Creationism V Evolution.

[RickG]

Cambrian rabbit falsifies evolution

The discovery of a fossilised rabbit in the Burgess Shale may demolish one of the pillars of modern science, the theory of evolution. The late J. B. S. Haldane famously said that all it would take to falsify evolution is a single Cambrian rabbit fossil, and that is exactly what has been uncovered by paleontologist Dr Wilfred Splenebyrst of the London School of Ergonomics.


“I checked and double-checked the dating, and then checked it again with three independent labs,” said Dr Splenebyrst. “There really is no doubt. This is a 520-million year old rabbit fossil.”


The new fossil, Paleohyrax reprobae, differs from modern rabbits in a number of subtle anatomical ways, lending weight to it being truly a new species from the Cambrian era. “This is definitely not a modern rabbit,” said Dr Splenebyrst. “It was about half the size and may even have been carnivorous. It appears to have been foraging for trilobites in the ancient tidal pools.”


Source: www.talkingsquid.net/archives/133

 

[AV1611VET]

Wiki citation please.

QV please:

Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

He might be referring to this.

Thank you, sir.

But I'm mainly pwning this doosey of a statement:

Because anyone who did would win the Nobel Prize for disproving evolution and would become famous beyond their wildest dreams.

Rick is making it look like I would become rich and famous overnight, and by extrapolation, since no one is rich and famous right now, nothing has been found.

(I wasn't born yesterday.)

 

[RickG]

Thank you, sir.

But I'm mainly pwning this doosey of a statement:

Rick is making it look like I would become rich and famous overnight, and by extrapolation, since no one is rich and famous right now, nothing has been found.

(I wasn't born yesterday.)

Get real AV, a philosopher doubts a rabbit in the Precambrian would disprove evolution. Good Grief!

Source is everything AV -- a philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith

No terrestrial life was even possible in the Precambrian, the atmosphere wouldn't support it -- lack of oxygen -- several snowball earth events -- etc. etc. etc.

Now go look for that pesky Wabbit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Get real AV, a philosopher doubts a rabbit in the Precambrian would disprove evolution. Good Grief!

Op. cit.

From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

 

[SkyWriting]

No wonder Richard Dawkins himself exhibits that 11 seconds of totally flummoxed silence when asked the evolution -101 softball lob question "provide one single example of genetic information added to a genome".

I often take that long before answering a post. Occasionally... even 13 seconds.

I don't begrudge anyone time to think.

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.
​

What does it take for you to understand my point? There was no oxygen atmosphere in the Precambrian. There are no Precambrian fossils of terrestrial life whatsoever. All Precambrian fossils are of marine origin.

http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_EarthEarlyAtmos.pdf
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/Science_86.pdf
Observation of wavelength-sensitive mass-independent sulfur isotope effects during SO2 photolysis: Implications for the early atmosphere
http://schelfam.net/ARFTG/albums/userpics/10002/earlyearth.pdf
http://geoclasses.tamu.edu/atmo/geos489/lecture3/science298_2341.pdf

Ehhh....what's up Doc?

Shhhhh.....be verwy verwy quiet, I'm hunting for a Precambrian Wabbit.


Also from your Wiki article:

"Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit#cite_note-13 Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright."

So AV, which of the two above knows the most about evolution? There are plenty of people who believe in evolution who don't have a clue about what the theory of evolution actually is and why the evidence is so strong supporting it. Peter Godfrey-Smith is once of those clueless Evos.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does it take for you to understand my point?

Missing my point, aren't you?

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince yourself -- and it sounds like you have.

But my point is, how would peer reviewers handle your points?

Maybe someone would step up and refute your links.

In any event, my whole point is that it would get tied up in peer review, and thus my 'instant fame' wouldn't be so 'instant'; would it?

 

[RickG]

Missing my point, aren't you?

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince yourself -- and it sounds like you have.

But my point is, how would peer reviewers handle your points?

Maybe someone would step up and refute your links.

All the links I posted are from the peer review literature AV. Why don't you try reading one sometime.

