Scientists Wrong About Mesozoic Mammals...

[Digital_Savior]

WASHINGTON - The discovery of a furry, beaver-like animal that lived at the time of dinosaurs has overturned more than a century of scientific thinking about Jurassic mammals.

The find shows that the ecological role of mammals in the time of dinosaurs was far greater than previously thought, said Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

The animal is the earliest swimming mammal to have been found and was the most primitive mammal to be preserved with fur, which is important to helping keep a constant body temperature, Luo said in a telephone interview.

For over a century, the stereotype of mammals living in that era has been of tiny, shrew-like creatures scurrying about in the underbrush trying to avoid the giant creatures that dominated the planet, Luo commented.

Now, a research team that included Luo has found that 164 million years ago, the newly discovered mammal with a flat, scaly tail like a beaver, vertebra like an otter and teeth like a seal was swimming in lakes and eating fish.

The team, led by Qiang Ji of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing, discovered the remains in the Inner Mongolia region of China. They report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, called the find "a big deal."

An important factor is how specialized the creature was, said Carrano, who was not part of the research group.

"It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.

"This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries," commented Martin, who was not part of Luo's team.

It's the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, the researchers said.

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers.

The new animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

The researchers found imprints of the fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under fur that would have kept water from the skin.

Weighing in at between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds, about the size of a small female platypus, Castorocauda is also the largest known Jurassic early mammal.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Ministry of Land Resources, National Geographic Society and Carnegie Museum. Source

Another source

Scientific Source

__________________________________________________ _____



I wonder what excuses the evolution community will come up with for this one.

If a find like this poked a hole in the theory of Creation, we'd never hear the end of it.

This just further illustrates the point that science can't ever prove macro-evolution, which makes it even more preposterous that it is the only explanation taught in public schools regarding our existence.

This is a religion, people.

If they couldn't even entertain the thought of mammals of substantial size during this time period, what ELSE are they missing ?

I realize it's an ongoing effort, but the problem is, it's being taught in schools like it's a fact. Yes, it is called a "theory", but that is not how it's being portrayed to our children.

And there is NO mention of the fact that this might support young earth Creationist's. None.

Now all of you will go for my jugular, claiming that this isn't an error, it's merely information we didn't know. You'll also claim that this doesn't prove Creation, either.

You'd be right on both accounts. The problem I have with this is the arrogance and sheer disdain evolutionists have for anyone that doesn't agree with their "religion", yet they come up wrong, again and again.

The scientific curriculum of this nation needs a serious overhaul, and fast.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-27-2006).]

[Bandersnatch]

Digital_Savior

How might this story support young earth creationism?

[Digital_Savior]

Well, I picked another theory, and one which I happen to believe.

You could use any theory, but I just used that one as an example, especially in light of the fact that I posted the thread in the religion forum. LOL

[Rust]

1. If you think there is something here to excuse, then it's painfully obvious you know nothing of science.

Science is not omniscient or omnipotent or infallible. Nobody ever claimed that it was impossible for it to be otherwise. The possibility of it being otherwise, in fact, is a requirement for it to be science in the first place! Thus, there is absolutely nothing to "excuse". If anything, we should be exited that scientific research has provided new insight to mammals in the Mesozoic; that the scientific method has been vindicated.

2. It is not that they couldn't "entertain" the thought, it is that pretty much nothing pointed to that. Can a scientist entertain the thought of a magical flying pink dildo? Yes. Should he? No - that is, unless of course it's in an attempt fo falsifiy the belief that is held; in which case it would have failed until now because there was no concrete evidence that refuted the belief that was held until now. There is absolutely nothing that indicates a magical flying pink dildo exists. The same applies here. Until now, there was little to suggest that larger mammals lived during that period.

3. There is no mention that it might support young-earth creationism because it in no way, shape or form supports young earth creationism. If anything, it completely disproves young-earth creationism since it dates the finding to be much more older than what young-earth creationists believe the earth is.

4. The only "disdain" scientists might have is for people who are ignorant of what evolution is, yet freely spout their bullshit. For example, someone who claims that this somehow supports young-earth creationism.

To claim that scientists somehow have disdain for those attempting to refute current theories, is ridiculous. Science invites refutations of theories, since that is exactly how science works: theories are falsified. If the falsification fails, then the theory gains greater absentence. If the falsification works, then a better theory replaces it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. If you think there is something here to excuse, then it's painfully obvious you know nothing of science.

When the evolution community has stated that only tiny, shrew-like mammals existed during this period, yes there IS something to excuse.

quote:Science is not omniscient or omnipotent or infallible.

