Slashdot Mirror
Jurassic Beavers Challenge Current Mammal Theories
Bombula writes "According to a BBC article, Castorocauda lutrasimilis, a beaver-like creature discovered in the Jiulongshan Formation in China which apparently lived 164 million years ago, poses challenges to conventional theory of mammalian history. That is, of course, assuming this is a genuine fossil - no small assumption, given Chinese fossils' track record of forgery, fabrication, and fraud."
I suppose papermaking, the compass, gunpowder and printing never were that noteworthy anyway...
Right, because the only possible explanation for this must be that our entire theory of evolution must be out to lunch. No, it couldn't possibly be anything else /sarcasm.
Every single time the theory of evolution needs to be revised, you ID/creationist zealots pounce and proclaim that "evolution is disproved!!!" Bullshit.
A scientific theory is subject to revision when and if new data shows itself. That is in part why they're called theories - theory in science does not mean "guess", as ID proponants like to insinuate, but rather means an explanation for a phenominon that is as current as our understanding can make it. When we learn more, we go back and make changes to a theory to account for the new data.
Theories are almost never completely thrown out, but are often radically altered as we become more knowledgeable; Einstein didn't disprove Newton's theories about motion, but because of him we do know far more than Newton did in his time.
This does not disprove Darwin. Quit salavating; your bias is showing.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
The tissue was inside the bone, and they had to chemically remove the hard minerals before they could take a look at the soft tissues preserved. So I think it's pretty reasonable to say number three, our assumptions about fossilization, is the thing we should be looking at changing.
It's funny how quick people are to throw out evolution.
It's funny how quick people are to throw out evolution.
I believe you've missed something:
People aren't quick to throw out evolution. They've thrown out evolution long ago, and are quick to jump on this and anything else they can find as evidence to support their existing beliefs.
(I don't believe the theory of evolution either, but I try not to jump on this sort of thing, because I have no doubt there will be a good explanation.)
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
if this is a fraud, let's hear the evidence.
it seems that so many who claim to appreciate science don't even wait for the science to address this issue - they just reject it b/c it doesn't fit their paradigm?
oh, i get it. you have faither this evidence is false and that is a good thing?
okaaaay!