 

[good brother]

Meanwhile, you keep dodging the question of the original post. Seeing how you would rather pursue another question of your own, start a thread of your own. (And seeing how you like to deal with new questions, how about providing evidence for a young earth and a global flood? If you have evidence, why don't you show it?)

Meanwhile, you have done nothing but dodge my responses and I see I am not on your "current ignore list". Why don't you put me on it so at least you have an excuse for not responding. At least then you can truly say you didn't see them. You make all sorts of accusations against YEC'ers and then ignore anyone who has an actual argument. I gave you an answer in another thread but you coincidentally missed it. If you really wanted to find it, you could probably find it on page 58 of the thread entitled "Looking for all the missing links". And I would bet that if you looked at post # 571 at the top of that page 58, you could find it. Now, I know you "only read the newest parts of the threads" and you're "not going to go back and reread every response". You told me that. All I am saying is that you might find some answers to the questions you ask if you went back and read the replies to the questions you brought up.

Til then, I'm done.

GB

 

[Norman321]

Have you ever been to a museum?
Have a look at this one in London

I do not see any evidence for evolution. I see a lot of different species and even a lot of extinct species. But no evidence that any of of them evolved into something else.

Clearly the different species adapt to their environment. You have black squirrels and you have brown squirrels. For some people that is evidence for evoluotion. For me it is evidence that squirrels come in different colors. Hamsters come in 40 different colors. Dogs and cats come in a lot of different colors. That is not evidence for evolution for me.

 

[Trogool]

I do not see any evidence for evolution. I see a lot of different species and even a lot of extinct species. But no evidence that any of of them evolved into something else.

Clearly the different species adapt to their environment. You have black squirrels and you have brown squirrels. For some people that is evidence for evoluotion. For me it is evidence that squirrels come in different colors. Hamsters come in 40 different colors. Dogs and cats come in a lot of different colors. That is not evidence for evolution for me.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

 

[Norman321]

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

"common evolutionary developments" Calling variation in coli "evolution" does not mean any evolution has taken place. Dogs and cats have a lot of variation and that does not prove anything.

 

[Trogool]

"common evolutionary developments" Calling variation in coli "evolution" does not mean any evolution has taken place. Dogs and cats have a lot of variation and that does not prove anything.

Yes, it does. Please take a biology class.

 

[DaneaFL]

Even Wikipedia says finding a rabbit in the Precambrian isn't going to disprove evolution.

So before I go winning any Nobel Prize, I'm sure my find would be tied up in red tape until my great-great-great grandson dies of old age.

Oh come on... You know National Geographic would scoop you up on a private jet and fly you around the world to do interviews the day after you found one...

You obviously don't know how eager National Geographic is to get juicy stuff like that even before peer-review.... they've done it before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh come on... You know National Geographic would scoop you up on a private jet and fly you around the world to do interviews the day after you found one...

You obviously don't know how eager National Geographic is to get juicy stuff like that even before peer-review.... they've done it before.

National Geographic can take a hike.

I don't read their magazines, anyway.

 

[DaneaFL]

I do not see any evidence for evolution. I see a lot of different species and even a lot of extinct species. But no evidence that any of of them evolved into something else.

Right. and movies don't exist either. They are actually just a bunch of separately created still images and they are in no way related, right?

No matter how many transitional fossils we find, you are going to say those are 'fully formed' as well and you'll then see 2 more holes to fill on either side of those.

Tell me, what would we need to find to prove that evolution occurred?

 

[DaneaFL]

National Geographic can take a hike.

I don't read their magazines, anyway.

But I'm sure you wouldn't refuse the money they'd wire to you after you found your cambwian wabbit. So go start looking!

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'm sure you wouldn't refuse the money they'd wire to you after you found your cambwian wabbit. So go start looking!

Sowwy ... I don't beweave a Pwecambwean wabbit would pwn evowooshun.

Evidentwee you do, so be my guest.

 

[mkatzwork]

National Geographic can take a hike.

I don't read their magazines, anyway.

I don't think the thought that you had read anything at all to with the TOE by people who understand what it suggests, including On The Origin of Species and anybody's actual work on it thereafter, had crossed anybody's mind!

Scientists do often take hikes - out into the real world, to observe what actually goes on and to try and figure it out.