It doesn’t sound as though they bothered with much evolution. How would we distinguish their origin from creation? At a certain point, does evolution become creation? Just wondering.
One wants to ask, how distinct ARE the genomes of these species that all look the same?
Would it be like mapping a cat’s genome and finding a German Shepherd’s GATTACA in there? What that level of distinction really tells us goes well beyond cats and German Shepherds. Or do the researchers really mean something less highly distinct? What? We search for analogies here.
“Even back then … these animals were probably doing a lot of the things that animals still do today.” Right. So when did Big Evolution happen?
Researcher: “Based on what we know from the body fossil evidence of Archaeopteris prior to this, and now from the rooting evidence that we’ve added at Cairo, these plants are very modern compared to other Devonian plants.
University of Cologne: “The eyes of the extinct sea scorpion Jaekelopterus rhenaniae have the same structure as the eyes of modern horseshoe crabs (Limulidae).” Sudden appearance. Long time. No big changes?
Why does Daniel Adler assume that the Neanderthals are not human? There is no reasonable basis for this claim anymore.
Equisetum, considered a “living fossil” is the only surviving member of a large family of spore-bearing vascular plants found as early as 150 mya. It’s still here. The giant sauropods not so much.
Doubtless, maintaining orderly ranks helped the trilobites survive but at half a billion years ago, they did not have a long time to learn the behavior. Once again, the behavior seems to have been there from the beginning.
“‘We were surprised by what we found because we were not looking for, or expecting it,’ says Johan Lindgren, an Associate Professor at the Department of Geology, Lund University, and lead author of the study published this week in the journal Nature.” Note that they are now wondering whether Cambrian arthropods’ eyes were really that different. Talk about stasis.
Also, here’s a 2017 Abstract from Nature, noting that “Our results expand the known repertoire of ‘eukaryote-specific’ proteins in Archaea, indicating that the archaeal host cell already contained many key components that govern eukaryotic cellular complexity.” Thus they had that complexity back then. Not so good for Darwinism unless Darwinism is magic.
So if all this complexity got started in something like the twinkling of an eye, are we looking at an argument for creationism? Or what? What exactly is the source of all this very complex, very early information?
“Dr Cardona also suggests that this might mean oxygenic photosynthesis was not the product of a billion years of evolution from anoxygenic photosynthesis, but could have been a trait that evolved much sooner, if not first.” So when did the billions of years of Darwinian evolution that “gradually evolved” photosynthesis happen?
They didn’t find anything like a “parenting switch” that applied across frog and mouse species, they noted. But parenting behavior, however caused, may be very much older that we used to think (the rise of amphibians about 360 million years ago?). And yet many later life forms don’t care for their offspring. The more evolution becomes a history, the more it features puzzling complexities that can’t be resolved by a fatuous appeal to an “ism”.
Dear readers, It has been far too long since my last post, occasioned by the fact that I have entirely too many irons in the fire. I hope you will forgive this brief “drive-by” post, with a request for some help and information. One of the common refrains that comes up regarding the fossil record, Read More…
It seems that most post-Chernobyl animals “Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts. “