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.
Obviously a flawed hypothesis. If it were true GGG and E-S would still be virgins.
Ha, ha, ha! Thanks for the proof you deny.
You pick a miraculously stable area, where plants and animals have thrived, burgeoned, and bloomed for millenia, where sunlight and steady rain have made an Eden for countless centuries, where tree frogs and flying reptiles abound in multicolor variegations, where ants drown in pitcher plants, except for the ants which have evolved to swim in the dissolving liquid, and consume their hapless cousins.
And you think, because they have erupted, nay, exploded in diversity and mutual dependence, that there is no evidence of evolution.
You do not see the forest for the ecosystem.
Apparently, GGG has been bobbing for apples floating in gin at his cult-approved halloween celebration tonight.
“Obviously a flawed hypothesis. If it were true GGG and E-S would still be virgins.”
Perhaps they found each other...
Once sexual selection enters the picture, normal “survival of the fittest” tends to take a quiet side road.
Is that anything like the old “Gong Show”?
Or so the tale goes.
You do have a point, never mind that the statement, you were referring to, is one whopper!!!
Please do not judge the intelligence, mental capacity, creativity, or common sense of Christians by the content of this post. The vast majority of us are not this stupid.
ROFLOL, good one, very good one.
Yes it is : ) I find it interesting that GGG likes to try and use science to try and disprove science while denying the validity of science in the first place. It is like hitting a nail with a hammer while denying the existence of the hammer.
There you go again, GGG. Being all “uneducated” and such./sarc
That one is even better, I like the ones about the evro’s, are whatever, saying so and so, yet I have never seen the first thread posted by one.
It is. Among species where outright survival is fairly achievable, other normally less important criteria start having an effect.
This is how you get peacocks and bower birds.
Yes, the fundies around here seem to have a persecution complex and it appears that they must find a devil to fight against. It reminds me of Don Quixote and I always love watching a good tragedy unfolding.
Nope. They could be lousy for reproduction.
They get chosen because they're "pretty". Our species sometimes makes the same mistake.
Sometimes there is a certain logic to it, as in antlered animals. To be able to sport a massive investment in a useless adornment often means the animal has to be very good at resource utilization, (our species correspondence -- teen-age boys and cars).
But generally, it's just an idle, whimsical choice. See blue-footed boobies, for instance.
It’s getting late for me and I need some time for those blue footed boobies. Chat at you tomorrow..er..later today.
Thanks for the ping!
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.