|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Oooook ... there's quite a bit of material on fish to tetrapod at Devonian Times -
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 as well as at http://www.origins.tv/darwin/tetrapods.htm - or anywhere that you can find anything about Jennifer Clack. Her book, Gaining Ground, has detail enough to reduce you to babbling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Hi Oook! I second Coragyps’s recommendation of the Devonian Times. Look especially at the Who’s Who bit, where there’s pics of the actual fossils as well as drawings etc.
Also Jenny Clack’s book is great, but awfully detailed. (By a spot of serendipity, I’m reading it currently, in tandem with a Pratchett as light relief.) If you get any refs to it, or need any text or pics scanned from it, just let me know. And if you need anything more, I’m in occasional contact with Per Ahlberg, and can ask him. (He lurks regularly over at the IIDB; I’ll have to try and get him here.) If you can get hold of a copy (try AbeBooks | Shop for Books, Art & Collectibles), Carl Zimmer’s At the Water’s Edge is also an excellent introduction to many of the weird names of these early tetrapod fossils. If you're feeling brave, this site will tell you more than you probably want to know about these things too; have a browse around the branches of the cladogram at the top. Highly recommended! For specific papers, try PubMed, which will give you the abstracts for sure and often the full papers. Try searching on Jenny Clack, Per Ahlberg, Mike Coates, E Daeschler, etc. I have several useful papers as pdfs (thanks to Per!) too. In a nutshell, give me a shout if there’s anything you need on this. Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
Ok,
amino acids in proteins So they can get character data from proteins? ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Nobody,
Yup, amino acid sequences. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Thanks very much for all of the links (from both you and Coragyps) and for the very kind offers of help. There is plenty of stuff for me to get stuck into so I will take some time to digest the basics. I will probably then post back so I can check that I have it right in my head.
Cheers Ooook!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
Ok,
So the understanding is that all taxa have the same process for obtaining and expelling energy and thus we are related and not just similar? Keep in mind I have no bias opinion right now, but I am trying to understand macro-e better then I do currently. ------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Isn't this wandering rather far afield from the fossil record?
Could you get back there and open another thread for this one. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
Seems like posts 59 & 60 are the posts, which point out that Sonic agreed to the loss.
------------------But Who Am I? NoBody
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
NoBody,
I've started a new topic here Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
quote: Absolute nonsense. Dating methods are fully supported by numerous cross-checks which allow us to not only confirm the dating methods are correct, but even exactly HOW correct. For example,it is known for certain (from history and archeology) that Mt Vesuvius erupted in 79CE. When lava from the region was recently dated, the result was about 70CE - showing an accurate result. The fact that no-one now living was present at Vesuvius' eruption does NOT in the slightest limit our ability to date the event, and to confirm how accurate the dating was. Your criticism of dating methods is based on pure ignorance - datings methods are regularly tested and checked and their accuracy is accepted by all who know the facts. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
When lava from the region was recently dated, the result was about 70CE - showing an accurate result.
And when the layers of ice in the Greenland ice cap were counted, the layer of ash with the chemical signature of Vesuvius matched up, too. And there's another 100,000 layers older than that one in that same core...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
it is known for certain (from history and archeology) that Mt Vesuvius erupted in 79CE. When lava from the region was recently dated, the result was about 70CE - showing an accurate result. The abstract in Science: 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger. The full text is available from there (free registration required for non-subscribers). That and other useful links in http://EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information -->EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3846 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
quote: Dating methods are not theoretical. They are based on practical observations and measurements. Taking radio-dating, the half-lives of radiactive substances are measured in the lab ( I've done it myself in a Physics practical at Glasgow University many years ago - and with a gold-leaf electroscope!). It is a total fallacy that you need to observe them over a complete half-life. Given a sufficiently large sample and sufficiently accurate instrumentation, observation over a very small (compared to the half-life) time suffices. How do we know the half-lives are constant over time. Two reasons. First, a negative reason, is the half lives had changed then the physical laws in the past would differ in a way that would be observable today. Secondly, a positive reason, observations of radioactive decay in supernova show exactly the same decay rates as measured today. Thirdly, again positive, all the methods (radiometric and non-radiometric) agree within the limits of accuracy of the methods. Finally, and linked to the previous point, if the timing rates have changed all these different methods would have to change by exactly the same ratio in order to preserve the concordance of the results. This is physically impossible, at least for radio-dating. Any conceviable way in which decay rates would change would change the decay rates of different elements in a different way. There is a very good exposition of the subject here
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024