New Darwinian Evolution Information: Not Promising!

In the Bible it says, animals reproduce after their own kind, however in evolution it’s a story of dead chemicals which formed then turning into life and those living creations branched out into many different animals suited for particular environments.

“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” -Genesis 1:20-25.

A fossil known as ‘Miacis’ uintensis’ was unpacked from a long shelf life that was over a hundred years. The reason why it was stored was so that future evolutionary information would be able have explanatory power in the Darwinian tree of life. However, it did have four other explanations prior to this latest one. Here is what they found with today’s knowledge…

“An analysis of 99 traits among 29 fossils and 15 living taxa resulted in a new evolutionary tree that shows that ‘M.’ uintensis is distantly related to the type specimens from the Miacis genus, suggesting that an extensive revision of the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships among early carnivore fossils may be needed.

But more significantly, the structure of the evolutionary tree suggests that adaptations to terrestrial or semi-terrestrial locomotion were more common than previously suspected in early fossil carnivores, preceding the split between the two major groups of living Carnivora, the Caniformia (a group that includes dogs, weasels, bears, seals and their relatives) and Feliformia (cats, hyenas, mongooses and civets). “

It appears they were disappointed with the results. What they expected from a primitive carnivore didn’t pan out, it was actually a species that had plenty of diversity of lifestyles which has been observed in modern carnivores. Nothing has evolved here only the imagination of evolutionists.

Another fossil (Mammalodon colliveri) which has been also shelved for a pretty long time as well since 1939 was studied again. This animal was touted as a great new discovery to explain mysteries of whale evolution. Whales are thought to have evolved from a dog-like land animal.

According to Dr. Fitzgerald as he studied the fossil, “This indicates early and varied experimentation in the evolution of baleen whales.” Fitzgerald when on to say, he believed “The Origin of Species” was correct and that “some of the earliest baleen whales may have been suction feeders.” Not so fast Dr. Fitzgerald, after closer reading we find, Mammalodon colliveri was already considered a primitive toothed baleen whale, one of the group of whales that contains the blue whale.

Mammalodon is a dwarf, by claiming it evolved from a larger whale would not indicate evolution but rather regression within it’s own kind.


6 thoughts on “New Darwinian Evolution Information: Not Promising!

  1. December 25. Christmas Day. The rest of us are celebrating the birth of the Messiah and making wassail with family and friends. Not Michael. He spends Christmas grubbing in his dark corner for scraps of research by real scientists that he can add to his collection of chthonic elves to launch against science.

    Michael, it never ceases to amaze how you can interpret every rearrangement of the evolutionary sequence as “evidence” for special creation. When we look at existing species, we have the insight of genetic distances—we can place the twigs of the tree rather accurately. Except for a few rara aves, that tool is not available for fossils. Morphology, biogeography, radio dating, stratigraphy and plate tectonics are useful, but ambiguities always remain. Newly (re)discovered fossils frequently require some rejiggering—as in these cases. Old hypotheses must retreat before new evidence.

    But rearrangement of an evolutionary structure is not “evidence” for creationism. Nested hierarchies of species can always be found.That alone is a significant blow to the basic tenet of creationism: that many different animals and plants belong to “kinds” which cannot be linked together.

    If creationism wishes ever to establish itself, it must find some positive evidence, rather than scavenging only the dead flesh of revised hypotheses of real scientists. Creationists have coined the term “:baraminology” for these kinds. Yet the term is so far an empty shell. No one has ever proposed how these “kinds” can be distinguished from each other, or what present species sprang from a single kind.[1] Are dogs and wolves of the same kind? How about Tasmanian wolves, which look very much like North American wolves, but have very different bone structures? Are all bacteria of a single kind, even though some differ from each other more than ocelots differ from oak trees?

    Has any research at all been done? Expeditions to search for new fossils? Rummaging through museum drawers to reexamine fossils found long ago? Analyses of joint configurations and muscle attachment points? Expeditions to find plants or other foods that ancient animals may have eaten? Computer simulations of gaits? Of course not. Creationist “research” is at best a facade to manipulate the mind of the willfully ignorant.

    So, rather than sifting through thousands of journal articles, popular-press headlines, and ICR pulp fiction for the odd tidbit, why don’t you sift through real sand and rocks? As Neil Shubin did for 3 years in frozen Ellesmere Island before finding Tiktaalik. As the Leakeys did for decades in the steaming Rift Valley before finding Lucy and many other hominin fossils. As Alfred Russell Wallace did in the unexplored tropics before finding Java Man. Creationists wish to cloak themselves in science without the work, without the drudgery, without the effort of actual research. In short, they are impostors.

