Posted on 01/30/2017 6:30:05 PM PST by plain talk
They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved". The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.
The research team says that Saccorhytus is the most primitive example of a category of animals called "deuterostomes" which are common ancestors of a broad range of species, including vertebrates (backboned animals).
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
For nearly 100 years now, US law has sided with science and against you deniers.
You are, of course, allowed to teach whatever you wish in your own places, but in public schools you cannot teach your religious beliefs in the name of science.
By US law, scientists, not anti-scientists, decide what is or is not science in public schools.
“Oh, no! Not again!”
Think Wonderful Life by Stephen J Gould writing about the scientists studying the Burgess Shale fossils.
It’s ok to be ignorant. Posting ignorance is however not good
It still doesn’t make it believable.
See post 43 and read the book
also, visit the Royal Tyrell Museum in Alberta and you can see the real Burgess Shale fossils.
Belief has nothing to do with it. There is actual reality.
editor-surveyor: "Way beyond mere fiction."
Yes, popular science writing can be surprisingly unscientific, and this article is an example.
But nobody would care in the least about an ugly little critter from hundreds of millions of years ago, unless, unless, it's said to be a "first human ancestor", now we have some interest.
Click bait is the term, I think.
In fact, it could be a human ancestor, that case can be made based on its similarities and differences with other fossils.
And if it is, that's pretty interesting.
But it just as well might not be, so actual ancestors of vertebrates from that time period are yet to be found.
Regardless, it's good work and an interesting hypothesis.
You, of course, don't have to "believe" it, since no real scientist does.
Hypotheses do not require "belief".
If you have an interest, see post 43. Unless you are totally ignorant and terminally biased, Gould’s book will give you tons of facts that were developed from the hands on fossil record by the cream of the crop.
Most won’t read it because they fear being struck by lightening or worse, talked about at church.
Thanks, I read Gould's book years ago, though I think it got lost in my last move.
Science is all about facts & theories to explain them.
Rules for theories include: they must be based on facts, they must explain the facts and they must be verifiable, or "falsifiable" is the term.
But first and foremost, they must be natural explanations.
Our science-denier FRiends here wish us to understand that science "so-called" is all about myths, religion and pseudo-science.
Science "so called" is just another religion, they say, and therefore their religious claims should take precedence.
Of course, that's far from true, but it's where the real arguments here take place.
Thanks for your posts!
Crocodile 100m years ago
A Horseshoe crab 450m Years Ago
A Jelly fish 500m Years Ago
Where is the upward evolution? We went from a micro-blob to human while numerous species just stopped evolving for 500m years?
I probably shouldn’t laugh, but I did.
Which illustrates one tenant of evolution theory: evolution won't fix what ain't broken.
The basic crocodile body-plan has worked well all these years, while many others went extinct.
But it's wrong to suggest there's been no crocodile evolution, as the fossil record clearly shows many varieties on the theme:
Crocodile evolution from Jurassic (200 mya) on:
"Here is a list of the most notable crocodiles and phytosaurs, living and extinct:
My point: evolution has provided many different forms of crocodiles, though never an ability to escape it's basic ground-hugging water-living shape.
Other early life forms did go on to much greater varieties.
.
>> “Science is all about facts & theories to explain them.” <<
And that is why this article, and “evolution” in general have no relation to science.
Humans have no ancestors that were not also humans.
That was made plain to all that actually read, in the principle of the “kinsman redeemer.”
Of course unbelievers will not accept this.
That is for Yehova to deal with.
.
So you make a Biblical argument against science?
Nothing wrong with that, you're free to believe what you wish on the subject, so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "science".
By definition, they are not.
Science, by definition, is natural explanations for natural processes -- anything else falls outside the realm of science, and that would include your Bible based beliefs.
But I would argue the Bible is not at war against science, it merely insists on three axioms:
As for "kinsman redeemer" the Bible only tells us that God began with dirt and ended by breathing life into Adam, making him a living soul.
In my opinion, that's also what evolution tells us: dirt to pre-human, the Breath of Life from God making the first man, for the first time, truly human.
Of course, you don't have to believe that, but I still argue the Bible is not at war against science.
I hope that you understand this is not proof of a change. You’ve simply shown that the crocodile species has many different members of its family and many have died out. There is no verifiable proof that a phytosaur ever became something else. This is based on similar traits, a perceived time frame of our geological data, and the assumption that evolution can do that.
But hey, it certainly is enough evidence for many people in the world to believe. I just don’t have that kind of faith to believe in evolution. I believe in God, in Jesus - and what He states in the Bible is radically different than all of my college professors personal’s faith.
“Where have I seen that mouth before?”
“The researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus, which suggests that it consumed food and excreted from the same orifice.”
I think they’ve got it backwards, the animal is missing a mouth. Your photo proves that point!
.
The word of Yehova is sound, whereas the current fad that gets called “science” is so far always a joke.
There has yet to be a theory that survives reality.
.
.
Hey, go easy on BroJoeK.
He likes to talk about ‘science,’ but he has no understanding of what he peddles.
.
.
1000 years from now, when “the Earth and Heavens have departed for there is no place found for them” science will have evaporated with every other creation of men, but the Bride of Yeshua will still be alive.
I know that’s not for you, but it is something to think about.
.
Geological & fossil records show many species coming and going over many millions of years -- species preceded by similar but more primitive forms, followed by similar but more complex forms.
Theory says: that's evolution in action, and there's no other natural explanation which makes any sense.
Of course, you may reject the natural explanation in favor of a Bible-based explanation, and that's fine, so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "science".
VaeVictis: "But hey, it certainly is enough evidence for many people in the world to believe.
I just dont have that kind of faith to believe in evolution. "
As I've pointed out before, there is no "belief" or "faith" in science, since science is just a model.
The analogy I like is the USS Constitution ship model.
Isn't that a beautiful model?
You could even measure and verify it's details are to scale.
But, regardless of how beautiful or accurate a model is, it's still just a model, never the real thing, and always subject to modifications & improvements when certain elements prove inaccurate.
Nobody "believes" in a model or has "faith" in it, because it's just a model. And so with science -- perhaps beautiful and somewhat accurate, but still just a model, never a matter of "belief" or "faith".
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.