Slashdot Mirror
Evolution of Mammals Re-evaluated
AaxelB writes "A study described in the New York Times rethinks mammalian evolution. Specifically, that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs had relatively little impact on mammals and that the steps in mammals' evolution happened well before and long after the dinosaurs' death."
Most sensible explanation
In other words, chicken tastes like dinosaur!
(In Creationist America and Lysenkoist Russia, dinosaurs taste like chicken!)
It's not so "cool" having to clean dinosaur droppings off my car, though.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
But can they shoehorn it into the framework of a 6000 year old Earth?
Trolling is a art,
I thought it was about six million years, could be wrong though.
The big thing was grass, it hadn't been around for most of the time the dinosours had existed. The domination of grasses after the CT event really helped the spread of species
Evolution is a theory of science, not a parlor talk theory. There is no faith in evolution, only vast reams of empirical data supporting it.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
If you read The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, you'll find that recent genetic evidence suggests that many of the distinct branches of modern mammals predate the K-T extinction.
In particular, by the time of the K-T extinction, I believe that the primate lineage had already separated from rodents, as well as the laurasiatheres (all hoofed mammals, lions, tigers, bears, etc.), xenarthrans (armadillos, sloths, etc.), and afrotheres (elephants, manatees, anteaters, etc.).
So, while most mammals in the Cretaceous may still have been tiny shrew-like creatures scurrying around in the underbrush, many of the modern lineages had already come into separate existence.
It is also interesting to read, in the book, that our nearest non-primate relatives aside from the tree shrews are rodents. I can sort of see it: give a mouse a little more finger dexterity and it wouldn't not that different from a lemur. It also might explain why rodents are such good laboratory specimens.
Sounds more like religion to me.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Re-Thinking? Well, hell if you knew it wasn't right, why didn't you say so before?
Jeez.
See, this is why Creationism is right...No rethinking required. Ever.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Conservapedia is self-parody, but it is produced and maintained by "Conservatives" as a repository of official "Conservative" dogma. Because they think Wikipedia is "liberal", as they clearly state in their About page. Typically Conservative, they're using the Wikipedia software for free, but don't even mutter a minimal thanks to Wikipedia - they just bash it.
Anonymous Conservative Coward is a typical Conservative: trying to have it both ways, all ways, whenever it's convenient. There is no "truth" for today's "Conservatives" (What are they "conserving"? They're wasters, reckless consumers and rampant destroyers.) So whenever they dart out from behind their favorite weasel words to make a clear statement, they're usually a joke, at least because they contradict whatever other statement they made before that was once convenient then.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
--
make install -not war
There is obviously no evidence that the mutations which gave rise to speciations were "random" and not in some way directed, naturally or supernaturally, or otherwise forced in some particular direction.
"Obvious" if you ignore pretty much all work in molecular genetics at least since Watson and Crick.
Once we arrive at a better understanding of how DNA works, perhaps it will be possible to form mathematical models to determine whether or not the "random mutation" theory is feasible.
You mean, the way bioinformaticists and statistical geneticists do all the time, right now, and have been for years?
Maybe it's only feasible during intermittant radiation events that decimate populations by causing widespread mutations, leaving a few individuals with improvements, who go on to reproduce and build up populations again. Maybe it's not possible at all.
Do you have any data, at all, that would support either one of these hypotheses? Or are you just cut'n'pasting from some ID site somewhere?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I have recently examined the Marzeah Papyrus (7th century B.C.), fragments of the dead sea scrolls, septuagint leviticus , septuagint exodus and Gospel of John fragments all from the 3rd century A.D. Modern, nonparaphrased, versions of the Bible, corresponding to these fragments are accurately translated.
Many of the original writers and earliest translators could write and speak multiple languages. While you might consider them superstitious they weren't illiterate. William Tyndale, a 16th century scholar and translator was fluent in eight languages. His work influenced Shakespear and the King James version of the Bible.
Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake because a version of the Bible that could be read by all, transferred power from the King and the Pope to the church, which Tyndale translated as congregation or congress (people) rather than church (hierarchy). Many credit Tyndale and his translation for furthering the concepts of representative democracy, individual responsibility, and equality.