Evolutionary news

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:06 am

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... california

I don't think I need to add anything to this.

"IT'S BEEN A TOUGH month for creationists. On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago. This scaly creature of the sea was in transition to becoming a land animal, the discoverers wrote in Nature.

A day later, molecular biologists reported in Science that they had traced the origin of a key stress hormone, found in humans and all vertebrates, back 450 million years to a primitive gene that arose before animals emerged from oceans onto land. "

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:23 am

Although there are still gaps in the fossil record, many dots have already been connected on the branches of the human family tree, connecting Lucy to our own genus Homo, to our Neanderthal cousins and maybe even to a dwarf-like species that lived on an Indonesian island just 18,000 years ago. Together these species of human ancestors reveal different ways to become a human. You can see evolution's work in the fins of the ancient Tiktaalik or the stress hormones of the venerable lamprey fish. You can also look in the mirror.

But as we have seen demonstrated many times on this very board anyone who has the bible covering his eyes, stuffing up his ears and shoved up his ass, will never admit the reality. Superstition is a powerful force for some.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:44 am

I figure this will get the same reception as all the other facts we've posted.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:12 am

Frank Harrist wrote:I figure this will get the same reception as all the other facts we've posted.

Yup.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:34 pm

I figure this will get the same reception as all the other facts we've posted

then why create a new topic about it? just post it under the other one which has been decimated.

A day later, molecular biologists reported in Science that they had traced the origin of a key stress hormone, found in humans and all vertebrates, back 450 million years to a primitive gene that arose before animals emerged from oceans onto land.

did they examine every creature that existed in those 450 milloion years?

do they have examples of the original stress hormone from 450 million years ago to prove their find?

with the limited amount of fossils, how do they know they covered all 450 million years?

with the stress hormone dead how could they compare it with living stress hormnes and how do they know it acted in the same manner back then?

which fossils did they use? knowing that there are gaps inthe fosil record, how do they know it was continuous? or that the fossils are reallyfrom 450 million years ago?

On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago.

amazing, the scientists are 380 million years old and have witnessed such an event ocurring?

do they have transitory fossils to back this claim up, showing the fish with normal fins and then showing the fish with limbs? or is it really another species with the limbs and the fish was just found with a defect, like a mongoloid human child?

how do they know it is the evolutionary process at work and not a freak of nature? which is a legitmate claim, as we all have heard that term applied to things that do not look normal.

what proof do they have that it is actually evolving and this is not more conjecture and an attitude of hoping that this is true?

shall i continue? maybe after you have answered these questions satisfactorily.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:36 pm

Both teams of scientists stressed that their findings contradicted creationists — and demonstrated how small, incremental steps over millions of years could indeed produce complex life, ranging from the intricate mechanisms of a hormone molecule to the assembly of limbs from fins.

no independent source verifying the claim. talk about the lack of objectivity and honesty. of course the teams will make that claim, they won't undermine their own work...duh.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:13 pm

You expect Jesus to show up and tell them they are wrong, arch?

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:48 pm

archaeologist wrote: [quote]no independent source verifying the claim. talk about the lack of objectivity and honesty[/quote]

Tell us your "independent" sources objectively and honestly verifying your claims.

Maybe Bush ought to hire you for a spin doctor, you are really quite good at double talk.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:29 pm

Believe what you want to arch. I've seen tons of good evidence presented here that supports evolution. I have seen no evidence at all from you supporting your theory. I'm not gonna argue with you any more. All I can do is present the evidence and you interpret it as you will. I'm not a scientist. The explanations you ask for are beyond my ability to explain. You wouldn't accept it anyway. You're beyond help. Ask me about Caddo indians and I can inform you but beyond that I can only accept what is logical. That seems to be beyond your abilities.

BTW I'm glad you're feeling better.

Would you tell us something about yourself? Are you American? Are you a proffesional archaeologist? How old are you? Just curious.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:58 pm

Are you a proffesional archaeologist?

LOL.

Be serious, Frank.

How could he be something he despises?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:20 pm

I'm not gonna argue with you any more

you are sounding like a broken record...

All I can do is present the evidence and you interpret it as you will.

youmay have presented 'evidence' but you certainly don't want to expose it to peer review. i just asked some questions for corroboration which it seems you have all done the same thing as before--run and hide without anwering or attempting to answer one of them.

so if you have something to present i think you need to stick around and defend your position...i certainly have

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:23 am

archaeologist wrote:
I'm not gonna argue with you any more
you are sounding like a broken record...

All I can do is present the evidence and you interpret it as you will.
youmay have presented 'evidence' but you certainly don't want to expose it to peer review. i just asked some questions for corroboration which it seems you have all done the same thing as before--run and hide without anwering or attempting to answer one of them.

so if you have something to present i think you need to stick around and defend your position...i certainly have

Not my position, arch. I just posted what I found. I told you I'm not qualified to analyze and explain it. You can take it or leave it as I know you will. Don't attack me personally for something someone else wrote. I believe the article, but I can't explain the whole theory of evolutiuon to someone who won't listen anyway. Is there corroborating evidence for the bible? Are there eyewitnesses? No, it's just a book. Like all the books we quote which you don't accept. So what's the difference?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:20 am

No, it's just a book.

And not a particularly well written book, either.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:52 pm

Are there eyewitnesses

there are more eywitnesses to the Bible than there are to any single event in the evolutionary theory. not only do we have the gospel accounts but we have non-religious writers who knew about Christ's life and wrote about it.

so in reality there are those who have witnessed the Bible in action while there is not one person who has witnessed one piece of evolution.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:44 pm

there are more eywitnesses to the Bible than there are to any single event in the evolutionary theory. not only do we have the gospel accounts but we have non-religious writers who knew about Christ's life and wrote about it.

Actually, that statement is largely untrue. There is a noteworthy forgery in Josephus but the other classical references talk about "christians"....but not so much about "christ."

And your precious gospels were written well after the fact and largely seem to try to certify each individual communty's belief without establishing any sort of basis for that belief.