    So Michael spends Christmas at his desperate attempts to cast aspersions upon the work of real scientists. As we say in the Islands, e aloha ia ‘oukou, e maluhia ho’i i ke Akua.

    ===============
    [1] Yes, I am aware of the suggestion to analyze how much room was available in the Ark, in order to estimate the number of kinds. But this is a hoax, as you may have realized by now.

  2. Michael makes much of one paper from the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, misinterpreting the rearrangement of a portion of a phylogenetic sequence as the falsification of all evolutionary sequences.

    How about somwe of the other papers from JoV?. Tell you what. Here’s a list of titles of papers presented at a single day of a recent conference sponsored by JoVP. Unlike any creationist “research,” all of these involved original investigations. Apparently you couldn’t find anything to argue about in any of these? Huh.

    =======================
    WEDNESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
    SYMPOSIUM: THE SCIENTIFIC LEGACY OF MARY ANNING —
    RECENT ADVANCES IN MARINE REPTILE PALEOBIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
    CHEMISTRY BUILDING, LECTURE ROOM 1
    MODERATORS: Patrick Druckenmiller, Erin Maxwell
    8:00 Taylor, M. MARY ANNING, THE BRISTOL INSTITUTION , AND THE MARINE REPTILES
    8:15 Evans, M. PLESIOSAUR DISCOVERIES, OLD AND NEW, FROM THE LOWER JURASSIC OF ENGLAND.
    8:30 Smith, A. DIVERSITY OF HETTANGIAN (LOWER JURASSIC) PLIOSAUROIDS FROM SOUTHERN ENGLAND
    8:45 Fernández, M., Gasparini, Z., de la Fuente, M. TITHONIAN (LATE JURASSIC) MARINE REPTILES
    FROM THE NEUQUEN BASIN (NORTHWEST PATAGONIA, ARGENTINA)
    9:00 Druckenmiller, P., Hurum, J., Knutsen, E., Nakrem, H. A NEW MARINE REPTILE ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE AGARDHFJELLET FORMATION (UPPER JURASSIC; TITHONIAN), SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO, NORWAY
    9:15 Klein, N., Sander, M. PACHYPLEUROSAURIA – A COMMON GROUP OF MARINE REPTILES FROM THE LOWER MUSCHELKALK OF THE GERMANIC BASIN AND WHAT WE REALLY KNOW
    9:30 Fröbisch , N., Fröbisch , J., Klein, N., Schmitz, L., Sander, M. A LARGE PREDATORY ICHTHYOSAUR FROM THE ANISIAN OF NEVADA AND THE DIVERSIFICATION OF ICHTHYOSAURIA AFTER THE END-PERMIAN EXTINCTION
    9:45 Maxwell, E. A NEW UPPER JURASSIC ICHTHYOSAUR FROM NORTHERN CANADA
    10:00 BREAK
    10:15 Páramo, M., Etayo-Serna, F., Gómez Pérez, M., Padilla , C., Noè, L. NEW MARINE REPTILES FROM THE CRETACEOUS OF CENTRAL COLOMBIA
    10:30 Scheyer, T., Hugi, J., Delfino, M., Sánchez-Villagra, M. FOSSILIZED ONTOGENIES: OSTEOLOGICAL AND BONE MICROSTRUCTURAL CASE STUDIES OF FOSSIL MARINE REPTILES FROM THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF MONTE SAN GIORGIO, TICINO, SWITZERLAND
    10:45 Krahl, A., Sander, M., Klein, N. LONG BONE HISTOLOGY OF MIDDLE TRIASSIC
    EUSAUROPTERYGIANS (NOTHOSAURIA AND PISTOSAURIA) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR
    PARAXIAL SWIMMING
    11:00 Kelley, N., Motani, R., Jiang, D., Rieppel, O., Andrea, T. RAPID DIVERSIFICATION OF DENTAL AND JAW MORPHOLOGY AMONG MARINE REPTILES DURING THE TRIASSIC RECOVERY
    11:15 Caldwell, M., Maxwell, E., Lamoureux, D. A HISTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE REPLACEMENT, IMPLANTATION, AND ATTACHMENT OF TEETH IN ICHTHYOSAURS
    11:30 Forrest, R. VERTEBRAL PROPORTIONS IN PLESIOSAURS
    11:45 O’Keefe, F., Wilhelm, B. A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF PLESIOSAUR PECTORAL MUSCULATURE:PHYLOGENETIC, OSTEOLOGICAL, AND FUNCTIONAL CONSTRAINTS.
    12:00 McHenry, C. FEEDING BEHAVIOR IN A LARGE PLIOSAUR-THE PALEOECOLOGY OF KRONOSAURUS QUEENSLANDICUS
    TECHNICAL SESSION I
    WILLS MEMORIAL BUILDING, GREAT HALL
    MODERATORS: Elizabeth Hadly, Florent Rivals
