|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2009 : 03:35:55
|
And it's a doozy! | Megapiranha paranensis, a New Genus and Species of Serrasalmidae (Characiformes, Teleostei) from the Upper Miocene of Argentina |
This fish is estimated to have been something like 3 feet long, but that's not the best part; it's teeth show a possible transition between the closely related, vegetarian pacu and modern piranhas.
Fossil jaw showing staggered tooth arrangement
Artist's conception - Yikes!
Of course, the Institute for Creation (snicker) Research ain't havin' none of that!
Newly published research claims that a fossilized giant piranha, Megapiranha paranensis, supposedly bridges the “evolutionary gap between flesh-eating piranhas and their plant-eating cousins.”1
Those cousins, called pacus, are common aquarium fish. They look just like piranhas, but pacus have two rows of square-shaped teeth, whereas piranhas have a single row of triangular-shaped teeth. Piranhas nip bits of fins for food in the wild, and pacus eat seeds that fall into the water.
The fossilized jawbone in question has something in between, with certain teeth alternating in a zig-zag row. John Lundberg, curator at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and a co-author of the study published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, stated in a National Evolutionary Synthesis Center press release, “It almost looks like the teeth are migrating from the second row into the first row.”1 However, there are important oversights in the evolutionary-based reports of this new research.
|
And, naturally, the usual: | Second, the “transitional” status afforded Megapiranha based on its tooth structure is a poor fit with a slow and gradual evolutionary process. This is partly due to its size. To claim that piranha ancestors evolved two rows of teeth, then evolved into creatures “four times the size of modern piranhas”1 with one row of teeth, then evolved smaller again is a “just so” story based on the presumption of macroevolution, not evidence. |
All with never having seen the fossil. Apologetics are amazing!
Anyhow, it is an interesting find and piranha fanciers world wide, including myself, are waiting eagerly for more fossils.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 17:09:26 [Permalink]
|
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.  |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 17:25:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.
|
Oh dear... |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 17:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Originally posted by Tipok
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.
|
Oh dear...
|
Oh dear is right. Interestingly, and not getting in to how unlikely it is for any animal to be fossilized, no intermediate should exist if evolution doesn't happen. As it is, we do have thousands of them...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 18:15:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.
|
Uh, talk about horrible logic! What an ignorant thing to say.
It only takes one intermediate fossil (and countless thousands have been found!), to solidly show that evolution is a fact. Not fossils of every creature that ever lived.
Creationists need only come up with one single, genuine out-of-place fossil, such as a Devonian Bunny, and evolution would be falsified.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 18:28:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by The Rat
Originally posted by Tipok
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.
|
Oh dear...
|
Oh dear is right. Interestingly, and not getting in to how unlikely it is for any animal to be fossilized, no intermediate should exist if evolution doesn't happen. As it is, we do have thousands of them...
|
If you want to get into how unlikely things are then I'd have to say this:
It is much more unlikely for an organism to get a beneficial mutation (not just one that adds variety) that doesn't initially weaken before it can get another extremely unlikely mutation over and over again to form a functioning organ even over billions of years than for plenty of missing intermediates between evolving species not to be fossilized over millions of years. |
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 18:32:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
So... what? You find one intermediate and expect that to be fantastic evidence for evolution when there should be thousands more fossils of intermediates. There's no way for so many fossils of intermediates to be missing if those intermediates would have to have existed for millions of years for them to (supposedly) evolve into other organisms as evolution states. It's horrible logic.
|
Uh, talk about horrible logic! What an ignorant thing to say.
It only takes one intermediate fossil (and countless thousands have been found!), to solidly show that evolution is a fact. Not fossils of every creature that ever lived.
Creationists need only come up with one single, genuine out-of-place fossil, such as a Devonian Bunny, and evolution would be falsified.
|
That again is faulty logic.
Evolution would not be true without intermediates being as common (if not more common) as seperate species. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:15:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
That again is faulty logic.
Evolution would not be true without intermediates being as common (if not more common) as seperate species. |
Intermediate fossils are what's rare, as are all fossils. Most individuals simply die and disappear from rot, being eaten, or by erosion. Practically everyone knows how rare it is to become a fossil. (You really were aware of your distortion, though, weren't you?) 
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:24:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
That again is faulty logic.
Evolution would not be true without intermediates being as common (if not more common) as seperate species. |
Intermediate fossils are what's rare, as are all fossils. Most individuals simply die and disappear from rot, being eaten, or by erosion. Practically everyone knows how rare it is to become a fossil. (You really were aware of your distortion, though, weren't you?)
|
"Practically everyone" knows how rare it is for a mutation to be beneficial (much more rare that an organism becoming a fossil).
