Earliest tetrapods ?
Friar Broccoli
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52896/title/Footprints_could_push_back_tetrapod_origins
I'm with the skeptics quoted at the end of the article.
Jim Lovejoy
news:e367be64-2ecc-4da5...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
You mistitled the thread!
It should be: "Evidence for tetrapods pushed back by at least 18 million
years to at leat 395 million years ago. Therefore evolution didn't happen,
and the universe was created 6000 years ago.
Bill
> I just heard about this in a breathless report from the BBC:
>
>
> I'm with the skeptics quoted at the end of the article.
Well, we know that those ancient Greek tetrapods predate the Roman
quadrupeds..
Frank J
Or last Thursday, which has no less evidence than 6000 or 6 trillion.
What I find fascinating is that YECs tend to ignore it when dates are
revised to older, and go nuts over the articles when the dates are
revised to younger, even just slightly younger. As if it lends any
evidence to their particular ages. Ages that they increasingly avoid
specifying, by the way. It may be that they just think this way:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/an-ill-wind-in.html
But I have to wonder if the movement leaders might know exactly what
their doing, but not dare admit it to the "masses".
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 8, 12:24�am, Jim Lovejoy <nos...@devnull.spam> wrote:
>
> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:e367be64-2ecc-4da5...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > I just heard about this in a breathless report from the BBC:
>
> > >http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52896/title/Footprints_could
> > > _push_back_tetrapod_origins
>
> > > I'm with the skeptics quoted at the end of the article.
>
> > You mistitled the thread!
>
> > It should be: �"Evidence for tetrapods pushed back by at least 18 million
> > years to at leat 395 million years ago. �Therefore evolution didn't happen,
> > and the universe was created 6000 years ago.
>
> Or last Thursday, which has no less evidence than 6000 or 6 trillion.
>
> What I find fascinating is that YECs tend to ignore it when dates are
> revised to older, and go nuts over the articles when the dates are
> revised to younger, even just slightly younger. As if it lends any
> evidence to their particular ages. Ages that they increasingly avoid
> specifying, by the way.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a few creationist sites jump on this
because a new story was invented on the flimsiest of evidence. I
know of several locations where a river runs over solid rock and
little holes like this form naturally where sand and rocks catch in
natural craters, accelerating the wear. I'm sure this possibility
was somehow eliminated, but still the lack of a tail line is extremely
suspicious.
It may be that they just think this way:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/an-ill-wind-in.html
.
> But I have to wonder if the movement leaders might know exactly what
> their doing, but not dare admit it to the "masses".
Not necessary, and (in my view) almost certainly not the case: If the
leaders can convince themselves with argument X, then they can surely
convince other like minded people using the same argument.
JTEM
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just heard about this in a breathless report from the BBC:
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52896/title/Footprints_cou...
>
> I'm with the skeptics quoted at the end of the article.
I find the article a bit... well... dumb.
For example, the seem to conclude that the environment in
which the footprints were preserved has to be similar to
the environment in which the walking evolved.
This makes *Zero* sense.
I for one would suspect that the Geologic Clock leaves
more than ample time for tetrapods to not only appear,
but to radiate out into many, many, many new environments.
What's 10,000 or even a 100,000 years, when we are dealing
with spans of almost 400 million years? And, yeah, I'm
saying that even 10,000 years is enough time for a population
to spring up well inland, and to follow a creek to a river,
a river to a coast and finally to adapt to that coast.
At present, the claim is that 10,000 years was about the
time it took life to "Rebound" after the KT boundary.
: Following the severe biotic catastrophe, life rebounded
: and ecosystems and food chains were restored in less
: than 10000 years.
http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~mukhop/KT.htm
So, I'm saying that even 10,000 years is plenty of time for
the first tetrapods to radiate out from their original
environment, and adapt to new ones. I'm saying that, given
the time spans we're talking here, a 100,000 year margin of
error would be pretty accurate. Thus: It is ridicules to
claim that the environment in which tetropod footprints are
found has to be representative of the environment in which
tetrapods evolved.
Friar Broccoli
> I just heard about this in a breathless report from the BBC:
>
>
> I'm with the skeptics quoted at the end of the article.
Small bit more information:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/scia/scia_20100108-1032a.mp3
very first story for about 5 minutes
looks likely I was wrong.
Frank J
But that's exactly what they *don't* want to do. So if they *think*
argument X they won't dare say it to their followers. And if a critic
happens to use "argument X" they'll do whatever possible to make it
look weak. Even if it makes them sound more stupid or ignorant than
they really are. It's a small price to save the world.
Friar Broccoli
.
Sorry, in at least one way, we appear to be talking past each other.
By X I meant some argument like say "common design" explains for
example the Seal skeleton.