A duck and an otter had too much to drink one night and...

We've learned tons about ourselves by studying all forms of life and the medical advances from such alone are impressive.

Oh you got it, ok great. I was going to post a YouTube video of Katt. LOL

First, what does basketball have to with anything? LOL (The image looks like two basketballs to me.)

I think evolution has some major questions that need answering. I do not believe that the selection was "natural". God? Maybe...but I am betting more on alien intervention.

There is simply NO scientific explanation (that I am satisfied with) to explain HOW we cave dwellers went from hairy apemen to the magnificent space-travelling intelligent creatures we are today. It's as if someone 'flipped a switch' and we suddenly 'evolved' into what we are now. I don't buy it.

ALIENS!!!

more (just relases study today) on how this discovery creates important questions around Darwin's theory::::::::::

Significance

An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution?if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged?additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Abstract
The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life's early history. We now report a second such subseafloor-inhabiting community from the Western Australian ∼1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation. Permineralized in cherts formed during and soon after the 2.4- to 2.2-Ga ?Great Oxidation Event,? these two biotas may evidence an opportunistic response to the mid-Precambrian increase of environmental oxygen that resulted in increased production of metabolically useable sulfate and nitrate. The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) change that, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis.

the key part:
additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis

Perfect graphic :thumbsup

that is so far the most logical explanation i heard :1orglaugh

Um that's the study your article links to, the basis of the article, and your OP. Lol

OK, you gotcha'd me on my thinking this was another study. good gotcha. Not sure what difference it makes, I am simply trying to create dialogue around the discovery and came across another quote that strongly states this dicovery requires more research.

but not sure why you feel the need to gotcha me on a technicality re: what I am clearly trying to have fun chatting with y'all about. but again, good job on that.


:)

the basktballs threw me off too! Darwinism is still only a theory. It's certainly very most likely valid, but that's why discoveries like this are fun and exciting. They create new angles of challenging conventional wisdom and from that either comes more validation of the theory or proof that more proof is still needed, since you know, it's still a theory!

right on. i lumped your comment in with the others whose assumptions were being challenged.

I see this as an opportunity to move closer to proving the theory as fact, not the opposite. If we can further and better explain the theory in the lack of evolution then it makes sense we move closer to validating the theory.

there's also the option that this sort of testing misses out on some evolution. perhaps the organism evolved, then evolved back. DNA mapping then matching seems to be a more thorough test

I agree. How many times they're going to reconfirm the same thing via these scientific papers?

As you can see from my link, they discovered this in 1968, in mud, in Australia. Since then it's been reconfirmed over and over again, I think 6 or 7 papers now since then. At what point does it finally become fact?

In my view, the results from all of the attempts over the years strongly suggest the theory as fact add up to mean it's valid to assume that evolution is a fact. BUT the important part is that science continues to try and proof it as fact. If all of science simply agreed years ago that evolution is fac and moved on, then gobs and gobs of science would not have happened.

dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

:2 cents:

do you even science?

I'm going to proof in one sentence how fucking stupid this attempt at insult is.

The simple fact that scientists smarter than everyone in this thread put together are still devoting their lives, experience, strength and knowledge to adding more evidence to the theory of Evolution shows just how naive and vitriolic your attempt to use this thread to insult me really is.

:)

you're like the nelson of science.:1orglaugh

http://i.imgur.com/adbHUVF.png

Funny stuff doesn't always have to make a lot of sense.

see: prison guy from in living color - In Living Color - Booked on Phonics - YouTube
and: dad from brady bunch - The Brady Bunch Movie: Tattle tail - YouTube

Which one? There are so many!:winkwink:

:thumbsup

You're right. JG ejaculated verbs and i needed to suppress my defecation.

dude, you're getting off pretty easy in here BTW. I'm runnin' blocker for ya!!! :1orglaugh

The Socratic method applies to philosophical thought/enqiry/method, and is not applicable to scientific methods--they are different modes of knowledge. Duh.

do you even socratic method?

fucking duh.



gotcha denied

why not enjoy the topic instead of trying to gotcha me on an arcane tanget comment?

i mean really.

"do you even socratic method?? That statement makes no sense, and "Socratic" should be capitalized, i.e., "Socratic" not "socratic".

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain.

'Nuff said.

here. this simple chart may help you understand the difference between what is going on in this thread and the results from the research we are actually discussing.

http://www.niu.edu/~jdye/method.html

the sad part is you had a chance to engage in a fun and exciting topic.

nuf said.

I know, thank you! LOL I'm surprised I still have my ass after all that shit. :)

Clearly this needs to be said with most of the stupid comments in this thread:

:1orglaugh

best post in the thread!

Nice read. :)

Yet another case of dyna mo being the lone correct soldier :Oh crap

Must be tough man. Funny how Your critical thinking seemingly always gives your dumbass a pass.

Connect four.

The other day I saw a homeless vagrant I've been seeing on the street for the past ten years.

Same clothing as 2005.

Evolution has passed him by. Perfectly adapted to his environment.

alien engineered us. :)

Your avatar proves this theory. :)