Right Divider
Body part
Gee... maybe it's not 49 million years old: https://www.livescience.com/attenborough-beauty-beetle-fossil.html
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
49 million-year-old beetle looks like it was squashed yesterday
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Three physical items: Sediment, cement, water.
Three processes: Deposition, drainage, drying.
Notice "time" is not a relevant consideration, as there can be billions of years, but one of those six missing and nothing would be fossilized, or you can achieve fossilization in a few minutes with all six.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It would not look like that if it was squashed "yesterday" you'd still have the exoskeleton intact (and fully colored) rather than fused into the rock. Stuff I find in my pool trap does not look like that fossil. Perhaps you all were confused by the digital reconstruction?
Also, in the grand scheme of things 49 million years is not that long ago. And if it happened yesterday, why aren't there *identical* beetles alive today?
Also, in the grand scheme of things 49 million years is not that long ago. And if it happened yesterday, why aren't there *identical* beetles alive today?
Right Divider
Body part
- There is no such thing as "49 million years ago".
- Yes, there are the identical beetles after all of that supposedly long time.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Show me the identical beetles when this one was given its own name.
Stating "there's no such thing as" doesn't make it true.
Alate_One
Well-known member
From further looking:
"A scientific name has two components: a genus and a species name. The beetle needed a new genus name because it didn’t fit into any existing frog-legged leaf beetle genera. Krell chose the name Pulchritudo, which is Latin for “beauty.”"
So, no. NOT identical.
Source: https://www.treehugger.com/newly-identified-beetle-david-attenborough-5197474
"A scientific name has two components: a genus and a species name. The beetle needed a new genus name because it didn’t fit into any existing frog-legged leaf beetle genera. Krell chose the name Pulchritudo, which is Latin for “beauty.”"
So, no. NOT identical.
Source: https://www.treehugger.com/newly-identified-beetle-david-attenborough-5197474
Right Divider
Body part
By identical, I really meant close enough. It's funny when evolutionists are so surprised when some creatures remain the same for "100's of millions of years".
Saying that there is doesn't make it true.
Alate_One
Well-known member
"Close enough", what according to you? What's funny is that creationists seem to think that a couple exceptionally preserved fossils = evolution is wrong.
Some organisms visually change more than others. 100s of millions of years "the same" isn't really the same in the sense that a species remains the same. But there are plenty of genera that have stayed the same for a few dozen million years.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
In the context of evolutionary theory, how likely is that?
Right Divider
Body part
Millions of years is a fantasy that helps you support your false evolutionary paradigm."Close enough", what according to you? What's funny is that creationists seem to think that a couple exceptionally preserved fossils = evolution is wrong.
Fossils are not a picture of "millions of years of evolution", they are picture of a massively catastrophic event that buried massive amounts of plant and animal life. That is how fossils form. They do not form by any slow, long, gradual process.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Depends, some organisms have long generation times or slow mutation rates.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It's reality, sorry you don't like it. Some fossils do form catastrophically but we're looking at many separate catastrophes over a long period of time, not one single one. Fossils show patterns of older ones looking less like organisms alive today while younger ones look more like organisms alive today. Some fossils show evidence of decay and scattering. Relatively few are so beautifully preserved as the beetle in the OP. Some appear to have been deposited in oceans, others by volcanic ash, still others in river systems or deserts. There's no one catastrophe that explains them all. Early geologists figured this out over a century ago. They gave up on the idea of a global flood forming all of the geology on earth because it simply doesn't work as an explanation.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's backwards thinking - you're assuming it from the data you think you're reading. On a molecular level, why would generation times or mutation rates be independent of environmental stressors?
And how likely is it that you would have a uniform environment for a few dozen million years?
Darwin's finches differentiated in a matter of several generations, yes?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Not backwards thinking. You're speaking from ignorance. For example: Ginkgoes seem to have changed very little, but they can have generation times on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. That's quite a different situation vs finches that might have at least 1 maybe two generations per year. It's also well known that some organisms have better DNA repair mechanisms than others.
Right Divider
Body part
Nope
Your false paradigm does not allow you to come to a more reasonable solution.
This is called confirmation bias.
Of course there is. You just prefer your false paradigm.
You are a true believer.
The hydroplate theory is real science.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Hmm no. You can line up the fossils based on age/depth of burial and different organisms appear and disappear in a particular pattern.
See Dickinsonia below.
The ediacaran fauna (Pre 500 MYA) are creatures that look like nothing alive today. Science doesn't even know what they're related to. Though they did finally show that they are animals, based on chemistry!
Dickinsonia organism that lived 550 million years ago WAS an animal
Researchers based at Oxford University and the University Cambridge have have strong proof that a mysterious jellyfish-like creature was an indeed an animal, and not some other life form.
Then you look at more recent fossils, and subfossils and you find things that ... look like stuff still walking around.
Perfectly preserved lion cubs that died up to 44,000 years ago 'after being abandoned by mum' found in Siberia
A PAIR of cave lion cubs that died up to 44,000 years ago were found perfectly preserved in the Siberian permafrost. One starved to death and the other may have been crushed by falling rocks, both …
www.thesun.co.uk
Gee I wonder why we never find mummified dinosaurs like those lion cubs or mammoths etc. Those organisms can contain actual preserved soft tissue because they simply aren't that old. You can get rare preservation of dinosaur soft tissue - via mineral replacement, but those aren't true mummies.
And strangely you don't find Fish fossilized alongside Dickinsonia above.
Hydroplate "theory" is almost as ridiculous as flat earth-ism.
Right Divider
Body part
There are marine fossils at the tops of every major mountain range.
That is a silly opinion. Please "pick it apart" for us. Use actual facts.
