• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New discoveries of 'missing links.'

night912

Well-Known Member
Of course there were predators and etc.
How do you know that? Were you there?

In that former nature, reproduction was fast, formation of layers was fast,
How do you know that? Were you there?

Then we have the fossils that were preserved not representing a full spectrum of what was alive at the time.
How do you know that? Were you there to see those plants and animals live, die, the process of being preserve?

We only see some creatures dying and leaving remains.
How do you know that? Were you there to see those creatures die to know that those are the remains of the said creatures? How long did you stare at the dead creature before it became fossilized?

What we do not see is all the other creatures also alive that could not leave remains. At the same time little reptiles were running around playing baby dino games, Adam was alive.
How do you know that? Were you there playing baby games with Adam? And just to let you know, imagining to yourself playing "Duck, Duck, Goose," with Adam doesn't mean that you were actually playing with Adam.

Lions were hunting. Wolves were here.
Disney movies are not scientific documentaries.

Even plants that left no pollen at the time were here! Etc. You are harping on, obsessing on the partial record only. You also do so using the present nature as your blind guide!
You mean like using the animals from The Lion King, and say that Adam was playing around with Simba?

BTW,
The selected breeding of a bulldog and shih tzu resulted in a new breed created by man, called a bulls**t.:wolfface:
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
. . . and you won the Battle of Waterloo.
He is "undefeated". In other words he is a troll. I would keep using him to educate the audience if his arguments were new or make sense in any way but they don't. @dad is so useless that he doesn't even make a bad example. His only goal is to stay "undefeated".
Don't feed the trolls!
 

dad

Undefeated
There is absolutely no evidence that the processes of nature have changed over time. Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy big time.. .
There is absolutely no evidence that the processes of nature have never changed over time. Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy big time.
 

dad

Undefeated
How do you know that? Were you there?
We know because there are remains.

How do you know that? Were you there to see those plants and animals live, die, the process of being preserve?
That is the question for science. The way I know things is not by science when it comes to the things science doesn't know!


How do you know that? Were you there playing baby games with Adam?
The fossils in question were from early in the record of life on earth. Adam was early in the record of life on earth. Connect the dots.

You mean like using the animals from The Lion King, and say that Adam was playing around with Simba?
No. I mean the same kinds of animals recorded in the future in the bible. For example wolves and lions lying with lambs, etc.
 

dad

Undefeated
. . . and you won the Battle of Waterloo.
Your posts speak for themselves. You failed to support the same nature in the past you espouse. Miserably. Repeatedly. Predictably. Totally. Yet you feel you have some divine right to ask us to believe in it blindly.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/world/first-animal-doesnt-breathe-oxygen-scn-trnd/index.html

Scientists discovered the first animal that doesn't need oxygen to live. It's changing the definition of what an animal can be

By Scottie Andrew, CNN



Updated 8:24 AM ET, Wed February 26, 2020


200225150545-first-animal-doesnt-breathe-trnd-exlarge-169.jpg


These are the spores of a game-changing parasite called Henneguya salminicola. It's the first animal found that doesn't breathe oxygen.
(CNN)You'd think all animals would need oxygen to live, right? Wrong.

Researchers just discovered a unique organism that doesn't need to breathe. Instead, the tiny parasite lives in salmon tissue and evolved so that it doesn't need oxygen to produce energy.
It's a brilliant simplification that proves, sometimes, less is more, said Stephen Atkinson, senior research associate at Oregon State University's Department of Microbiology.


A 550-million-year-old worm was one of the first animals to move and make decisions, a new study says

Atkinson co-authored a paper on the groundbreaking, less than 10-celled Henneguya salminicola that appeared in the journal PNAS this week.


