New species

[Will E Worm]

Ten new amphibian species discovered in Colombia.

Ten new species of amphibians -- including three kinds of poisonous frogs and three transparent-skinned glass frogs -- have been discovered in the mountains of Colombia, conservationists said Monday.

With amphibians under threat around the globe, the discovery was an encouraging sign and reason to protect the area where they were found, said Robin Moore, an amphibian expert at the environmental group Conservation International.

The nine frog species and one salamander species were found in the mountainous Tacarcuna area of the Darien region near Colombia's border with Panama.

Article

Pink Iguana Species Discovered.
The pink iguana, named after its salmon-colored skin, lives only on the Wolf volcano on the island of Isabela.

Article

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

“ If there are no transitional forms found in the fossil record then my theory is false” – Charles Darwin

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)

“There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved”
- A. J. Marshall (PHD Anthropology Harvard University)

 

[Embryoyo]

Wow, that's pretty cool.

The team's genetic analyses, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the animal split off from other iguanas about five million years ago—the most ancient divergence of iguanas ever found.

I found that most interesting of the two articles.

 

[calpoon]

I'm not sure what you are implying by those Darwin quotes.

Keep in mind that Darwin completely revolutionized the field of biology, but at that time genetics was totally unknown. No one had any insight into the way that organisms develop and function on a cellular level, which is vastly different than the way that they function on a social level, which was primarily Darwin's source of observation. More and more we are breaking away from Darwin and discovering new facts that contradict his theories... but to interpret that as thinking that Darwin's research and especially the idea of species evolution is false is to miss the point of how information develops.

Information is a building process. To take examples from the field of physics (which I know more about than biology, admittedly) we have Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and then look at someone like Steven Hawking, who has contradicted the evidence of all of them (as each in turn did to the others that preceded him). So maybe if you feel yourself in a position of historical supremacy could say that those ancient greeks and medieval scholars were hacks with bad science, but no one would say that about Albert Einstein. So why say it about Charles Darwin?

Scientist will always be proven wrong, and they should be. That means we are doing it right. That's what learning and acquiring new information means. And anyone who claims to have all the answers is just being ignorant of the real history. So to that degree I encourage by all means scientific skepticism.

But here's my problem, and let's not beat about the bush here, I draw the line when it comes to people that use that skepticism to further there own ignorant short-sightedness. When people tell you that Darwin is wrong because he doesn't have the answers, I bet most of them will be all too wiling to tell you just how right they are and ignore the fact that they probably have even less answers than he does. That kind of thinking doesn't get us anywhere, it's not productive.

To paraphrase a quote by scientist and linguist Robert Anton Wilson:

"It generally takes a millennium to reverse religious ideas, it takes centuries to reverse political ideas, and it takes generations to reverse scientific ideas. So that means that religious people might never change their minds. For political people they stay in power until enough people disagree with them and then they are overthrown. For scientists it takes until the next generation when people will again start asking questions and not believing everything that they are told."

 

[YMIHERE]

Little Wille brings up his anti-evolution ideas every week. Evolution only explains the diversity of species thought natural selection. If a new species arises then Darwin's ideas are strengthen. Your ideas have no room for new species. You have not answered my post from last week that documents new species.


http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=2888563&postcount=34

 

[DaveL81]

Article



Article

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

“ If there are no transitional forms found in the fossil record then my theory is false” – Charles Darwin

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)

“There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved”
- A. J. Marshall (PHD Anthropology Harvard University)

Double awesome! :thumbsup:

 

[Will E Worm]

Little Wille brings up his anti-evolution ideas every week.

Not every week.

Double awesome! :thumbsup:

Thanks :hatsoff:

I only brought the quotes up, because there was a reference to Darwin in the article.

 

[D-rock]

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)

That statement has a problem. Just looking at fossils it's not always easy to form a perfect pattern of where things formed from. We have learned it's a lot more complicated than that. There is also the fact that there are probably a lot of species that have existed that we have never found yet. That doesn't mean they were never out there. There were some people that thought we should have found Bigfoot by now. Just because we never found that missing link or he might not have ever existed doesn't mean we didn't evolve from simpler primates for example.

 

[BlueBalls]

I'm not sure what you are implying by those Darwin quotes.

