Old Fish Makes New Splash: Coelacanth Find Rewrites History of the Ancient Fish (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502133110.htm)
QuoteScienceDaily (May 2, 2012) — Coelacanths, an ancient group of fishes that were once thought to exist only in fossils, made headlines in 1938 when one of their modern relatives was pulled alive from the ocean. Now coelacanths are making another splash -- and University of Alberta researchers are responsible for the discovery.
Lead U of A researcher Andrew Wendruff identified coelacanth fossils that he says are so dramatically different from previous finds, they shatter the theory that coelacanth evolution was stagnant in that their body shape and lifestyle changed little since the origin of the group.
Wendruff says his one-metre-long, fork-tailed coelacanth was one of an "offshoot" lineage that lived 240 million years ago. It falls between the earliest coelacanth fossils dating back 410 million years and the latest fossils dated about 75 million years ago, near the end of the age of dinosaurs.
"Our coelacanth had a forked tail, indicating it was a fast-moving, aggressive predator, which is very different from the shape and movement of all other coelacanths in the fossil record," said Wendruff...
An interesting example of dead end evolution!
It might be a good idea to take another look at other "living fossils". I suspect that we will find that natural selection has been mere active than has been previously believed.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on May 20, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
It might be a good idea to take another look at other "living fossils". I suspect that we will find that natural selection has been mere active than has been previously believed.
This is true as we have found more agents of variation over the years eg evo devo that selection pressures can 'work' on.
So is this an example of "atheist evolution", or since the coelacanths are so ancient would it fall into the "Old-Earth Creationist" camp. This GOD guy must be really extra super omnipotent to be able to come up with such an elborate evolution mythos just to prove what silly little people we are. Go GOD!.
Which God in Theistic Evolution?
We could set the various forms of theistic evolution on a continuum. If we put atheistic evolution on one end, the next would be some form of non-Christian theistic evolution. Then we come to a very minimal kind of Christian theistic evolution (God is no more than a distant First Cause who started it all). People in this group are quite liberal in their theology as well. Then we come to Christians who hold on to a relatively orthodox view of the Bible and theistic evolution.
If we were to continue, the next group would be the old-Earth creationists, or progressive creationists, who believe God created the major kinds of living organisms, but that He did it over millions of years. Finally, separate from those above, are the young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the world in six literal days and that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n1/god-and-evolution
I think you mean "theistic evolution"?
Well TE comes in as many interpretations as there are people who believe in TE. It's a variation of the 'God of the gaps' world view where anything that can't be explained boils down to Goddidit! TE is a catch all for people who can't rationalise creationist and evolutionist world views.
No, it was atheist evolution. The blog I looked at was making the point that there are many different flavors or Theistic Evolution thought and had tried to present a continum of the thought process with athiest evolotion at one end and young earth creationists at the other. All seems like as much bunk to me. Science is science and religion is.......weil I"m not sure.
Quote from: technolud on May 20, 2012, 12:43:21 PM
No, it was atheist evolution. The blog I looked at was making the point that there are many different flavors or Theistic Evolution thought and had tried to present a continum of the thought process with athiest evolotion at one end and young earth creationists at the other. All seems like as much bunk to me. Science is science and religion is.......weil I"m not sure.
My bad. I had never heard the term
atheistic evolution, it's in the same vain as atheistic gravity!!! :D
Quote from: Tank on May 20, 2012, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: technolud on May 20, 2012, 12:43:21 PM
No, it was atheist evolution. The blog I looked at was making the point that there are many different flavors or Theistic Evolution thought and had tried to present a continum of the thought process with athiest evolotion at one end and young earth creationists at the other. All seems like as much bunk to me. Science is science and religion is.......weil I"m not sure.
My bad. I had never heard the term atheistic evolution, it's in the same vain as atheistic gravity!!! :D
Well yes particularly when you add the athiestic splat at the far end.
QuoteMy bad. I had never heard the term atheistic evolution, it's in the same vain as atheistic gravity!!!
Interesting point. What else should they be teaching in the science class? The theory or intelligent arithmatic? The biblical spelling primer?