Author:
PGB
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:38:36 08/13/09 Thu
In reply to:
Pahu
's message, "Out-of-Place Fossils 4" on 16:07:41 06/01/09 Mon
>Petrified trees... nests of bees... reputedly 220 million
>years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which
>bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million
>years later (l).
True, it seems bees predated flowering plants. What this suggests is that bees didn't always seek out nectar, but adapted to it when flowers came along. This is hundreds of millions of years ago so it's not that surprising they're not eating the same things. Things change, creatures adapt to the changing environment or they die out.
Pollinating insects and fossil flies,
>with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar
>from flowers, are dated 25 million years before
>flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most
>evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore
>discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time
>scale.
But this doesn't conflict. Evolution is not a set path, and things that diverge from what we were expecting are interesting discoveries, not problems. How do you know the well-developed tubes were for sucking nectar and not, say blood for instance?
>No transitional forms of
>life have been found in amber, despite
>evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years ... ants in amber
>show the same social and work patterns as ants today.
Everything is a transitional form. And besides, if what worked for the ants 300 million years ago works for them now and in between, there's no selective pressure to change so they wouldn't.
>
a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant...bacteria species were removed from
>intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican
>Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! This amber
>is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I
>suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only
>thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that
>bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many
>millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant
>bacteria, are not zero.
Bah, flood indeed. That's not rare. Please read
http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm although I'll paste the best bit for you:
October, 1999; 250-million-year-old bacteria were found in ancient sea salt beneath Carlsbad, New Mexico. The microscopic organisms were revived in a laboratory after being in 'suspended animation', encased in a hard-shelled spore, for an estimated 250 million years. The species has not been identified, but is referred to as strain 2-9-3, or B. permians.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 