    8:00 Vavrek, M. NEW METHODS OF NETWORK PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHY WITH AN EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE FROM MIOCENE MAMMALS
    8:15 Maguire, K., Matzke, N. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF BIOGEOGRAPHIC HISTORIES USING THE FOSSIL RECORD
    8A © 2009 by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
    8:30 Badgley, C. TECTONIC HISTORY AND MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY
    8:45 Tomiya, S. BODY MASS AS A CORRELATE OF EXTINCTION RISK IN MAMMALS: A PHYLOGENETIC COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO THE FOSSIL RECORD
    9:00 Lindsey, E., Carrasco, M., Barnosky, A., Graham, R. REASSESSING FAUNAL DYNAMICS DURING THE GREAT AMERICAN BIOTIC INTERCHANGE USING UPDATED DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS FOR SAMPLING BIASES
    9:15 Rivals, F., Mol, D., de Vos, J. THIRTY METERS UNDER SEA LEVEL: DIETARY TRAITS AND PALEOECOLOGY OF WOOLLY MAMMOTHS, RHINOS, AND OTHER LATE PLEISTOCENE
    UNGULATES FISHED IN THE NORTH SEA 9:30 Polly, P. D., Eronen, J. PLEISTOCENE MAMMAL ASSOCIATIONS: IMPLICATIONS OF ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND A METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCING PALEOCLIMATE
    9:45 Prothero, D., Raymond, K., Sutyagina, A., Molina, S., Syverson, V. STASIS IN LATE PLEISTOCENE BIRDS AND MAMMALS FROM LA BREA TAR PITS OVER THE LAST GLACIAL-INTERGLACIAL CYCLE
    10:00 BREAK
    10:15 Price, G., Webb, G., Zhao, J., Feng, Y., Hocknull, S. PRE-HUMAN CLIMATIC FORCING FOR LATE PLEISTOCENE MEGAFAUNAL EXTINCTION: EVIDENCE FROM THE DARLING DOWNS, EASTERN AUSTRALIA
    10:30 Ferrusquía-Villafranca, I., Ruiz-González, J., De Anda-Hurtado, P., Arroyo-Cabrales, J. MEXICO’S QUATERNARY MAMMALS AND BIOTIC PHYSIOGNOMIC CHANGE: A CASE RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
    10:45 McGuire, J. MICROTUS CALIFORNICUS TOOTH SHAPE AS A POTENTIAL PALEOCLIMATIC INDICATOR
    11:00
    11:15 Hadly, E., Spaeth, P., Li, C. NICHE CONSERVATISM ABOVE THE SPECIES-LEVEL IN NORTH AMERICAN MAMMALS
    11:30 Terry, R., Blois, J., Hadly, E. SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS AND THE STRUCTURING OF HOLOCENE SMALL MAMMAL COMMUNITIES IN THE AMERICAN WEST
    11:45 Hoffman, J., Clementz, M. PALEOECOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS FROM BIOAPATITE AND COLLAGEN STABLE ISOTOPE VALUES OF LATE HOLOCENE ELK TEETH
    12:00 Barnosky, A., Hadly, E. THE PATH TO THE FUTURE: PALEONTOLOGY MEETS CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
    TECHNICAL SESSION II
    CHEMISTRY BUILDING, LECTURE ROOM 2
    MODERATORS: Kerin Claeson, Robert Sansom
    8:00 Blieck, A., Turner, S., Burrow, C., Schultze, H., Rexroad, C. ORGANISMAL BIOLOGY, PHYLOGENY AND STRATEGY OF PUBLICATION: WHY CONODONTS ARE NOT VERTEBRATES
    8:15 Harrison, L., Larsson, H. EXPLORING BASAL GNATHOSTOME PHYLOGENY USING COMBINED ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE DATASETS OF MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
    8:30 Sansom, R., Gabbott, S., Purnell, M. EXPERIMENTAL DECAY OF LAMPREYS AND HAGFISH
    PROVIDES TAPHONOMIC CONSTRAINTS ON VERTEBRATE ORIGINS
    8:45 Sansom, I. THE ORDOVICIAN RADIATION OF FISH
    9:00 Ahlberg, P., Trinajstic, K., Long, J. THE BODY MUSCULATURE OF ARTHRODIRE PLACODERMS
    9:15 Rücklin, M., Donoghue, P., Stampanoni, M. PLACODERM JAWS AND THE ORIGIN OF TEETH
    9:30
    JVP 29(3) September 2009—ABSTRACTS 9A
    9:45 Kriwet, J., Klug, S. NODE AGE ESTIMATES OF ANGEL AND DOGFISH SHARKS (CHONDRICHTHYES,
    NEOSELACHII) USING CONSTRAINED FOSSIL DATA AND MOLECULAR CLOCKS FOR DATING THE ORIGIN OF HYPNOSQUALEAN AND DERIVED “ORBITOSTYLIC” SHARKS, RESPECTIVELY
    10:00 BREAK
