The remains document the Cambrian explosion, a rapid flourishing of life-forms, and include many organisms never seen before — even at the most famous Cambrian fossil site, Canada’s Burgess ShaleCarolyn Gramling, “Science News’ favorite fossils of 2019” at Science News
So even more fossils just popped into existence, just like that. No wonder even Darwin had doubts.
From 290 million to 280 million years ago:
For such an ancient critter, O. pabsti — one of the earliest amniotes, a group that includes reptiles and mammals — had a surprisingly efficient gaitCarolyn Gramling, “Science News’ favorite fossils of 2019” at Science News
So the long, long Darwinian period when the creature just stumbled uncertainly around may have been short or may not have existed? Then what was the mechanism of gait development?
See It takes a smart robot to mimic a reptile.
and a third:
From 99 million years ago:
A chunk of amber containing the right leg and foot of a sparrow-sized bird (illustrated) revealed a bizarrely long digit.Carolyn Gramling, “Science News’ favorite fossils of 2019” at Science News
Possibly the long toe was used for prying things out of holes, like a nut pick. But a more complete fossil record reveals many complexities that challenge simplistic claims and easy explanations of how evolution happens. As research continues apace, any given such theory might be challenged by something just around the corner.
See also: At The Scientist: “Junk RNA” is top science news in 2019 A “completely unknown biology,” says a researcher. “There really is no framework in biology as we know it today that would explain how RNA and glycans could ever be in the same place at the same time”
8 Replies to “Science News’s Top fossils in 2019 show a diminishing Darwin”
What about this?
Fin ray patterns at the fin-to-limb transition
Any explanation from the ID perspective?
Here’s a very pertinent reply to PavelU posted by Martin_r in another thread:
Here’s another very pertinent reply to PavelU posted by Martin_r in another thread:
It seems like PavelU’s comment led to very interesting comments posted by Martin_r and jawa in this interesting OP that was kind of ignored. In a way PavelU contributed to animate this discussion. Maybe we should encourage him to continue posting provocative questions? Anyway, he’s in a den of lions that jump on him right away. 🙂
“A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.”
And to have the following finding, just makes the claim from Darwinists all the more comical
‘Convergent evolution’ is simply a hard and devastating failure for Darwinists:
Thanks for posting your insightful comment here.
Repeated evolution of amphibious behavior in fish and its implications for the colonization of novel environments (2016)