Didn't I say that this would be your excuse ?

Stop teaching it in our schools as if it were the only viable explanation, when it isn't even close to being complete.

quote:Nobody ever claimed that it was impossible for it to be otherwise.

It's the only theory taught in school. Indoctrination, whether direct or indirect, isn't right.

Neither is ommission.

quote:The possibility of it being otherwise, in fact, is a requirement for it to be science in the first place!

Then the same applies to all other theories, including ID and Creation.

quote:Thus, there is absolutely nothing to "excuse". If anything, we should be exited that scientific research has provided new insight to mammals in the Mesozoic; that the scientific method has been vindicated.

Except the evolution community has claimed that larger mammals didn't come onto the scene until much later.

They were wrong, and this proves it.

It's ok to be wrong, just don't blackball every other theory that doesn't agree with yours, just because you don't like it.

With shaky ground like this, it's a wonder how evolutionary theory has managed to permeate our schools as long as it has.

quote:2. It is not that they couldn't "entertain" the thought, it is that absolutely nothing pointed to that.

I guess you never bothered to read the scientific articles posted on www.icr.org - big surprise there.

Also, there are LOTS of books written on the subject of ID and Creation. Any book by Ken Hamm will do. They're cheap. I suggest you pick one up from Amazon.com.

There is plenty pointing to a young earth. Ignoring it doesn't eliminate it's existence.

They do not want to believe in God, so refusing to entertain the theory of Creation by claiming that there is "ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE" for it is expected.

quote:Can a scientist entertain the thought of a magical flying pink dildo? Yes. Should he? No.

If there was proof, sure.

Creation has proof. Just as much, if not more, than evolution.

quote:There is absolutely nothing that indicated a magical flying pink dildo exists. The same applies here. Until now, there was little to suggest that larger, mammals lived during that period.

And therein lies the logical fallacy of the theory of Evolution.

Not having evidence for something means it doesn't exist !

And you don't have a problem with that, do you ?!

quote:3. There is no mention that it might support young-earth creationism because it in no way, shape or form supports young earth creationism.

I could argue that this proves it didn't take as long for mammals to come on to the scene (and that they were there all along), which could indicate less than millions of years of evolution was required for their development.

This would shatter the dating methods the evolution community currently relies on (strata layers).

quote:If anything, it completely disproves young-earth creationism since it is much more older than what young-earth creationists believe the earth is.

See above.

quote:4. The only "disdain" scientists might have is for people who are ignorant of what evolution is, yet freely spout their bullshit. For example, someone who claims that this somehow supports young-earth creationism.

I didn't say it supported young earth creationism. Read it again.

[Beta69]

1) Why is this in religion?

2) Why do you accept this scientific claim as valid while you throw out the majority of biology and geology?

3) What does "far greater than thought" and "'It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs' but were having their own evolution. "

Have anything to do with the evolution community coming up with an excuse? Why do you think they need an excuse?

What arrogance of the scientific community (how many real scientific papers have you even read?) I guess to creationists the constant admitance that we don't know everything is arogance.

Is it possible you read too much into this and jumped the gun?

[Digital_Savior]

Rust, think about what you're saying before you post. I already responded, and now you've changed your post.

I can't be bothered to go back and tailor my response to your revision.

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) Why is this in religion?

RELIGION:

1. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Source

2A. archaic : scrupulous conformity

2B. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Source

quote:2) Why do you accept this scientific claim as valid while you throw out the majority of biology and geology?

I didn't say it was valid, I said it shows how little evolutionists really know, and therefore it's ridiculous that it is taught in schools.

quote:3) What does "far greater than thought" and "'It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs' but were having their own evolution." have anything to do with the evolution community coming up with an excuse? Why do you think they need an excuse?

They made a boo boo in thinking that mammals during this period were only the size of shrews, indicating that large mammals didn't evolve until much later.

If they are wrong about that, they have to manipulate the dating methods which rely on the strata layers in the geological columns, which means that everything is not as old as they once thought.

They'll never admit this, but that's what it means.

So, they will have to come up with some excuse for why they claimed the ages they did, when they were wrong.

quote:What arrogance of the scientific community (how many real scientific papers have you even read?) I guess to creationists the constant admitance that we don't know everything is arogance.

The denial of the validity of any OTHER theories, and the fact that evolution is the ONLY theory taught in public school, denotes arrogance.

Scoffing "That's not science !" to anyone who presents an alternate theory is arrogance.

quote:Is it possible you read too much into this and jumped the gun?

Nope. Wrong is wrong. Incomplete is incomplete.

Get it out of school. It doesn't belong there.

