@sonship
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDo you consider this factual not just opinions.
@sonship
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 ...[text shortened]... between grains of sand on the sea bed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987
@kellyjay saidHere is a fact for you.
Do you consider this factual not just opinions.
What happened to the bees on the ark when they left the ark and had zero plants to derive food from ???
They must have all died. Right !
Are bees extinct ?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo factual means new data can only confirm not dispel what you think is true, that is what you are saying!?
Yes.
@kellyjay saidKnowledge based on factual data.
So factual means new data can only confirm not dispel what you think is true, that is what you are saying!?
@kellyjay saidAnd your answer would be we need look no further than the bible. That only proves humans can come up with pithy sayings and write powerful stories.
Where did everything come from?
That doesn't take a god.
Another issue is OTHER pithy sayings of other religions are totally denied by Christians since Christians KNOW only THEIR book is real, all the rest, ALL 10,000 of them are ALL false, and OBVIOUSLY written by men (and some women) but only the BIBLE is THE real book written by god, only transcribed by men and women.
Just as a matter of statistics it doesn't add up. It adds up to ZERO in my opinion.
@sonhouse saidYou don’t even have an answer do you?
And your answer would be we need look no further than the bible. That only proves humans can come up with pithy sayings and write powerful stories.
That doesn't take a god.
Another issue is OTHER pithy sayings of other religions are totally denied by Christians since Christians KNOW only THEIR book is real, all the rest, ALL 10,000 of them are ALL false, and OBVIOUSLY wr ...[text shortened]... men and women.
Just as a matter of statistics it doesn't add up. It adds up to ZERO in my opinion.
@kellyjay saidYes, I think we can all agree how fossils were formed.
Well lets see, they died where they were and were buried in such a way a fossil appeared instead of having the body break down to the point of disappearing.
The sudden appearance and disappearance of all of the lifeforms do not show a slow change over time, if it did the process of that would still be going on today and there would be several not quite the same life all around us for each lifeform today. Instead we see very distinct life now, as we do in the fossils.
And I ask you again; what is your explanation for the gaps in the fossil record? Why do you think that new lifeforms appear 'suddenly'? You seem to be avoiding this question.
@kellyjay saidI can perfectly well say that there isn't evidence for creation.
No one can say there isn't evidence for creation when it is all around them, Bible included. The universe is evidence, life is evidence and fossils are rocks and can be used as evidence. We assign what we think is true about fossils, are we right or wrong? The points that are made about them are varied and since they are all about what people think occurred in the distant pa ...[text shortened]... be a long line of them, nothing dies off after a small change within it just because there was one.
I ask again, what is your explanation for gaps in the fossil record?
I ask again, what is your explanation for gaps in the fossil record?
You didn't ask me. But I'll give you a serious answer.
If I was a biologist or paleontologist I would look more in the direction of something SUDDEN causing changes in animals. Rather than gradualism I would explore the possibility of something like cataclysmic events altering maybe gamuts or organisms in an embryonic stage.
Sudden shifts brought about by some unknown forces I think is the next hypothesis I would explore.
Gould proposes something LIKE this when he proposed "punctuated equilibrium." I said something LIKE what I imagine.