Posted on 10/31/2009 4:39:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 30, 2009 — “Plant fossils give first real picture of earliest Neotropical rainforests,” announced a press release from University of Florida. The fossils from Colombia show that “many of the dominant plant families existing in today’s Neotropical rainforests – including legumes, palms, avocado and banana – have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure.”
The team found 2,000 megafossil specimens from the Paleocene, said to be 58 million years old. This is only 5 to 8 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs according to conventional dating. “The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests.” The press release says that the fossil record from neotropical rain forests has been “almost nonexistent” – but now, it is evident that modern plant families existed then. “We have the fossils to prove this,” one said. “The foundations of the Neotropical rainforests were there 58 million years ago.”
The only difference between modern rainforests and the fossil record is more diversity now. But since identification of species can only be made to the genus level, there may be some subjectivity in that judgment. An earlier team also found the skeleton of a giant snake at the open coal pit mine – Titanoboa. “Like Titanoboa, which is clearly related to living boas and anacondas, the ancient forest of northern Colombia had similar families of plants as we see today in that ecosystem.”
In a related story, Live Science pushed the “oldest known spider web” back another 4 million years (cf. 06/23/2006). The web material, encased in amber, not only proves that spiders had the web-making equipment as far back as the fossil record shows, but that it has continued with little change for 140 million years according to the consensus dating scheme.
All right, Darwinists: you say evolution is a fact, and fossils are the evidence. Where is the evolution? 58 million years have gone by in your scheme, and we have the exact same families of plants today. There isn’t enough difference to concern the most fervent young-earth creationists (notice that ICR celebrated this find as confirming of a young earth and global flood). Surely if natural selection was acting for such a huge amount of time, we should expect to see some evolution. Remember, you believe that a cow turned into a whale in less than half that time. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your storytelling scheme seriously.
Yeah, evos are so predictable when they show up.
It is a frontloaded capacity to adapt to changing enviroments. I have to get ready to Trunk or Treat, but when I get back, I would be glad to explore bacterial resistance with you. I am curious, though. If Creation/ID provides a better explanation for bacterial resistance, will you have a more open mind about looking into science from a Creation/ID perspective?
If you want to see some evolution, go look at a potato.
The original potato didn’t grow in the ground, and wasn’t white.
In 58 million years you don’t necessarily get whole families of plants going extinct, but species and genera change. I have collected extinct fossil plants myself. I have also collected recent fossils which are very like the modern forms, just as one would expect.
Now about debates: the audience judges a debate (or any public presentation) to the degree that they have some background in the field. I will never forget hearing a lecture by Velikovsky, a very popular writer and advocate of nutty theories of planetary history. All the geology and space science graduate students were laughing at him. They could see that he was an obvious nut-case and a phony. The humanities majors, however, were very impressed, because they did not know any better.
Whenever he would get a question from a science major, he would change the subject and start rambling on about tribal mythology. The science students could see that he was dodging, but the English majors took his diversions as evidence of the amazing breadth of his knowledge.
So it is with debates on evolution. The audience is also influence by skill of the speakers, and many serious scientists are not really debaters — and they have no reason to have spent much time preparing for creationist arguments.
I used to believe to a degree in micro evolution, like that of bacteria, but I have come to the conclusion that the bacteria did not evolve anything. I think there is simply enough diversity in life that when man stomps on some form, like bacteria, that the bacteria with the genetic code being stomped simply declines allowing the growth of bacteria of a different genetic code to thrive.
There is a crab off the coast of china that is an example along the same lines of thought, where all the crab is eaten except that which appears to have the face of some long dead ruler on its shell so now crab is quite rare except that which has the face. But the crab did not evolve any more than bacteria, it just had a trait that allows it to thrive where others could not.
But since you have to have a mind to change it, evolution and old Earth rolls on among the mindless.
Spoken from the back side of the bell curve.
LOL!
Ummm... Let’s see... a couple thousand years ago people were averaging about 5 to 8 inches shorter (adult height) than they are today. Isn’t that proof of an evolution that has occurred recently? Or will the bar be set ever-higher to ignore that living things do actually change and evolve? Natural selection is normal and will continue, even if there are examples that can be pointed to that might not follow the same pattern as other examples.
The ancestors of giraffes had shorter necks and legs, then they slowly evolved into the animals we have today.
If a woman is given the choice of breeding with a tall muscular healthy man or a shorter, weaker less-than-alpha man, who will she choose? Her offspring will take on some of the genetic traits of the father and the children will be different than if she had borne children with the other man. To deny that species will evolve is asinine and flies in the face of conclusive proof.
You have a dilemma GGG, you have to agree with the timeline to agree with the conclusion that evolution hasn't happened in 58 million years. If you don't agree with the timeline then you can't agree with the conclusion.
So what is it? Do you agree with the timeline and the conclusion or do you disagree with the timeline and the conclusion? I can only assume that you agree with the 58 million year time line since it was important to you to post the article.
Do you know what a bell curve is?
That's an important one to remember. You may be looking at one genus, but hundreds of adapted, evolved species.
Science has only reinforced my belief in God.
However, His plan becomes more complicated with every investigation.
You shouldn’t demean yourself like that.
If you have conclusive proof, then lets see it.
The examples you gave are nothing more than examples of variation within species.
Ha ha! That’s real clever!
Still mentally stuck in the 1650s with GGG and his guru, Bishop Ussher...
nope, permanently affixed in this century, but with the correct interpretation of the evidence as opposed to your man-made religion’s viewpoint.
Ding....ding.....ding.....ding....ding......
We have a winner. This post sets the new record for the most cliches used in a single sentence to say absolutely nothing.
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.