"When we think of 'animals,' we picture multicellular creatures that need oxygen to survive, unlike many single-celled organisms including protists and bacteria," he told CNN. "In our work, we have shown that there is at least one multicellular animal that does not have the genetic toolkit to use oxygen."
privacy policy.
The H. salminicola is a myxozoan cnidarian, a type of animal related to jellyfish and coral. It lives inside salmon and "steals ready-made nutrients" from it, Atkinson said, instead of consuming oxygen directly.
The team's findings, he said, expand the definition of what an "animal" can be. It's pretty epic stuff for such a diminutive creature.
The parasite lives in low-oxygen environments, so it doesn't breathe
The organism forms small white cysts in the muscle of salmon. It probably doesn't harm the fish and can't infect humans, the researchers said.


A 300-million-year-old lizard might be the earliest animal to care for its offspring, a new study says

But the environment inside its fish host is largely devoid of oxygen, so for the parasite to survive, it "breathes" without oxygen at all. It's adapted by dropping its mitochondria genome entirely. Mitochondria convert food into energy in most organisms.

"By losing the genome, the parasite is saving energy by not having to copy genes for things it no longer needs," Atkinson said.

An animal this gobsmacking naturally presents more questions than it does answers. The researchers don't know for certain what the parasite relies on instead of oxygen, but Atkinson said he assumes it absorbs molecules from its host that have already produced energy.

Atkinson and his team don't think this species is the last oxygen-free animal, either. He said he expects to discover many more species that can survive without oxygen -- and probably "even weirder modes of existence."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
[cite+Paleontologists Find One-Billion-Year-Old Green Seaweed Fossils | Paleontology | Sci-News.com]
Paleontologists Find One-Billion-Year-Old Green Seaweed Fossils
Feb 25, 2020 by News Staff / Source

Paleontologists have discovered the microscopic fossilized remains of green seaweed near Dalian in the Liaoning province of northern China. The microfossils are approximately one billion years old. They represent a previously unknown species of green seaweed, named Proterocladus antiquus, and are barely visible to the naked eyed at 2 mm in length, or roughly the size of a typical flea.


Proterocladus antiquus. Image credit: Virginia Tech.

“These new fossils suggest that green seaweeds were important players in the ocean long before their land-plant descendants moved and took control of dry land,” said senior author Professor Shuhai Xiao, a researcher in the Department of Geosciences and Global Change Center at Virginia Tech.

“The entire biosphere is largely dependent on plants and algae for food and oxygen, yet land plants did not evolve until about 450 million years ago.”

“Our study shows that green seaweeds evolved no later than one billion years ago, pushing back the record of green seaweeds by about 200 million years. What kind of seaweeds supplied food to the marine ecosystem.”

The current hypothesis is that land plants — the trees, grasses, food crops, bushes, even kudzu — evolved from green seaweeds, which were aquatic plants. Through geological time they moved out of the water and became adapted to and prospered on dry land, their new natural environment.

“These fossils are related to the ancestors of all the modern land plants we see today,” Professor Xiao said.

“However, the caveat that not all geobiologists are on the same page — that debate on the origins of green plants remains.”

“Not everyone agrees with us; some scientists think that green plants started in rivers and lakes, and then conquered the ocean and land later.”


In the background of this digital recreation, ancient green seaweed Proterocladus antiquus is seen living in the ocean one billion years ago. In the foreground is the same seaweed in the process of being fossilized far later. Image credit: Dinghua Yang.

There are three main types of seaweed: brown (Phaeophyceae), green (Chlorophyta), and red (Rhodophyta), and thousands of species of each kind.

Fossils of red seaweed, which are now common on ocean floors, have been dated as far back as 1.047 billion years old.

“There are some modern green seaweeds that look very similar to the fossils that we found,” Professor Xiao said.

“A group of modern green seaweeds, known as siphonocladaleans, are particularly similar in shape and size to the fossils we found.”

Photosynthetic plants are, of course, vital to the ecological balance of the planet because they produce organic carbon and oxygen through photosynthesis, and they provide food and the basis of shelter for untold numbers of mammals, fish, and more.

“Yet, going back 2 billion years, Earth had no green plants at all in oceans,” Professor Xiao said.

