Then they ought not to be so worried as to fervently censor contradictory findings that are obtained by SOP. Mountains of evidence shouldn't need such fanatical sheltering from contradictions. We are left with the problem of quantifying the extent of scientific censoring. I should expect them to have done a cleaner job on those millions of line-ups than they did with the horse.
They didn't, that scientist both published the findings and publicly spoke on them. Other scientists then, unfettered, did more tests.The objection they had was that the original team would publish such an anomolous result without further confirmation, which was correct of them to do, both ethically and intellectually. No idea what that means at all, but your Gish Gallop of a few, anomalous events does not represent any real challenge to any accepted scientific theory, which are all supported by mountains of mutually supportive, empirical evidence. In fact, you implication that it does is an ages old tactic of a charlatan.
One lifeform goes extinct and is replaced by a similar but revised/advanced form with a serious time gap in between. Although it is sometimes normal for the fossil record to be obliterated as indicated by disruptive physical gaps, there seems to be concern where this pattern seems troubling. If this problem has been overcome, is there an explanation?
That's a very plausible scenario and one that no doubt has been practiced, but it would be relevant only if such follow-up has been done at the sites mentioned.
A gap in our fossil record doesn't translate to an actual gap in descendants. While there are unsolved problems in evolutionary theory (and in every scientific field), that does not undermine evolutionary theory. The entire diversity of species was a "problem", until we solved it with evolution. Through out history, charlatans have tries to use gaps in our knowledge as some sort of support for or excuse to wedge in magical nonsense. As you are doing at this very moment. thank goodness scientists don't throw up their hands when they don't know something, and conclude, "Welp, must be the work of magical gods!". If they did, we wouldn't be communicating on our quantum mechanical machines right now!
It has, producing the same results, actually. And yet, the results on the fauna present (of the sort that were hunted by the very tools found) are consistent with the expected age of the settlement. So it is much more rational to assume that there is something anomalous causing this dating result, or something anomalous causing the tools to be surrounded by older rock, and then look for why one of these things occurred. what would NOT be rational is to throw out the mountains of mutually supportive, empirical evidence which already exist.
Then the issues should not have escalated to the point of trashing someone's career over attempted publishing of suspected misrepresentative test results. People should have been aware of the wiggle room instead of blacklisting somebody as an intolerable dissident disrupting the status quo.
Well, I don't think you get to enter this is "a fact", when it is the claim of the scientists who were supposedly trampled. And, even if it were true, that would not be a comment on science in general or on the scientific process. I would be a judgment of an ethical and moral error on the part of a few people; notice their cover up was "so great", that the entire scientific community talked about the event, and the site was retested. Surely you are not extrapolating this one event to intimate a large conspiracy of the global, scientific community. Are you? Because it would be absurd to do so.
Re: the movie, From Dusk to Dawn: What's in Mexico? Mexicans. I see that the fauna aspect was recognized, that one of the Mexican authorities was a thorn in V. S.-McIntyre's side, and the U.S.A. got into the middle of things a bit. Keep this up and I'll have to drop out of my charlatan classes.
Regarding factual history.... what was in Mexico 250,000 years ago? Not Mexicans, it appears. Where are the other human settlements from 250,000 years ago in the Americas, if humans had settled America 250,000 years ago? Where are their mitochondrial DNA in extant lineages, and where are the settlements that would exist between where we know humans lived at that time and the Americas? Why did only some of the rock of the settlement date this old, with nearby samples surrounding the artifacts dating right about where we would expect? There is something we don't know, here. But it certainly is no reason, by any stretch of reason, to think it is a challenge to such a robust theory.
you seriously misunderstand TOE...if a life form is extinct how can it be replaced? that a replacement just pops into place?... there are no distinct points in a creatures evolution where you can say this where the old species went extinct and the new began...creationists keeping demanding to see this exact point of speciation which if they understood TOE would know it cannot exist...evolution is a slow process there are no clear/abrupt dividing lines for speciation ... yeah creationist logic, that all fossils should be neatly laid out in a complete sequence like the pages of a book for the entire evolution of an organism...finding any fossil is more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack, multiple the difficulty of doing that for any single creatures evolution and the numerical likelihood of that becomes mind boggling...
the problem here is not the dating but how the artifacts got where they were found...it happens often, animals/soil excavation, soil erosion, floods can churn things up moving younger items below older...one controversial site with dating issues can't upset the enormous mountain of evidence support TOE...the biological dated samples point to a 20K yr age which in itself was controversial but within reason of other supporting evidence...
Simple. The old ones went extinct because of radical adversity. When conditions became more normal after the cataclysm ended, new forms appeared (not really similar to the old ones, as I mistakenly suggested previously).
Would you believe the Mexicans had no problem getting to Mexico within the 50,000 years after Mother Eve did her XX versus XY thing in Africa 300,000 years ago? No? I didn't think so. Neither do I.
okay, cleared up the mistake... normal conditions are relevant, there really isn't a normal...if conditions(climate/ecological) cause the extinction of a number of species others that survive or expand into the new conditions will thrive, there doesn't need to be a return to previous "normal" conditions. an ice age, global warming or the "normal" periods in between are all cataclysmic events...in a change to any of the three many species will go extinct, those that don't will adapt and evolve to the new reality/normal...
Yes, that is the belief.. too bad there isn't any evidence that this did happen, or even can happen. It is a wonderful religious belief, though...
suggest you move on to a religious section of the forum where basic grade school biology knowledge isn't a minimum requirement in order to add relevant logic to the discussion...
Correction, I obviously understand it far better than you. Let's see, hmmm, there's nothing here that contributes to the discussion. Oh look, there's nothing showing the gradual transition of one species into another. I guess I've destroyed all hope in your belief in evolution. Because we all know that if you could that you would. Par for your course. If you can't put up what you want to believe then don't post at all. More evidence that there is no evidence of real evolution.
I know.. when you don't have any evidence, facts, or science to support your beliefs, you lash out with insults. ..but I'm quite used to that, here, and since NOBODY in the UCD camp wants to even examine the evidence for their beliefs, all that is left is a lame attempt to denigrate or disparage any who dare question the sacred tenets of their faith. Someday, you may decide to let reason and inquiry into your thinking processes, but for now you, and most here.. seem trapped in an indoctrinated state, where hysteria, ad hom, and groupthink conformity control your thinking.
I promise you that you know less than nothing about evolution. You have demonstrated this. And yet, you think k you do. Surely this is related to your misconceptions.
Yes, your misconceptions. When are you going to put up the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? I'll say you won't. But you will continue to run from the question. That's a given since you, or anyone else, can't produce anything. Good grief, if you or anyone else could you would. Alas. Your only option is to dodge at all costs in a vain attempt to save the "theory" of evolution from the hard truth. But if you were to put up some real evidence, that would be a first for anybody. You could be a hero.
That evidence has been cited on this board, including being posted directly to YOU, over and over and over again by more than one poster. Your responses have PROVEN you have NO understanding of evolution.
The "New Ones" do not Appear as they were likely already there. Take the Dinosaurs....Mammals were getting eaten by them but lived through their extinction and became dominant when they were gone.
I haven't done a survey of the extinction event survivors but I heard from one expert say that it appears all large land animals went extinct and quite likely all large sea and flying creatures as well as both needed significant food resources to survive...survivors were likely, burrowers or animals that had unique survival adaptations such as hibernation or an ability to store food long term such as crocodiles/alligators (tail fat)...today's large survivors like whale sharks/great whites may have evolved from dwarf species at the time of the extinction event
