Actually, this is wonderful news for "us evolutionists". If you had actually RTFA, you'd know that we can now compare those reconstructions we had of the fossil relatives of this animal to the living creature. Great!
"Wouldn't you expect to see major differences between the descendents and their forbears?"
Not necessarily.
"If you say 'no' - how long DOES it take for something to evolve then!?!?"
It depends. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment (check out the example of crocs in a post further below), selective pressures keep it the same way even during millions of years. Evolution doesn't occur at a fixed rate. Seems like you heard it here first.
"Evolution is a glorified hoax."
Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, but it isn't. It's a fact, a natural phenomenon happening out there all the time, no matter if you pull off the "lalalala-not-listening" creationist trick.
"A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old?"
Geez...
Carbon dating can't be used to date anything older than some 40 000 years. It becomes too inaccurate after that. So the question to your, hmmm, uninformed question is a resounding No.
And even IF we could use C-14 dating to date fossils older than 40 000 years, the answer would still be No. The fossil relatives of this new rodent species were just that - relatives - of the living creature, not the same animal. They belong to the same family, Diatomyidae. In short: the fossils would still be 11 million years old, the living individuals of the rodent species would be recent. Duh.
My burning question is, when will Creationists start reading so that they'd actually know what they're talking about?
I'm quite happy with the explanations those scientists mentioned in the Creationist article gave.
Usually living fossils are organisms that
- are superbly adapted to their particular environment/niche
- have a high fecundity rates
- are so generalised they can survive in several niches and conditions.
And even in the case of the Coelacanth, we have to remember that those creatures were common back in their heyday. It's not like this one survived genus (Latimeria) is a wonder of unbelievable probabilities. Considering the multitudes of coelacanths before the KT extinction 65 m.y.a. it becomes actually quite probable that one genus (or the ancestors of the living genus) would survive even that cataclysm.
While we're at it, can you explain to me why there are no www.domain.uk URLs? Every British URL ends in co.uk. Same in Japan (co.jp). The explanation is prolly damn simple, but I've never encountered it (and maybe I'm too lazy to google it up).
"I once heard someone say, "global warming is at best a theory, and at worst pure fiction"."
Then, ignore this "someone". He's making the "just a theory" fallacy, widely used by Creationists, and it shows he/she has no idea what a scientific theory is. No, it's not a wild guess. To put it simple, a scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena, based on these observations.
Whoever modded the parent 'informative' either doesn't have a clue or is a republican. Or Michael Cricton.
As others have already pointed out, the rate isn't constant. It's bound to accelerate, and it might also lead to a nice little thing called a Heinrich Event. Some nice glacial dynamics there.
"What I don't get is how you can even identify a West Antarctic ice sheet?"
Mayhaps it's the part of Antarctica that's on the western hemisphere, which in turn is defined as being on the left (Western) side of the Greenwich (pronounced Grenidsh, those silly britons) meridian and on the right (Eastern) side of the 180th meridian? Could it be?
Pardon my sarcasm, but archeology and paleontology are 'slightly' different fields of science. Or to be precise, the former belongs into humaniora and the latter is science.
The Chinese might have their own ways of interpretation, but since this critter was found by a US/Chinese team, and has been peer-reviewed by Science (the journal, that is), we can be pretty certain of the accuracy of the interpretations.
"This means that mammals must have existed earlier than 65 million years ago"
Mammals originated in the Triassic period over 200 million years ago, they are as old or maybe even a tad older than dinosaurs. Most known fossil mammals are small and shrew-like, but recently suprisingly large and advanced forms have been found. This new find is just the newest reason to rethink the evolution of Mesozoic mammals. Looks like they were way more diversified already in the age of dinosaurs than previously thought. However, it was the generalists that survived the KT extinction 65 mya and gave origin to modern mammals, including us.
Well, of course any type of election system can be rigged. The question here is, which system is more transparent. This just in: electronic voting systems, which are made by companies led by Republicans who "would do anything" to get Bush re-elected (look that up on Google), which can be hacked by Howard Dean on a TV show (well, almost, look that one up, too) and which leave no paper trail, are as transparent as Dick Cheney's politics.
The Pen, Paper and Box combo is the most transparent system there is. America, ditch those stupid machines and quit being a high-tech banana republic.
I don't know what this Anonymous Coward finds hypocritical about some Chinese party elders crying foul of the censorship their "people's democracy" is practicing. The only thing I could complain about is that they're stating the obvious.
