If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Our oldest ancestor, a 560-million-year-old "tadpole," found in South Australia   (abc.net.au) divider line 143
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

7768 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2003 at 9:34 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-10-29 10:26:32 AM
That's not possible! It's a hoax! The earth is only 6000 years old!
 
2003-10-29 10:26:51 AM
grammy! christ! who the fark left you in Australia?
 
2003-10-29 10:27:16 AM
Read Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life" for a discussion of the soft-bodied fossils from this period found in the Burgess Shale. It also contains the wonderful, upside-down interpretation of Hallucigenia, since corrected. The Ediacaran fauna, so far as I know, still remains a mystery. They're like nothing alive today, flat, radially-symmetrical fiber mats. Then there's the problem of the "small shelly fauna" which immediately precedes the Cambrian Explosion.

There's a lot of evidence that chordates evolved neotenously from starfish ancestors. Starfish larvae have primitive notochords and look a lot like teensy little tadpoles before they transform into the familiar starfish. An echinoderm larva that refused to grow up and become a brainless starfish may indeed be our ancestor.
 
2003-10-29 10:27:30 AM
I wonder if Bevets will make an appearance...
 
2003-10-29 10:28:11 AM
I was just riding around on the motor bike looking for cattle or checking on cattle and sort of came across this bed of rocks and I decided to have a bit of a look around and walked around and found a couple of fossils and then I stumbled across this one that was a bit different to the others and I hadn't seen one like it so I thought I should bring it home.

No commas or periods?
 
2003-10-29 10:28:47 AM
Well, there was one. ;)
 
2003-10-29 10:29:06 AM
Seriously, OK, God: I've accounted for some lag time here, even though you're all-powerful and all-knowing. All I'm asking for is for you to somehow stop me from hitting the "add comment" button. It is the smallest of things. I know you've got your reasons for making little babies die and all that, and I should have faith without proof because that totally gives you a hard-on. But you can do this, can't you? Here I go, I'm about to push it.
 
2003-10-29 10:29:15 AM
L. Ron Hubbard says that we evolved from CLAMS, though
 
2003-10-29 10:31:54 AM
Gremmy, I know I did.
 
2003-10-29 10:32:01 AM
Theist? -Yes.
Christian? -Yes!
Evolutionist? -Yes!!

Where is the problem? Science is good! Logic is good!
 
2003-10-29 10:33:22 AM
 
2003-10-29 10:34:16 AM
How come every sentence is in a new paragraph in this article? Don't science writers have to take an occasional English class as well?
 
2003-10-29 10:34:30 AM
Here's a link to some Ediacaran fossil photos (sorry, no html):

http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/ediac.html
 
2003-10-29 10:36:21 AM
orb_nsc: I doubt it, my Biology teacher could hardly spell...
 
2003-10-29 10:39:33 AM
MY biology teacher would blush, sweat and fondle his tie when he lectured on the reproduction processes of single-celled animals.
 
2003-10-29 10:39:39 AM
Apparently, L. Ron Hubbard never heard of the distinction between deuterostomes and lophotrochozoa.
What an idiot!
 
2003-10-29 10:43:43 AM
560 million years is about how long I've been waiting to get an article posted on Fark. Maybe I should just submit crap from Ask Men.com. They always seem to get accepted.

Am i banned now?
 
2003-10-29 10:44:18 AM
"Too" "many" "damn" "quotes" "in" "that" "article"

"Had" "to" "clean" "my" "glasses" "twice"
 
2003-10-29 10:45:34 AM
Too late Osiris...so many references to young earth creationists already. Guess you'll have to be quicker next thread.
 
2003-10-29 10:46:07 AM
TADPOLE-PEOPLE,
TADPOLE-PEOPLE,
LOOK LIKE TADPOLE,
TALK LIKE PEOPLE.
 
2003-10-29 10:46:10 AM
I believe FPJ exists only in JCT's imagination.

...unless I get other proof this weekend.
 
2003-10-29 10:51:21 AM
*pours gas all over FPJ idol

Oh you'll believe Rev! You all will believe!

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha*cough*hehehehe*chortle*hohoho!
 
2003-10-29 10:56:38 AM
I guess I'm not the "rev" in question...my ears just perk up when I hear my name. Sorta like my little dog.
 
2003-10-29 10:58:42 AM
Nabob:

It's never too late to make fun of young earth creationists. :-)
 
2003-10-29 10:58:51 AM
Seriously, OK, God: I've accounted for some lag time here, even though you're all-powerful and all-knowing. All I'm asking for is for you to somehow stop me from hitting the "add comment" button. It is the smallest of things. I know you've got your reasons for making little babies die and all that, and I should have faith without proof because that totally gives you a hard-on. But you can do this, can't you? Here I go, I'm about to push it.

If, for some reason, God chose to "somehow stop you", would that make any difference in your thinking or would you write it off? Say your power cut out and your backup battery was dead. Would that make a difference to you or would you consider it coincidence?

From another angle, let's say someone told you that they were writing a post like yours and their power cut out right before they clicked "add comment". Would you laugh at them if they told you they thought it was God? Have you laughed at the idea that God answers prayers in the past and suggested that coincidence does not prove answered prayers?

Furthermore, why should God honor your request? What good would it actually do for you? Perhaps God will honor requests like that when you are actually more open to accepting Him. A lot of faithful people believe that God honors their requests. Of course, most skeptics simply write it off as coincidence anyhow. Ultimately, you have to have some receptiveness to miracle (and any interaction between a supernatural entity and a natural entity must be defined as miraculous) to see it as anything other than a coincidence.
 
2003-10-29 10:59:25 AM
Lol. But I may accuse you of jumping on the bandwagon and lose respect for your posts.
 
