Thursday, April 06, 2006
Yet another smackdown to Intelligent-Crazy-Rightwing-Christofascist-TheEarthIsFlat Design
So those wacky liberals in labcoats have done it again. Courtesy of the Old Grey Lady we learn that that yet another fossil has been found that adds even more irrefutable evidence of the undeniable existence of evolution.

How do those scientists have the time to go around burying fossils? Makes you wonder, right?

Roughly five thousand fossils that "clinch the deal" are found everyday, but this one looks like it might actually be more important than usual. It's a fossil of one of the "missing links" between the time we were just fish and the time we were fish with itty bitty legs. Must have been an awkward stage.

OH...and best of all (and speaking of awkward stages) the thing was found in Canada. I don't know why that makes me smile, but it does.

Here are excerpts from the regristration restricted article

Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
"In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life."

so i guess that whole "Eclipse of reason" thing makes a bit more sense
Hey, can you explain something to me about evolution?

I swear I'm not being facetious.

Venus flytraps catch bugs because the soil they exist in doesn't have sufficient nitrogen.

My question is this- how did the plant develop the mechanism to convert bugs into nitrogen if there wasn't enough nitrogen to exist in the first place? Secondly, why build the mechanism if enough nitrogen existed in the soil to support making it?

No one has been able to scientifically dispel this quandary. I find much valid about evolution, but this has always been a sticking point for me.

wow, congratulations, you are my first comment. I just created this whole page tonight. Cool I guess this internet thing just might work.
As to your question, I'm no biologist. (But I do read a lot and took a few classes in my life, ok maybe more than a few but that's not the point.)

The short answer is: I don't know. But that's not necesarily a bad thing. Frankly, any scientist worth his or her salt will readily admit that there is a lot of stuff that we just can't explain yet. But the fact that there are some questions about evolution does not change the fact that we know it happens.

(Now I will try to make an educated guess about the fly trap thing.) I didn't really know that's why they ate flies for a living. And my guess is that the plant at some point had enough nitrogen. The Venus Fly Trap from millions of years ago wasn't a venus fly trap. It didn't catch flies because there was nitrogen galore. But as the nitrogen slowly left its environment, it had to figure something out. And I guess it figured out that it could eat those things landing on it all the time. But it also was forced to develop this capacity because it didn't have a choice.

But...and this is developed this ability very very slowly. It probably took thousands of years, and probably coincided with a decrease in overall nitrogen levels.

Does that make sense? Most of it is supposition.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?