Keep in mind that Darwin completely revolutionized the field of biology, but at that time genetics was totally unknown. No one had any insight into the way that organisms develop and function on a cellular level, which is vastly different than the way that they function on a social level, which was primarily Darwin's source of observation. More and more we are breaking away from Darwin and discovering new facts that contradict his theories... but to interpret that as thinking that Darwin's research and especially the idea of species evolution is false is to miss the point of how information develops.

Information is a building process. To take examples from the field of physics (which I know more about than biology, admittedly) we have Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and then look at someone like Steven Hawking, who has contradicted the evidence of all of them (as each in turn did to the others that preceded him). So maybe if you feel yourself in a position of historical supremacy could say that those ancient greeks and medieval scholars were hacks with bad science, but no one would say that about Albert Einstein. So why say it about Charles Darwin?

Scientist will always be proven wrong, and they should be. That means we are doing it right. That's what learning and acquiring new information means. And anyone who claims to have all the answers is just being ignorant of the real history. So to that degree I encourage by all means scientific skepticism.

But here's my problem, and let's not beat about the bush here, I draw the line when it comes to people that use that skepticism to further there own ignorant short-sightedness. When people tell you that Darwin is wrong because he doesn't have the answers, I bet most of them will be all too wiling to tell you just how right they are and ignore the fact that they probably have even less answers than he does. That kind of thinking doesn't get us anywhere, it's not productive.

To paraphrase a quote by scientist and linguist Robert Anton Wilson:

"It generally takes a millennium to reverse religious ideas, it takes centuries to reverse political ideas, and it takes generations to reverse scientific ideas. So that means that religious people might never change their minds. For political people they stay in power until enough people disagree with them and then they are overthrown. For scientists it takes until the next generation when people will again start asking questions and not believing everything that they are told."

If I could rep you I would, excellent post. :hatsoff:

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Double awesome! :thumbsup:

Only in the nati.

I am entitled to my own beliefs this is America. I decided that I don't believe in gravity. I havent seen enough evidence.

 

[Will E Worm]

Only in the nati.

I am entitled to my own beliefs this is America. I decided that I don't believe in gravity. I havent seen enough evidence.

Also, in many other places. So, let's not single out Cincy. :nono:

Charles Darwin assumed that transitional forms would be discovered in the future but they do not exist. An example of a transitional form would be the discovery of a mermaid’s skeleton. Half human and half fish which shows a transitional stage or process. A common house cat and a Bengal tiger vary greatly in size but they are both members of the cat species. Scientists that try to use size variances as an example of a transitional form are only deceiving themselves by ignoring the obvious missing links.

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)

 

[calpoon]

You are right about that Will E. the evidence does shows that species have and do change, but those changes seem to be rapid and ubiquitous, which is kind of baffling to scientists and it goes against Darwin's notions of how evolution works (but not against evolution itself as a theory).

The example often cited is the formation of the wing. There is no adaptability purpose to a half-wing, it is in fact less special than to have none at all. So that means that the wing couldn't have evolved in transitory phases, because the species in the intermediate phases wouldn't have survived. Instead whatever the evolutionary catalyst was that triggered the genetic pattern of a wing formation, it went straight from no wing to winged, in fairly rapid time and all across the species line. That suggests a level of cellular awareness and communication that is still a mystery to biologist and could not have even been fathomed by Darwin.

But it seems fairly obvious if you look at the growth of societies, instead of just the individuals that make up the parts of those societies. nearly all major human technological advancements have came in "spurts" of epiphany and have developed among peoples at the same time, despite that these people seemingly had no connection to each other. In modern times it is happening much faster which suggests that evolution is an accelerating medium. In the animal kingdom you can look at the learning abilities of chimps to use tools, or special behavior of fish.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Also, in many other places. So, let's not single out Cincy. :nono:

Charles Darwin assumed that transitional forms would be discovered in the future but they do not exist. An example of a transitional form would be the discovery of a mermaid’s skeleton. Half human and half fish which shows a transitional stage or process. A common house cat and a Bengal tiger vary greatly in size but they are both members of the cat species. Scientists that try to use size variances as an example of a transitional form are only deceiving themselves by ignoring the obvious missing links.