Intermediate fossils would not have been rare if there were more of them living. It's illogical to think that separate species, when there's fewer of them, would leave behind more fossils than the much more common intermediates which is what exists in the fossil record. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:36:50 [Permalink]
|
And how am I to be sure none of those are ideas like Ramapithecus, Nebraska Man, or Java Man (except not just for between apes and humans) where some sad little evolutionist makes false assumptions or manipulates the evidence to fool everyone else into thinking that evolution is fact. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:39:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Tipok
That again is faulty logic.
Evolution would not be true without intermediates being as common (if not more common) as seperate species. |
Intermediate fossils are what's rare, as are all fossils. Most individuals simply die and disappear from rot, being eaten, or by erosion. Practically everyone knows how rare it is to become a fossil. (You really were aware of your distortion, though, weren't you?)
|
"Practically everyone" knows how rare it is for a mutation to be beneficial (much more rare that an organism becoming a fossil).
Intermediate fossils would not have been rare if there were more of them living. It's illogical to think that separate species, when there's fewer of them, would leave behind more fossils than the much more common intermediates which is what exists in the fossil record.
|
I won't bite on your attempt to switch the subject.
Simple question (that I bet you won't try to answer): How do you account for there being any transitional fossils?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Tipok
New Member
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 19:52:29 [Permalink]
|
I won't bite on your attempt to switch the subject.
Simple question (that I bet you won't try to answer): How do you account for there being any transitional fossils?
|
Oh no, it wasn't an attempt to change the subject, I was simply stating how rare it is for a mutation to be beneficial, much less multiple in a row to create a fuctioning organ. Unfortunately, it's your nature as an evolutionist to try and insult a creationist in any way you can. I don't even know what I'm doing here in this forum; the fact that this sub-forum is called "Creation/Evolution" I thought would mean that there would be people on both sides. Instead, I'm just being triple-teamed.
You still haven't explained to me how there are more separate species fossils than there are intermediate fossils and I'd appreciate it if you did.
Many of those transitional fossils could have been separate species themselves that became extinct later on. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 20:16:32 [Permalink]
|
Species are presumed to last quite long times with little change. Recognizably transitional forms are, duh, transitional (swiftly changing, probably due to environmental pressures), and thus it would be expected that there would be fewer of them than fossils of the relatively stable species. And thus, they would leave us even fewer transitional fossils than non-transitional ones. And that's what we find.
I thought you would not attempt to answer my question about how you explain the clear fact that transitional fossils exist. (It only takes one.) Now, unless you do, you prove yourself a mere Creationist troll, yet another that we've dealt with here.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 20:38:05 [Permalink]
|
It is rare.
But then, every organisms carry in average two new such mutations. Multiply that by the numbers of individual in any sustaining populations and you can see that every single gene is mutated many times over a single generation.
You still haven't explained to me how there are more separate species fossils than there are intermediate fossils and I'd appreciate it if you did. |
That's a bit of a silly question.
Intermediate fossils are representative of their (transitional) specie, so every transitional fossil also count as a specie fossil.
On the other hand, most species are transitional themselves as the only for a species not to be transitional is to go extinct.
*Ps, I do agree that the sub-forum's title is a bit of a misnomer, it implies an equivalence between the two positions and the existence of a on-going debate. That is simply not the case, the debate was settle decades ago. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2009 : 21:09:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tipok
And how am I to be sure none of those are ideas like Ramapithecus, Nebraska Man, or Java Man (except not just for between apes and humans) where some sad little evolutionist makes false assumptions or manipulates the evidence to fool everyone else into thinking that evolution is fact.
|
Ramapithecus is not considered to be a direct human ancestor anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. Java Man really is an example of Homo Erectus, but is also not a direct ancestor because current theory, which is heavily supported by molecular biology as well as the fossil record and several other scientific disciplines holds that we came out of Africa.
The work to figure out where these animals belong was all done by scientists, and yet creationists love to point to them as though they had something to do with any corrections that were made. Thing is, creationists don't do science. So those lying cheating scientists must have outed themselves, according to your logic. In any case, neither of those animals holds up as an argument against evolution. Hell, if evolution doesn't happen, neither of those animals should have ever existed.
Nebraska Man was never taken seriously by the scientific community, but for some reason, it's a favorite of the creationists.
Got any more?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intermediate piranha fossil found.
