An almost complete skeleton of a primitive mosasaur has been discovered and is reported in a geoscience journal this month. Mosasaurs were reptiles that moved back into the oceans and came to dominate shallow marine ecosystems between 65 million and 95 million or so years ago. The new fossil find still has its limbs intact, before they later evolved into flippers, indicating that it moved between land and sea. This was all prior to the mammalian species that moved back into the oceans, leading eventually to whales, dolphins and other marine mammals. For creationists, of course, this means there are two new "gaps" that have to be filled with transitional fossils. Heads they win, tails we lose.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
We like to think of boundaries as being clear-cut borders, but at least in the biological world they generally turn out to be fuzzy zones of change. The line between land and sea is my own favorite example. Last summer my wife and I would sometimes take our oldest daughter Charlotte to the beach.…
Seals and sea-lions gracefully careen through today's oceans with the help of legs that have become wide, flat flippers. But it was not always this way. Seals evolved from carnivorous ancestors that walked on land with sturdy legs; only later did these evolve into the flippers that the family is…
An article released moments ago in PLoS ONE, by Gingerich et al., describes one of the more interesting fossil discoveries ever.
To cut right to the conclusion: We now have reason to believe that the proto-whale Maiacetus inuus, a true transitional form, gave birth on land, not in the water.…
It's time to add a new chapter to the Whale Chronicles....
...more below the fold...
Evidence from both DNA and fossils agree that whales evolved from hoofed mammals on land. At first they may have been occasional swimmers, only later evolving into meat-eaters hunting for prey in the water. Between…
Sheesh! You Darwnists just don't get it: there are NO transitional fossils! Just ask Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.
This newly found creature was obviously created when God was warming up to create aquatic reptiles. You know, sort of like all those "practice" hominids in the fossil record that get closer and closer to being human but aren't quite there. I'm sure it's just coincidence that the fossils just so happen to get younger and younger as they become closer to modern humans.
That's if you trust the flawed "scientific" practices used to date these finds. According to Kent Hovind, a stump was once dated improperly via carbon dating (or something like that), and therefore the entire process is bunk. Heck, let's just use that to call all science bunk as well.
ZacharySmith:
Well, we do know from bumperstickers a few decades back that Adam was a rough draft . . .
And a hat-tip if you're Dr. ZS from TT.
Tom - Good point. That radio isotope dating stuff is all based on atheistic Chemistry and Physics, so it can't be trusted. Interesting coincidence, isn't it, that the dates on the fossils just so happen to fall in line with the Darwinist dogma? I smell conspiracy!
Pieter - Thanks for the hat tip, but my name is taken from that eminent scientist and intellectual luminary who was a stowaway on the Jupiter 2! (It's a long-running family joke.) Come to think of it, that Dr Smith shows about the same level of intellectual honesty and forthrightness as Bill Dembski!