    10:15 Klug, S. INTER- AND INTRARELATIONSHIPS OF EXTINCT SYNECHODONTIFORM SHARKS (CHONDRICHTHYES, ELASMOBRANCHII): WHEN IS A SHARK A EOSELACHIAN?
    10:30 Claeson, K., Underwood, C., Ward, D. A 3-DIMENTIONALLY PRESERVED FOSSIL GUITARFISH FROM THE TURONIAN OF MOROCCO
    10:45 Cuny, G. EVOLUTION OF SERRATED CUTTING DENTITION IN HYBODONT SHARKS
    11:00 Lane, J. CRANIAL MORPHOLOGY IN TWO CRETACEOUS HYBODONT SHARKS, TRIBODUS LIMAE AND EGERTONODUS BASANUS (CHONDRICHTHYES: ELASMOBRANCHII), BASED ON DIGITAL RECONSTRUCTIONS
    11:15 Shin, J., Motani, R. FEEDING MECHANISM OF LARGE MESOZOIC FOSSIL CHIMAEROIDS (CHONDRICHTHYES, HOLOCEPHALI): HOW LARGE A SHELL COULD THEY CRUSH?
    11:30 Ehret, D., MacFadden, B., Jones, D., DeVries, T., Salas-Gismondi, R. ORIGIN OF THE WHITE SHARK (CARCHARODON), BASED ON RECALIBRATION OF THE LATE NEOGENE, PISCO FORMATION OF PERU
    11:45 Brazeau, M., Friedman, M. A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF DEEP OSTEICHTHYAN INTERRELATIONSHIPS
    12:00 Minikh, A., Minikh, M., Mutter, R., Benton, M. UNIQUE MIDDLE-LATE PERMIAN ACTINOPTERYGIAN FAUNA FROM THE SOUTH URALS AND PRE-URALS
    WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
    TECHNICAL SESSION III
    CHEMISTRY BUILDING, LECTURE ROOM 1
    MODERATORS: Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, Oliver Rauhut
    1:45 Zammit, M. POSTCRANIAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRETACEOUS ICHTHYOSAUR PLATYPTERYGIUS LONGMANI
    2:00 Street, H., O’Keefe, F. A NEW PARTIAL SKELETON OF THE CRYPTOCLEIDOID PLESIOSAUR TATENECTES LARAMIENSIS AND AN INTERPRETATION OF THE NOVEL BODY SHAPE OF A SHALLOW MARINE DWELLING PLESIOSAUR
    2:15 Ketchum, H., Benson, R. GLOBAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF PLESIOSAURIA (REPTILIA, SAUROPTERYGIA) AND THE PIVOTAL EFFECT OF TAXON SAMPLING IN DETERMINING THE OUTCOME OF PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS
    2:30 Leonhardt, A., Sander, M. CONVERGENT BODY PLAN EVOLUTION IN HYPHALOSAURID CHORISTODERES AND PACHYPLEUROSAURID SAUROPTERYGIANS
    2:45 Yi, H., Gao, K. EVOLUTION OF THE LOWER TEMPORAL FENESTRA IN THE CHORISTODERA (REPTILIA: DIAPSIDA)
    3:00 Moazen, M., Curtis, N., O’Higgins, P., Evans, S., Fagan, M. COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF THE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN THE LEPIDOSAURIAN SKULL
    3:15 Rauhut, O., Heyng, A. A NEW TAXON OF SPHENODONTIAN WITH UNUSUAL DENTITION FROM THE LATE JURASSIC OF SOUTHERN GERMANY
    3:30 Konishi, T. NEW INSIGHT INTO GLOBAL PHYLOGENY OF PLIOPLATECARPINI (SQUAMATA: MOSASAURIDAE)
    3:45 Conrad, J., Balcarcel, A., Mehling, C. MIOCENE ASIAN INVASION OF EUROPE BY VARANUS (VARANIDAE)
    10A © 2009 by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
    4:00 Wilson, J., Mohabey, D., Peters, S., Head, J. A SNAKE-DINOSAUR ASSOCIATION FROM THE CRETACEOUS OF INDIA
    4:15 Bhullar, B., Pauly, G., Scanferla, C., Bever, G., Smith, K. THE FIRST FOSSIL SUNBEAM SNAKE AND THE ANTIQUITY OF MODERN SNAKE CLADES
    4:30 Lawing, A., Polly, P. D., Head, J. ECOMORPHOLOGY AS A PREDICTOR OF MODERN AND PALEOENVIRONMENT IN SNAKES
    4:45 Head, J., Polly, P. D., Bloch, J., Cadena, E. BODY SIZE, PHYSIOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY:PALEOTHERMOMETRIC ESTIMATES FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD OF REPTILES
    TECHNICAL SESSION IV
    WILLS MEMORIAL BUILDING, GREAT HALL
    MODERATORS: Mark Clementz, Gabriele Macho
    1:45 Köhler, M. THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE HISTORY TRAITS ASSOCIATED TO DWARFING IN INSULAR LARGE MAMMALS: A PALEONTOLOGICAL APPROACH.
    2:00 Fisher, D., Rountrey, A., Tikhonov, A., Buigues, B., van der Plicht, H. LIFE HISTORY OF A REMARKABLY PRESERVED WOOLLY MAMMOTH CALF FROM THE YAMAL PENINSULA, NORTHWESTERN SIBERIA
