example you (or someone else) gave. But with baskets of characteristics we should get more consistent results.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Fractal Trader. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Yoiks!
I have enough trouble following my own family tree, much less something that flapped around 350+ million years ago.
LOL!
I think that overstates the case. For one thing, from what I've read, meaningful trees are still accepted for lots of examples of biological history, but there are anomalies. For example, I don't think anyone (other than creationists) seriously thinks we can't put humans, chimps, and gorillas on the same branch anymore.
Second--again from what I've read--it's just becoming more difficult to resolve the trees to a single point. So rather than a common ancestor for two lineages, they may have one common and one uncommon ancestor--they're half-sisters rather than full sisters. That no more disproves the general idea of common ancestry than finding a half-sister back in the family tree would mean you weren't related to your cousins.
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.