Apple is just fighting the inevitable. I cannot see the reason why Apple won't release OS X on PC platform. Sure, they wouldn't be able to make sure their OS would work as well on a mishmash of components as opposed to their own tailored Macs, but come on, OS X's pros would still outweigh this con.
Thanks to the iPod, Apple is riding the Hotness/Coolness Wave. People would rush out to buy their cool Apple OS for their PC. And I think their Mac sales wouldn't hurt either. In fact, this would probably boost Mac sales. The same people who buy Macs now would still buy them, and their sleek design plus increased compatibility with PCs would encourage the others.
Steve, wake up and smell the 'cool' coffee!
PS. I'm a long-time PC user, and I'm going to get myself an iBook and iMac this year.
Isn't the software monopoly enough for Microsoft? Now they want to replace my food! Shoo, Bill! I won't eat some shoddy CD-roms with my breakfast yoghurt!
Creationists, pay heed. That post is a valid critique of the current evolutionary theory. And yes, the fact that it can (and is probably bound to) change makes evolution science. We have a observation-based theory that gives the best possible answer to our question "how does evolution happen", but we also know it isn't sufficient in all parts, as joss's post demonstrates. Even though he might have missed something in his algorithms (as someone suggested in a reply), he demonstrates how the theory can be criticized and tested.
...the important question is: does it speak with a robotic voice, does it have a red laser beam mounted on its hood, can it drive thru walls without getting damaged, and must the occassional human driver wear a black leather jacket and a curly wig?
I'm actually using SeaMonkey for the first time right now, and for a suite it feels surprisingly snappy. There are some things though in which I feel limited in SeaMonkey compared to Firefox - for instance, I can't edit the toolbars with just a simple right-click (if at all?)
I also don't know about SeaMonkey's compatibility with plugins, or how easy they are to install. But having been a Mozilla suite user before switching to FF+TB, SeaMonkey just might win me over after a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is wonderful news for "us evolutionists". If you had actually RTFA, you'd know that we can now compare those reconstructions we had of the fossil relatives of this animal to the living creature. Great!
"Wouldn't you expect to see major differences between the descendents and their forbears?"
Not necessarily.
"If you say 'no' - how long DOES it take for something to evolve then!?!?"
It depends. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment (check out the example of crocs in a post further below), selective pressures keep it the same way even during millions of years. Evolution doesn't occur at a fixed rate. Seems like you heard it here first.
"Evolution is a glorified hoax."
Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, but it isn't. It's a fact, a natural phenomenon happening out there all the time, no matter if you pull off the "lalalala-not-listening" creationist trick.
"A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old?"
Geez...
Carbon dating can't be used to date anything older than some 40 000 years. It becomes too inaccurate after that. So the question to your, hmmm, uninformed question is a resounding No.
And even IF we could use C-14 dating to date fossils older than 40 000 years, the answer would still be No. The fossil relatives of this new rodent species were just that - relatives - of the living creature, not the same animal. They belong to the same family, Diatomyidae. In short: the fossils would still be 11 million years old, the living individuals of the rodent species would be recent. Duh.
My burning question is, when will Creationists start reading so that they'd actually know what they're talking about?
"Seriously, is there an explanation to this?"
I'm quite happy with the explanations those scientists mentioned in the Creationist article gave.
Usually living fossils are organisms that
- are superbly adapted to their particular environment/niche
- have a high fecundity rates
- are so generalised they can survive in several niches and conditions.
And even in the case of the Coelacanth, we have to remember that those creatures were common back in their heyday. It's not like this one survived genus (Latimeria) is a wonder of unbelievable probabilities. Considering the multitudes of coelacanths before the KT extinction 65 m.y.a. it becomes actually quite probable that one genus (or the ancestors of the living genus) would survive even that cataclysm.
While we're at it, can you explain to me why there are no www.domain.uk URLs? Every British URL ends in co.uk. Same in Japan (co.jp). The explanation is prolly damn simple, but I've never encountered it (and maybe I'm too lazy to google it up).
Earth still revolves around the Sun.
I was already thinking this sounded like the plot of a bad catastrophe movie. Phew.
"I once heard someone say, "global warming is at best a theory, and at worst pure fiction"."
Then, ignore this "someone". He's making the "just a theory" fallacy, widely used by Creationists, and it shows he/she has no idea what a scientific theory is. No, it's not a wild guess. To put it simple, a scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena, based on these observations.
Whoever modded the parent 'informative' either doesn't have a clue or is a republican. Or Michael Cricton.
As others have already pointed out, the rate isn't constant. It's bound to accelerate, and it might also lead to a nice little thing called a Heinrich Event. Some nice glacial dynamics there.