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”
- Robert Carroll (Paleontologist and Professor of Zoology McGill University)

I singled out the nati, because metro nati is the home of the creationist museum that has people walking side by side w/dinosaurs.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Charles Darwin assumed that transitional forms would be discovered in the future but they do not exist. An example of a transitional form would be the discovery of a mermaid’s skeleton. Half human and half fish which shows a transitional stage or process. A common house cat and a Bengal tiger vary greatly in size but they are both members of the cat species. Scientists that try to use size variances as an example of a transitional form are only deceiving themselves by ignoring the obvious missing links.

Well except fot these.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And these.

List of transitional fossils
Nautiloids to Ammonoids
The Nautiloids → Ammonoids Evolutionary Series

Appearance
>500 Ma Subclass:
• Nautiloidea



390 Ma Order:
• Bactritida
• Member of the Nautiloids.
• Direct ancestor of the ammonoids.
370 Ma Subclass:
• Ammonoidea
• Direct descendants of Bactirida.


Invertebrates to Fish
The Invertebrates → Fish Evolutionary Series

Appearance
??? Ma Genus:
• Pikaia
Lancet like in appearance. Oldest known ancestor of modern vertebrates
Vertebrate characters
• Very primitive proto-notochord.



??? Ma Class:
• Conodont
Had fin rays, chevron-shaped muscles and a notochord.


??? Ma Genus:
• Haikouichthys



??? Ma Genus:
• Arandaspis



??? Ma Genus:
• Birkenia



Fish to Tetrapods
The Fish → Tetrapods Evolutionary Series

Appearance
??? Ma Genus:
• Osteolepis



385 Ma Genus:
• Eusthenopteron



380 Ma Genus:
• Panderichthys



375 Ma Genus:
• Tiktaalik



368 Ma Genus:
• Elginerpeton



368 Ma Genus:
• Obruchevichthys

365 Ma Genus:
• Acanthostega



365 Ma Genus:
• Ichthyostega



360 Ma Genus:
• Hynerpeton



??? Ma Genus:
• Tulerpeton



??? Ma Genus:
• Pederpes



295 Ma Genus:
• Eryops



Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
The Tetrapods → Reptiles Evolutionary Series

Appearance
??? Ma Genus:
• Proterogyrinus



??? Ma Genus:
• Limnoscelis



??? Ma Genus:
• Tseajaia



??? Ma Genus:
• Solenodonsaurus



315 Ma Genus:
• Hylonomus



??? Ma Genus:
• Paleothyris



Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
The Synapsids → Mammals Evolutionary Series

Appearance
??? Ma Genus:
• Protoclepsydrops

??? Ma Genus:
• Clepsydrops

265 Ma Genus:
• Dimetrodon



??? Ma Genus:
• Procynosuchus



248-245 Ma Genus:
• Thrinaxodon



205 Ma Genus:
• Morganucodon



125 Ma Genus:
• Yanoconodon



Dinosaurs to birds
The Dinosaurs → birds Evolutionary Series

Appearance
125 Ma Genus:
• Yixianosaurus

140-168 Ma Genus:
• Pedopenna



155–150 Ma Genus:
• Archaeopteryx



120 Ma Genus:
• Confuciusornis



93.5-75 Ma Genus:
• Ichthyornis



Evolution of whales
The whale Evolutionary Series

Appearance
Genus:
• Pakicetus



Genus:
• Ambulocetus



Genus:
• Kutchicetus



Genus:
• Artiocetus

Genus:
• Dorudon



Genus:
• Aetiocetus



Genus:
• Basilosaurus



Genus:
• Eurhinodelphis



Genus:
• Mammalodon

Evolution of the horse
The Hyracotherium → Equus Evolutionary Series

Appearance
Genus:
• Hyracotherium



Genus:
• Mesohippus



Genus:
• Parahippus



Genus:
• Merychippus



Genus:
• Pliohippus



Genus:
• Equus



Non-human apes to modern humans
The Human Evolutionary Series

Appearance
Species:
• Pierolapithecus catalaunicus

Genus:
• Ardipithecus

Genus:
• Australopithecus



Species:
• Homo rudolfensis



Species:
• Homo habilis



Species:
• Homo erectus

 

[BigHurt35]

Am I the only one who laughed at this?

January 5, 2009—A new species of Galápagos iguana has scientists tickled pink.

 

[Dream_Deceiver]

100 years ago some of these species maybe didn't even exist. :wave: