New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[james bond]

The old fish to humans story got some new legs today (get it? new legs ha ha). Maybe a pictogram will help.

The evolution scientists gave us this apes-to-human story because people couldn't absorb the "truth" all at once. It's considered by blacks to be racist, for one. I do not see transitional fossils for another. It must be the evolutionists sixth sense. The see the evolution dead everywhere.

Today, the evolution scientists must think we can be fed the whole "truth" now. They're telling us the "fish" story now. This appears in Nature, so it must really be serious.

"Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'

Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.

They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".

The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.

Details of the discovery from central China appear in Nature journal.

The research team says that Saccorhytus is the most primitive example of a category of animals called "deuterostomes" which are common ancestors of a broad range of species, including vertebrates (backboned animals).

Saccorhytus was about a millimetre in size, and is thought to have lived between grains of sand on the sea bed.

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor' - BBC News

 

[Sunstone]

So what was the most recent evolutionary biology book you read, and what did you think of it?

 

[Jose Fly]

I do not see transitional fossils for another.

Really? Where have you looked?

 

[Revoltingest]

. The see the evolution dead everywhere.

It's hard to disagree with that statement.

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor' - BBC News

From the linked article.....

The researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus, which suggests that it consumed food and excreted from the same orifice.

This appears to be the first evidence of a lawyer.

 

[Deidre]

So, is this article suggesting that this theory trumps Darwin's theory of evolution, or can this theory co-exist with it?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Really? Where have you looked?

What you see as a transitional fossil others see as an ordinary fossil - not transitional at all, just another fossil.

Until you can prove that a fossil is a transitional form instead of just supposing it is, we will not take you seriously.

 

[sayak83]

The old fish to humans story got some new legs today (get it? new legs ha ha). Maybe a pictogram will help.

The evolution scientists gave us this apes-to-human story because people couldn't absorb the "truth" all at once. It's considered by blacks to be racist, for one. I do not see transitional fossils for another. It must be the evolutionists sixth sense. The see the evolution dead everywhere.

Today, the evolution scientists must think we can be fed the whole "truth" now. They're telling us the "fish" story now. This appears in Nature, so it must really be serious.

"Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'

Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.

They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".

The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.

Details of the discovery from central China appear in Nature journal.

The research team says that Saccorhytus is the most primitive example of a category of animals called "deuterostomes" which are common ancestors of a broad range of species, including vertebrates (backboned animals).

Saccorhytus was about a millimetre in size, and is thought to have lived between grains of sand on the sea bed.

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor' - BBC News

That all land animals (including humans) evolved from fish is not news. Its wells known for at least 60-70 years.

 

[Sunstone]

So, is this article suggesting that this theory trumps Darwin's theory of evolution, or can this theory co-exist with it?

It coexists, Deidre. It's a refinement of evolutionary theory. Just one more drop in the ocean of evidence for it.

 

[Deidre]

What you see as a transitional fossil others see as an ordinary fossil - not transitional at all, just another fossil.

Until you can prove that a fossil is a transitional form instead of just supposing it is, we will not take you seriously.

The theory of evolution is ''just'' a theory, but there's pretty solid evidence to support it. Unless one is a Christian who believes that the Bible's account of the origin of man is literal, then...it doesn't oppose one's faith to support Darwin's theory. Or at least until there is substantial evidence to refute it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

The theory That all land animals (including humans) evolved from fish is not news. The theory has been well known for at least 60-70 years.

FIFY

 

[Deidre]

It coexists, Deidre. It's a refinement of evolutionary theory. Just one more drop in the ocean of evidence for it.

Ahhhh...I see. Okay, now that is fascinating!

 

[Reggie Miller]

The theory of evolution is ''just'' a theory, but there's pretty solid evidence to support it. Unless one is a Christian who believes that the Bible's account of the origin of man is literal, then...it doesn't oppose one's faith to support Darwin's theory. Or at least until there is substantial evidence to refute it.

Check this out. The evidence can be viewed differently.

www.icr.org

 

[Sunstone]

What you see as a transitional fossil others see as an ordinary fossil - not transitional at all, just another fossil.

Until you can prove that a fossil is a transitional form instead of just supposing it is, we will not take you seriously.

Seriously, Reggie, which three books on evolution have most influenced your views on the subject?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Seriously, Reggie, which three books on evolution have most influenced your views on the subject?

There are a lot more than just three.

Micro-evolution has been observed as small changes among like kinds. Macro-evolution, i.e. one life form changing into a completely different one has never been observed. There is no concrete proof for it at all.

 

[Sunstone]

There are a lot more than just three.

Titles? I'm curious.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Titles? I'm curious.

books on evolution - Google Search

I'm no scientist and I have no PhD if that is where you're headed.

 

[Jose Fly]

What you see as a transitional fossil others see as an ordinary fossil - not transitional at all, just another fossil.

Until you can prove that a fossil is a transitional form instead of just supposing it is, we will not take you seriously.

Of course. You've already made it abundantly clear that you hold the idea of "transitional fossils" to a standard that is impossible to meet. That way you never have to actually deal with any real specimens or any other data. Just declare "They can't absolutely prove every aspect of this organism's history, therefore it is not a transitional" and pat yourself on the back for avoiding that whole critical thinking thing.

 

[Sunstone]

books on evolution - Google Search

I'm no scientist and I have no PhD if that is where you're headed.

You need not be a scientist to have read a worthwhile book or two -- or several -- on evolution. I'm just curious if you've much grounding in "the other side of the story" from your own. It seems to me that people who deny evolutionary theory usually haven't studied it much except for what some of its detractors say about it. If so, that's their choice. I don't believe it's a wise choice, but I also do not flatter myself that my opinion of its wisdom carries any weight with them.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, is this article suggesting that this theory trumps Darwin's theory of evolution, or can this theory co-exist with it?

It's not a new theory or hypothesis. It's a new fossil discovery that sheds light on the evolutionary past, and is entirely consistent with existing theory.

EDIT: I see that Sunstone already answered....so disregard.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You need not be a scientist to have read a worthwhile book or two -- or several -- on evolution. I'm just curious if you've much grounding in "the other side of the story" from your own. It seems to me that people who deny evolutionary theory usually haven't studied it much except for what some of its detractors say about it. If so, that's their choice. I don't believe it's a wise choice, but I also do not flatter myself that my opinion of its wisdom carries any weight with them.

To me the whole idea of macro-evolution isn't feasible, practical, viable or even plausible.