"What I don't get is how you can even identify a West Antarctic ice sheet?"
Mayhaps it's the part of Antarctica that's on the western hemisphere, which in turn is defined as being on the left (Western) side of the Greenwich (pronounced Grenidsh, those silly britons) meridian and on the right (Eastern) side of the 180th meridian? Could it be?
Pardon my sarcasm, but archeology and paleontology are 'slightly' different fields of science. Or to be precise, the former belongs into humaniora and the latter is science.
The Chinese might have their own ways of interpretation, but since this critter was found by a US/Chinese team, and has been peer-reviewed by Science (the journal, that is), we can be pretty certain of the accuracy of the interpretations.
"This means that mammals must have existed earlier than 65 million years ago"
Mammals originated in the Triassic period over 200 million years ago, they are as old or maybe even a tad older than dinosaurs. Most known fossil mammals are small and shrew-like, but recently suprisingly large and advanced forms have been found. This new find is just the newest reason to rethink the evolution of Mesozoic mammals. Looks like they were way more diversified already in the age of dinosaurs than previously thought. However, it was the generalists that survived the KT extinction 65 mya and gave origin to modern mammals, including us.
Well, of course any type of election system can be rigged. The question here is, which system is more transparent. This just in: electronic voting systems, which are made by companies led by Republicans who "would do anything" to get Bush re-elected (look that up on Google), which can be hacked by Howard Dean on a TV show (well, almost, look that one up, too) and which leave no paper trail, are as transparent as Dick Cheney's politics.
The Pen, Paper and Box combo is the most transparent system there is. America, ditch those stupid machines and quit being a high-tech banana republic.
No need for lawsuits. But for tinfoil hats!
I, for one, welcome our new remote-controlled neuroscientist overlords! Errr, wait...
I don't know what this Anonymous Coward finds hypocritical about some Chinese party elders crying foul of the censorship their "people's democracy" is practicing. The only thing I could complain about is that they're stating the obvious.
BTW, it's spelt 'hypocritEs'.
"Apple is struggling to hold on to their hardware stranglehold. Their money isn't made on software, it's their slick hardware."
Sure. But that doesn't mean their money couldn't be made on software.
You're right about their support capacity, though. However, that's something they could prepare themselves for.
Apple is just fighting the inevitable. I cannot see the reason why Apple won't release OS X on PC platform. Sure, they wouldn't be able to make sure their OS would work as well on a mishmash of components as opposed to their own tailored Macs, but come on, OS X's pros would still outweigh this con.
Thanks to the iPod, Apple is riding the Hotness/Coolness Wave. People would rush out to buy their cool Apple OS for their PC. And I think their Mac sales wouldn't hurt either. In fact, this would probably boost Mac sales. The same people who buy Macs now would still buy them, and their sleek design plus increased compatibility with PCs would encourage the others.
Steve, wake up and smell the 'cool' coffee!
PS. I'm a long-time PC user, and I'm going to get myself an iBook and iMac this year.
Isn't the software monopoly enough for Microsoft? Now they want to replace my food! Shoo, Bill! I won't eat some shoddy CD-roms with my breakfast yoghurt!
Creationists, pay heed. That post is a valid critique of the current evolutionary theory. And yes, the fact that it can (and is probably bound to) change makes evolution science. We have a observation-based theory that gives the best possible answer to our question "how does evolution happen", but we also know it isn't sufficient in all parts, as joss's post demonstrates. Even though he might have missed something in his algorithms (as someone suggested in a reply), he demonstrates how the theory can be criticized and tested.
Clearly, the intelligent designers of this 3D microscope have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
...the important question is: does it speak with a robotic voice, does it have a red laser beam mounted on its hood, can it drive thru walls without getting damaged, and must the occassional human driver wear a black leather jacket and a curly wig?
I'm actually using SeaMonkey for the first time right now, and for a suite it feels surprisingly snappy. There are some things though in which I feel limited in SeaMonkey compared to Firefox - for instance, I can't edit the toolbars with just a simple right-click (if at all?)
I also don't know about SeaMonkey's compatibility with plugins, or how easy they are to install. But having been a Mozilla suite user before switching to FF+TB, SeaMonkey just might win me over after a while.
Don't want to sound like a nitpicking smartass, but I couldn't resists...
"...we're all well educated athiests..."
I thought a well-educated atheist could spell "well-educated atheist" correctly.
"...what the hell bounting is?"
Hmmm, a good question. Maybe it's the act of eating a Bounty bar?