another 'living fossil'

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 23, 2011

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-fossil-eel-squirms.html

lol this eel isn't even in the fossil record...so they label it 'proto' and say that it had no reason to evolve for 200 million yrs.

Darwin-of-the-gaps.

TripleXBullies · Aug 23, 2011

I haven't read it, but if it's not in the fossil record how would anyone know if it has or hasn't evolved in some way?

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 23, 2011

TripleXBullies said:
I haven't read it, but if it's not in the fossil record how would anyone know if it has or hasn't evolved in some way?

“In some features it is more primitive than recent eels, and in others, even more primitive than the oldest known fossil eels, suggesting that it represents a ‘living fossil’ without a known fossil record.” from a BBC News article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14547942

"The US-Palauan-Japanese team say the eel's features suggest it has a long and independent evolutionary history stretching back 200m years." Whattha? Whotha? Maybe, just maybe.....IT NEVER EVOLVED FROM ANYTHING????!!!!!! :stir:

TripleXBullies · Aug 23, 2011

"long and independent evolutionary history"

That implies there is an evolutionary history, just that it evolved independently (differently) than other eels that have similarities with it.

Again, I'm not one that easily accepts that everything evolved from a puddle of mud. I'm just saying that because the evolution of some things seems faint or different from other things doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 23, 2011

TripleXBullies said:
Again, I'm not one that easily accepts that everything evolved from a puddle of mud.

attaboy! I commend you for keeping an open mind and going where the evidence leads....as we all should.

bullethead · Aug 23, 2011

Where does the evidence lead?

ted_BSR · Aug 23, 2011

bullethead said:
Where does the evidence lead?

This eel is not in the fossil record.
We did not know it existed before very recently.
This eel lives in the ocean.
This eel can swim.

bullethead · Aug 23, 2011

ted_BSR said:
This eel is not in the fossil record.
We did not know it existed before very recently.
This eel lives in the ocean.
This eel can swim.

Also it goes back 200 Million years.
Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.

From the article:
"The team - including Masaki Miya from Chiba's Natural History Museum in Japan, Jiro Sakaue from the Southern Marine Laboratory in Palau and G David Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC - drew up a family tree of different eels, showing the relationships between them.

This allowed them to estimate when the ancestors of P. palau split away from other types of eel.

Their results suggest this new family has been evolving(italics mine) independently for the last 200m years, placing their origins in the early Mesozoic era, when dinosaurs were beginning their domination of the planet.

ambush80 · Aug 23, 2011

bullethead said:
Also it goes back 200 Million years.
Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.

From the article:
"The team - including Masaki Miya from Chiba's Natural History Museum in Japan, Jiro Sakaue from the Southern Marine Laboratory in Palau and G David Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC - drew up a family tree of different eels, showing the relationships between them.

This allowed them to estimate when the ancestors of P. palau split away from other types of eel.

Their results suggest this new family has been evolving(italics mine) independently for the last 200m years, placing their origins in the early Mesozoic era, when dinosaurs were beginning their domination of the planet.

Devil talk ::;

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 24, 2011

bullethead said:
Usually evolution occurs out of necessity so it might be that for whatever that eel needed for the last 200 million years, it's current bodily state was all that was necessary.

"Usually evolution occurs out of necessity..." How would anyone know that? No matter what the environmental stresses, an organism has no say in how it mutates!

Yep...if an eel doesn't need to evolve at all in 200 million years, evolutionary theory has it covered! If that same eel had to evolve from a single-celled animal in a few million years, evolution fits that, too!

What a theory! No evidence is able to refute it! lol Fast....slow....static....back-and-forth guesses and theories...evolution answers it all! (It has too, since that's all science has to work with)

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 24, 2011

bullethead said:
Where does the evidence lead?

Recently, a prominent atheist university professor/philosopher came to believe the evidence leads to design.

Most who realize the complications and astronomical improbability of 'life-from-nothing' wind up going there, too. Unless they have an 'a priori' belief that life couldn't have been designed.

bullethead · Aug 24, 2011

BANDERSNATCH said:
"Usually evolution occurs out of necessity..." How would anyone know that? No matter what the environmental stresses, an organism has no say in how it mutates!

Yep...if an eel doesn't need to evolve at all in 200 million years, evolutionary theory has it covered! If that same eel had to evolve from a single-celled animal in a few million years, evolution fits that, too!

What a theory! No evidence is able to refute it! lol Fast....slow....static....back-and-forth guesses and theories...evolution answers it all! (It has too, since that's all science has to work with)

Well I am all ears when you explain hows and whos with irrefutable evidence as to how it all went down.

Start anytime you want Bandy....

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 24, 2011

bullethead said:
Well I am all ears when you explain hows and whos with irrefutable evidence as to how it all went down.

Start anytime you want Bandy....

so, you're admitting the theory sucks and are willing to investigate something else?

bullethead · Aug 24, 2011

I am always open to any and all ideas. If I have the choice between evolution( not Darwinism ) and Religion (take your pick) I tend to lean towards evolution. I have no problem hearing any and all personal theories and probably learning something to boot.

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 24, 2011

bullethead said:
...and Religion (take your pick)...

I'm not religious; I'm christian

Grace separates Christianity from religion. Religion is men trying to work their way into favor with 'god'.

Although I'm obviously an 'ID' proponent, it aggravates me to watch scientists try to force every discovery, every piece of data, into the one theory. They also force this theory on our children in school (that should be inserted into the other thread probably) and forbid teachers from teaching what the alternative theories are.

TTom · Aug 24, 2011

If :

" Religion is men trying to work their way into favor with 'god'.

Then:

Most of what I see of Christianity fits the definition of religion fully and to a T.

ID is not a theory, it does not fit the definition of what a theory is, you don't get to the point of being a theory unless and until you have tested your hypothesis.

What is the hypothesis behind ID and how was it tested scientifically?

"...scientists try to force every discovery, every piece of data, into the one theory."

They try to fit all new data into a theory because that is what science does. You apply new data to existing theories and if it doesn't fit you try to figure out why.

ID is religion not science and as such it is not an idea I want taught in a school as science. "God did it" is not now, never has been and never shall be science, it is now, always has been and will remain religion.

BANDERSNATCH · Aug 24, 2011

TTom said:
Most of what I see of Christianity fits the definition of religion fully and to a T.

And what do you see that makes Christianity fit into what you'd classify as religion? To be a christian all one has to do is "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead". Faith makes one right in God's sight, according to the bible.

Personally, I'd want my children to be taught all theories (and a theory doesn't have to be testable. i.e. Big Bang "theory") When one theory has contradicting evidence....other alternative theories should be presented. I'm glad my children get to hear the other side of the story. Design makes much more sense than evolution.

TripleXBullies · Aug 24, 2011

I don't recall anything being stressed to me as THEORY in school through 9th grade or so. At least not in the life sciences. I think that creation/god is more of choice and a parent has the choice to put their children in to a separate class where they get taught nothing but that. As long as the more scientific theories are presented as THEORIES explicitly, then there should be more comfortability with it.

JB0704 · Aug 24, 2011

BANDERSNATCH said:
And what do you see that makes Christianity fit into what you'd classify as religion? To be a christian all one has to do is "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead".

...it's the rules that follow (see C&J forum for examples). I don't think Jesus was religious, but most of his followers have been ever since.

slightly grayling · Aug 24, 2011

The fossil record is woefully incomplete. It takes ideal circumstances for fossils to form and be preserved. With a rare animal or one with cartleged instead of bone, finding one is probably about the same odds as winning the lottery.

another 'living fossil'

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Senior Member

Similar threads

Share this page