Save it for college, when people are old enough to at least find comparative theories on their own.

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

When the evolution community has stated that only tiny, shrew-like mammals existed during this period, yes there IS something to excuse.

They said that was their current belief. They never, not once, said it was impossible for it to be otherwise. So no, you're wrong; there is absolutely nothing to excuse because their conclusions came from the evidence that was available at the moment, and that's the position that was maintained since the beginning.

quote:Didn't I say that this would be your excuse ?

Stop teaching it in our schools as if it were the only viable explanation, when it isn't even close to being complete.

Science is being taught in the science classroom. If you want something that isn't science to be taught, then teach it somewhere else. Nobody is stopping you from teaching other explanations; they are, however, stopping you from teaching it as science when it is extremely obvious it is not.

quote:It's the only theory taught in school. Indoctrination, whether direct or indirect, isn't right.

Neither is ommission.

Because it is the only theory that evidence agrees with, and that withstands falsification. Bring up a theory that explains what is observed, that does not rely on the supernatural, and that withstands falsification, and it will either replace evolution or be taught with it. Either do that, or kindly keep your silly objections to yourself because they prove to be meaningless.

As for your comment on it being indoctrination, you're wrong there as well. Teaching a scientific fact is not indoctrination.

quote:Then the same applies to all other theories, including ID and Creation.

What do you mean by this? That ID and biblical creationism hold the possibility of them being false? Then you would be wrong. If you meant something else, then explain yourself.

quote:Except the evolution community has claimed that larger mammals didn't come onto the scene until much later.

They were wrong, and this proves it.

It's ok to be wrong, just don't blackball every other theory that doesn't agree with yours, just because you don't like it.

With shaky ground like this, it's a wonder how evolutionary theory has managed to permeate our schools as long as it has.

They were wrong, yes. So? That, in and of itself, does not mean they need to excuse anything. The explanation was based on the evidence they had at the time; if that evidence changed, then the explanation changed to fit with it - that's exactly what the scientific method entails, and thus there is absolutely nothing to excuse. They were scientists following the scientific method; they need not excuse themselves for following it.

Moreover, you further prove your ignorance on the matter when you somehow claim that this provides a "shaky" ground for evolution. This in no way serves as a problem for evolution; only the the particular history of mammals which is independant of evolution. Evolution occuring from genetic change and selection still remains a scientific fact.

quote:I guess you never bothered to read the scientific articles posted on www.icr.org - big surprise there.

Also, there are LOTS of books written on the subject of ID and Creation. Any book by Ken Hamm will do. They're cheap. I suggest you pick one up from Amazon.com.

There is plenty pointing to a young earth. Ignoring it doesn't eliminate it's existence.

They do not want to believe in God, so refusing to entertain the theory of Creation by claiming that there is "ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE" for it is expected.

Actually, I have read them, and have refuted many of them on this very forum. You know this very well, yet you dishonestly ignore this in order to argue your silly point.

The fact remains that there was nothing pointing to other, larger, mammals existing during that time period. At least nothing that followed guidelines used by scientists.

quote:If there was proof, sure.

Creation has proof. Just as much, if not more, than evolution.

It does? The please, by all means, make a post providing that "proof".

Meanwhile, I'll go start taking bets on how long it takes for you to either decline, shift the burden of proof, or simply accept and then flee.

quote:And therein lies the logical fallacy of the theory of Evolution.

Not having evidence for something means it doesn't exist !

And you don't have a problem with that, do you ?!

No, what lies there is your atrocious reading abilities. I didn't say that a magical pink dildo couldn't exist nor that the lack of evidence was evidence of absence - I said that nothing pointed to its existence.

Science does not make a claim on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

quote:I could argue that this proves it didn't take as long for mammals to come on to the scene (and that they were there all along), which could indicate less than millions of years of evolution was required for their development.

This would shatter the dating methods the evolution community currently relies on (strata layers).

No, you couldn't. If you accept this new discovery, then you also accept the dating methods those some discoverers used. To claim that they magically got the discovery right, yet they conveniently got the dating wrong is ludicrous and a sad attempt at your part to support your ridiculous beliefs.

quote:I didn't say it supported young earth creationism. Read it again.

Then I guess it wasn't about you, huh?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

[Twiggy]

This thread really has no point other than to say "Science must be wrong about evolution and creationism because they found something new that they didn't know existed before hand"?!

Unlike religion, science disciplines can evolve themselves - allowing for the discoveries of new species and specimins for us to learn about and understand.

When definitive proof that creationism is true is discovered, then the creation argument can be taught in schools. Until then, it is logical to teach what we DO know and not fairy tales.