2003-10-29 11:00:46 AM
Last post was for you, Osiris (in case it wasn't obvious)
 
2003-10-29 11:02:02 AM
And sorry to all for excessive use of the word 'coincidence' in the previous post. I even irritated myself with that one.
 
2003-10-29 11:03:52 AM
If I am stopped from posting this time, I will definitely consider it a miracle. After this, which would be the fourth try, I would say that some coincidence could possibly be involved. I am reaching out to the lord with one hand and pushing "add comment" with the other...now.
 
2003-10-29 11:04:08 AM
CLAMBAM:
Using big words doesn't make you any smarter. Odds are, you couldn't define most of the words you used. Plus it means you have a small penis and are self conscious about your own intellect
 
2003-10-29 11:04:28 AM
Nabob: If you did a statistical analysis you'd see that the confirmation bias was the cause of your fallacious reasoning.
 
2003-10-29 11:06:02 AM
It's never too late to make fun of young earth creationists. :-)

Ah, but don't you find that the challenge has gone? They're quite capable of making themselves look idiots without any outside help.
 
2003-10-29 11:06:13 AM
But, Nabob, holding the same opinion as previous posters is not "jumping on the bandwagon" unless said opinion was something outrageous.
 
2003-10-29 11:06:41 AM
Ultimately, you have to have some receptiveness to miracle (and any interaction between a supernatural entity and a natural entity must be defined as miraculous) to see it as anything other than a coincidence.

"Receptiveness to miracle" is another term for gullibility. You just prefer to think of something as miraculous because you already believe in magic, and are looking for things to confirm it.
 
2003-10-29 11:08:01 AM
fartblossom, are you intimidated by science? I understood clambam's post perfectly well, and so should any fairly intelligent person.
 
2003-10-29 11:08:47 AM
Tadpole? Bah. Everyone knows they're called pollywogs.
 
2003-10-29 11:10:53 AM
Fallacious reasoning? Isn't confirmation bias exactly what I was suggesting? In this case, most skeptics would write off any event as coincidence rather than supernatural intervention due to a disbelief (or selective belief) in the supernatural. Is this not a perfect example of confirmation bias?

What specifically do you find fallacious?
 
2003-10-29 11:14:06 AM
It's not God, it's Repo Man.

"It's like, you think of a plate of shrimp, and then someone says 'plate' and someone says 'shrimp.'"

Coincidences abound, my friends. That's life. Not God.
 
2003-10-29 11:18:05 AM


WORMSIGN!
 
2003-10-29 11:32:17 AM
fartblossom: some definitions off the top of my head from clambam's post:

Stephen Jay Gould: The now-deceased 'bloated oracle' of evolutionary biology

Burgess Shale: A 500+ million year old fossil locality in Canada that has taught us a lot about the early evolution of different animal types.

Hallucigenia: A fossil with such a weird shape that for many years we didn't know which side was up.

Ediacaran fauna: An even older set of fossils that appears to show early, less complex life...lots of flat round things.

radially-symmetrical fiber mats: flat round things.

Cambrian Explosion: the putitive rapid (at least geologically rapid) increase in the complexity of life 550-500 million years ago after maybe half a billion years of sitting around being bacteria and such.

chordates: animals with a notochord (see below)

evolved: not available in Kansas

neotenously: awkward word use, but basically the larva of one animal becomes sexually mature without growing to adulthood. If you kept the big bald head you had when you were born but still "grew up" that would be a neontenic transformation. Bets are no one would fark with you either.

larvae: "pups" of slimy things

notochords: springy, gel-filled sac that runs down the back of chordates (see above). Your inter-vertebral discs are the leftovers of your notochord (not available in France)

echinoderm larva: starfish pup

there you go Fartblossom. Comments regarding genital size aside, there ARE some biologists and well read people on Fark.
 
2003-10-29 11:39:31 AM
"Receptiveness to miracle" is another term for gullibility. You just prefer to think of something as miraculous because you already believe in magic, and are looking for things to confirm it.

"Rejection of miracle" is another term for confirmation bias (props to CapnWacky). You prefer to think of something as coincidence because you disbelieve in "magic" and have decided that it must be a coincidence as there is no other alternative.
 
2003-10-29 11:40:46 AM
hopeful monster: humourless, oversensitive geek

Sorry. It had to be said...
 
2003-10-29 11:49:35 AM
God isn't concerned with fark
 
2003-10-29 11:55:39 AM
Nabob:- The actual physical evidence (new examples of which are being discovered all teh time) totally contradicts creationist theory. Believing the evidence over the dogma is indicative of an open mind, not a bias. If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is at least partially wrong.

Evolution doesn't prove there isn't a god, but the evidence disproves the biblical guess which was based on ignorance and superstition of primitive people thousands of years ago.
 
2003-10-29 11:55:51 AM
Our oldest ancestor, 560 million year old 'tadpole' found in South Australia

Tells reporters, "Get off my damn lawn!"
 
2003-10-29 11:57:33 AM
Connetidork
Wait, it has a backbone. It's obviously not the evolutionary ancestor of the French.
ProgrammerCat
It probably isn't the evolutionary ancestor of the modern American liberal either for the same reason. Maybe it's a distant ancestor of the rugged individualist.


It has no brain, so apparently it is the evolutionary ancestor of the neo-cons.
 
2003-10-29 11:58:59 AM
Adman12: What? "starfish pup" isn't funny? No respect I tells ya!

try the veal, tip your waitress
 
2003-10-29 12:11:57 PM
A liberal/conservative flame war and an evolutionist/creationist flame war in the same thread? Hang on, let me go grab some popcorn.
 
2003-10-29 12:12:16 PM
jay_vee:
You have me confused with a dogmatic young earth creationist. I am not.
 
2003-10-29 12:14:40 PM
Nabob:- Okay, then what's your theory?
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report