Proterocladus antiquus seaweeds display multiple branches, upright growths, and specialized cells known as akinetes that are very common in this type of fossil,” said lead author Dr. Qing Tang, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Geosciences and Global Change Center at Virginia Tech.

“Taken together, these features strongly suggest that the fossil is a green seaweed with complex multicellularity that is circa one billion years old. These likely represent the earliest fossil of green seaweeds. In short, our study tells us that the ubiquitous green plants we see today can be traced back to at least one billion years.”

The discovery is described in a paper in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution."
 
Last edited:

dad

Undefeated
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/world/first-animal-doesnt-breathe-oxygen-scn-trnd/index.html

Scientists discovered the first animal that doesn't need oxygen to live. It's changing the definition of what an animal can be

By Scottie Andrew, CNN



Updated 8:24 AM ET, Wed February 26, 2020


200225150545-first-animal-doesnt-breathe-trnd-exlarge-169.jpg


These are the spores of a game-changing parasite called Henneguya salminicola. It's the first animal found that doesn't breathe oxygen.
(CNN)You'd think all animals would need oxygen to live, right? Wrong.

Researchers just discovered a unique organism that doesn't need to breathe. Instead, the tiny parasite lives in salmon tissue and evolved so that it doesn't need oxygen to produce energy.
It's a brilliant simplification that proves, sometimes, less is more, said Stephen Atkinson, senior research associate at Oregon State University's Department of Microbiology.


A 550-million-year-old worm was one of the first animals to move and make decisions, a new study says

Atkinson co-authored a paper on the groundbreaking, less than 10-celled Henneguya salminicola that appeared in the journal PNAS this week.


"When we think of 'animals,' we picture multicellular creatures that need oxygen to survive, unlike many single-celled organisms including protists and bacteria," he told CNN. "In our work, we have shown that there is at least one multicellular animal that does not have the genetic toolkit to use oxygen."
privacy policy.
The H. salminicola is a myxozoan cnidarian, a type of animal related to jellyfish and coral. It lives inside salmon and "steals ready-made nutrients" from it, Atkinson said, instead of consuming oxygen directly.
The team's findings, he said, expand the definition of what an "animal" can be. It's pretty epic stuff for such a diminutive creature.
The parasite lives in low-oxygen environments, so it doesn't breathe
The organism forms small white cysts in the muscle of salmon. It probably doesn't harm the fish and can't infect humans, the researchers said.


A 300-million-year-old lizard might be the earliest animal to care for its offspring, a new study says

But the environment inside its fish host is largely devoid of oxygen, so for the parasite to survive, it "breathes" without oxygen at all. It's adapted by dropping its mitochondria genome entirely. Mitochondria convert food into energy in most organisms.

"By losing the genome, the parasite is saving energy by not having to copy genes for things it no longer needs," Atkinson said.

An animal this gobsmacking naturally presents more questions than it does answers. The researchers don't know for certain what the parasite relies on instead of oxygen, but Atkinson said he assumes it absorbs molecules from its host that have already produced energy.

Atkinson and his team don't think this species is the last oxygen-free animal, either. He said he expects to discover many more species that can survive without oxygen -- and probably "even weirder modes of existence."
So the question arises, did this critter get created this way, or is this a result of some adapting in the former nature. In either case, creation is wonderful. (why did you think it was a relative! Ha)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So the question arises, did this critter get created this way, or is this a result of some adapting in the former nature. In either case, creation is wonderful. (why did you think it was a relative! Ha)

It is possible that this creature was Created by God this way, but the evidence is clear and specific IF God Created this creature God Created 'this way' it was through evolution.
 

dad

Undefeated
It is possible that this creature was Created by God this way, but the evidence is clear and specific IF God Created this creature God Created 'this way' it was through evolution.
Is it though? Why can we rule out that God created some creatures that did not need air? Why?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Is it though? Why can we rule out that God created some creatures that did not need air? Why?

Scientist do not rule this out. It is possible for God to Create to some creatures that did not need oxygen through evolution based on the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Top