    2:15 Smith, K., Fisher, D. FEMALE MASTODONS AT THE BOTHWELL SITE: SIMULTANEOUS OR SUCCESSIVE MORTALITY EVENTS?
    2:30 Hutchinson, J., Delmer, C., Miller, C., Pitsillides, A., Boyde, A. “SIXTH DIGITS” AND THE EVOLUTION OF ELEPHANT FOOT POSTURE
    2:45 Beatty, B., Ghobrial, M., Ivanova, V. DENTAL MICROWEAR AS AN INDICATOR OF RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN MODERN AND FOSSIL SIRENIA
    3:00 Clementz, M., Domning, D., Sorbi, S. EVIDENCE OF CENOZOIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHANGE FROM STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSIS OF SIRENIAN REMAINS FROM THE TETHYSEDITERRANEAN REGION
    3:15 Gheerbrant, E., Sole, F., Amaghzaz , M., Bouya, B. THE BEGINNING OF AFRICAN PLACENTALS:NEW DISCOVERIES FROM THE OULED ABDOUN BASIN (MOROCCO, PALEOCENE-EOCENE), AND SIGNIFICANCE
    3:30 Ramdarshan, A., Marivaux, L., Merceron, G. PALEOECOLOGY OF SOUTH ASIAN PRIMATES:PALEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
    3:45 Harrison, T., Jin, C. A NEW PLIOPITHECOID (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) FROM THE LATE EARLY MIOCENE OF CHINA AND ITS ZOOGEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS
    4:00 Almécija, S., Alba, D., Moyà-Solà, S. PIEROLAPITHECUS, HISPANOPITHECUS AND THE EVOLUTION OF POSITIONAL BEHAVIOR IN MIOCENE APES: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE HAND
    4:15 Alba, D., Fortuny, J., Moyà-Solà, S. RELATIVE ENAMEL THICKNESS IN MIDDLE MIOCENE HOMINOIDS FROM ABOCADOR DE CAN MATA (VALLES-PENEDES BASIN, CATALONIA, SPAIN)
    4:30 Macho, G., Spears, I., Leakey, M. THE EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL MORPHOLOGY ON LOAD DISSIPATION IN HOMININ CAPITATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERPRETING HOMININ BEHAVIOR.
    4:45 Groening, F., Fagan, M., O’Higgins, P. VARIATION IN MANDIBULAR MORPHOLOGY WITHIN LATE HOMO AND ITS RELEVANCE TO MASTICATORY LOAD RESISTANCE.
    JVP 29(3) September 2009—ABSTRACTS 11A
    TECHNICAL SESSION V
    CHEMISTRY BUILDING, LECTURE ROOM 2
    MODERATORS: Jason Anderson, Raoul Mutter
    1:45 Mutter, R. ACTINOPTERYGIANS FROM THE KAROO BASIN (SOUTH AFRICA) AND THEIR PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
    2:00 Xu, G., Gao, K. A NEW SCANILEPIFORM FROM THE LOWER TRIASSIC OF NORTHERN GANSU PROVINCE, CHINA, AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF LOWER ACTINOPTERYGIANS
    2:15 López-Arbarello, A. HOMOLOGY OF THE INFRAORBITAL BONES AND THE MONOPHYLY OF SEMIONOTIFORMES
    2:30 Hellawell, J., Pancost, R., Evershed, R., Gill, F., Nicholas, C. DEAD IN THE WATER: AN INVESTIGATION INTO EOCENE FISH MASS MORTALITY EVENTS
    2:45 Smith, G. BIOGEOGRAPHY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    3:00 Qiao, T., Zhu, M. GUIYU ONEIROS AND THE CHARACTERS OF BASAL ARCOPTERYGIANS
    3:15 Zhu, M., Ahlberg, P., Zhao, W., Jia, L. A NEW DEVONIAN TETRAPODOMORPH FISH AND ITS BEARING ON THE FISH-TETRAPOD TRANSITION
    3:30 Lu, J., Zhu, M. THE CRANIAL ANATOMY OF A NEW TETRAPODOMORPH FISH FROM THE LOWER DEVONIAN OF CHINA
    3:45 Sanchez, S., Tafforeau, P., Clack, J., Daeschler, E., Ahlberg, P. LIMB BONE HISTOLOGY ACROSS THE FISH-TETRAPOD TRANSITION
    4:00 Hutson, J. A PARSIMONIOUS SOLUTION TO ROMER’S ‘PROBLEM’: A SYNTHESIS, TEST AND APPLICATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR AN INTRINSIC MORPHOLOGICAL CONSTRAINT IN THE POSTURAL EVOLUTION OF TETRAPOD FORELIMBS
    4:15 Sallan, L. VERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY AND LARGE-SCALE TURNOVER DURING THE DEVONIANMISSISSIPPIAN TRANSITION
    4:30 Anderson, J., Brazeau, M., Carroll, R., Clack, J. A DIVERSE TETRAPOD FAUNA AT THE BASE OF ROMER’S GAP
    4:45 Smithson, T., Wood, S. BRIDGING ROMER’S GAP: NEW TETRAPODS FROM THE BASAL CARBONIFEROUS OF THE SCOTTISH BORDERS.

