Page 1 of 3
The proof of the pudding
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:29 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
The proof of the pudding...is in the eating.
Chew on this one, Arch:
New York Times
Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: April 5, 2006
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
––––––
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/scien ... r=homepage Reg required
Download the article as a 460KB PDF from
http://s60.yousendit.com/d.aspx?
id=1UJ8JVPMB4Q7F0AF2IMM1HQ556 (you gotta copy & paste this into your browser's address bar and hit enter).
Edit required
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:48 pm
by MichelleH
Rokcet,
Edit your post displaying the hyperlink to the story. Reprint is in direct violation of NYT copyright protection.
MichelleH
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:50 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Oops!
Sorry, didn't mean to.
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:18 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
We do, however, still have fish walking on land
today:
Anablebs anablebs
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:23 pm
by Minimalist
While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
(snicker....snicker)
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:21 am
by Minimalist
Hmmm..... I wonder where arch is?
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:01 am
by Rokcet Scientist
I don't.
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:16 pm
by Guest
Chew on this one, Arch
it's not hard to chew on this one, 1. if you read the whole article you willsee that they are drawing a conclusion withonly half a fossil.
2. you will also see that their conclusion is based upon a set of bones not actual fact or observation. thus their conclusionis full of conjecture of what they think and not what it is.
3. if you look closely at the fossil, you will see that the discovers are doing what some of the quotes i posted inother topics have said is done. these people are actively involved inthier discovery and seeing things that just aren't there.
4.the fossil looks like a sand shark and not a transitory species.
5. any conclusions are just pre-mature at this time concerning proof of evolution.
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:43 pm
by Minimalist
I knew you'd be deep in denial on this one.
Keep praying, arch....who knows it may help you.
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:32 pm
by Guest
I knew you'd be deep in denial on this one.
how could i be in deep denial? i am the one pointing out that these 'scientists' have admitted to finding only half a fossil. i think it speaks volumes of the desparate measures evolutionists will go to, to find proof for their theory.
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:45 am
by Minimalist
You are having a bad week as those evil evolutionists continue to make progress, arch.
From the NY Times:
(Again, free registration required for viewing the article.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html
By reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts.
The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells.
"The evolution of complexity is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology," said Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon and lead author of the paper. "We wanted to understand how this system evolved at the molecular level. There's no scientific controversy over whether this system evolved. The question for scientists is how it evolved, and that's what our study showed."
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:41 pm
by Guest
The proof of the pudding...is in the eating.
Chew on this one, Arch:
the problem here is that evolutionary scientists tend to take ONE fossil and make a whole theory out of it. this has been a trend since darwin produced his theory and sorry to tell you that ONE fossil a theory does not make.
Let alone provide proof that the theory is correct. all you have is one fossil proving the prior existence of that particular species.
You are having a bad week as those evil evolutionists continue to make progress, arch.
there is no progress being made here, they have done this over and over. they find one fossil and make impossible declarations without any possibility of proving it true.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:51 pm
by wtrfall
the problem here is that evolutionary scientists tend to take ONE fossil and make a whole theory out of it. this has been a trend since darwin produced his theory and sorry to tell you that ONE fossil a theory does not make.
Yes I have to agree with that.
One partial fossil proves nothing.
And why do they never include as an explanation disease or extinction?
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:18 pm
by Minimalist
archaeologist wrote:The proof of the pudding...is in the eating.
Chew on this one, Arch:
the problem here is that evolutionary scientists tend to take ONE fossil and make a whole theory out of it. this has been a trend since darwin produced his theory and sorry to tell you that ONE fossil a theory does not make.
Let alone provide proof that the theory is correct. all you have is one fossil proving the prior existence of that particular species.
You are having a bad week as those evil evolutionists continue to make progress, arch.
there is no progress being made here, they have done this over and over. they find one fossil and make impossible declarations without any possibility of proving it true.
Oh, stop it. Look at the fuss you make over one stupid book. Give it up, arch. The bible is toast!
Knowlege Rules!!!
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:29 pm
by Guest
Oh, stop it. Look at the fuss you make over one stupid book. Give it up, arch. The bible is toast
how can the Bible be toast when your side is fabricating the evidence as it goes along. it would be nice if you would respond in a scientific, intelligent manner, which you so impatiently call on me to do, instead of resorting to personal attacks or attacks on the Bible.
what it tells me is that i told the truth and you have no response, nor can you have a response for that theory about the fish is just not true.