    ========================

    Oh, I forgot. There was a also a poster session ion the evening. Another couple dozen papers. One day’s worth of real science outnumbers all of creationist research since the dawn of time by a factor of a hundred. Congratulations.

  3. Ah, yes, the poster session. Actually, it contained 95 more papers, not just a couple dozen.

    But this provides a new test of Michael’s knowledge of the scientific process. Michael, what is a “poster session”?

    And here’s another one, especially common in biology, one of Michael’s especially deep pits of knowledge: What is a “cartoon”?

    If Michael had even a nodding acquaintance with any area of scientific research, these two terms would be in his vocabulary. Well, how about it, Michael?

  4. “New Darwinian Evolution Information: Not Promising!”

    True. Evolutionary research does not just promise, it delivers. See above list of research papers from a single day of one conference. More than 1,800 papers every year.

    On the other hand, creationists do keep promising. For decades on end. But never deliver. Not one original research paper giving evidence for special creation in half a century.

    ==Soc

  5. If you hurry, you can catch a post about the evolution of muscle proteins in vertebrates.[1] The story is significant because human muscle proteins are evolving now, with different allele frequencies in different populations. The composition of human muscles has changed over the past millenia, and has affected athletic performance.

    Some of us think this is not only interesting, but also important. Creationists may retreat to their dark corner and ignore it, but at their peril.

    ============
    [1] http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/-actinin-evolut.html#more

  6. Michael’s puppeteer: “Mammalodon is a dwarf, by claiming it evolved from a larger whale would not indicate evolution but rather regression within it’s [sic] own kind.”

    Michael, why do you allow your source to get away with such ridiculous statements?[1]

    If a smaller whale evolving from a larger whale is a “regression,” then a Chihuahua is a regression from
    a St. Bernard.

    Michael, these desperate attempts to deny evolution are becoming way past comical.

    ============
    [1] Never mind; I know. You hope your readers are even more ignorant than both of you. I hope you had a good laugh at their expense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s