Will You Go on Record

[Kristian Joensen]

What counts as a bunch? 5? 10? Graham's number?

[Roy]

I bet, sooner or later, somebody is going to find a mammal fossil in a known Precambrian layer.

I'll take that bet too.

Are any Darwinists willing to go on record, that you will go on record, give up your belief in the THEORY of evolution when a mammal fossil is discovered in one of the Precambrian locations.

Yup. If a bunch of mammal fossils were found in Precambrian rocks evolutionary theory would be in tatters.

But what about you?

What evidence would, if found, cause you to abandon your current worldview?

Roy

[phank]

I predict that when they find one, it will be driving a fossilized precambrian Toytota.

Without, of course, any hint of the necessary industrial base or history.

[HMS_Beagle]

well, if you're not too busy, whats a "luddite"

Your connection to Google broken?

[jordanriver]

Anything else you need help with?

well, if you're not too busy, whats a "luddite"

[jordanriver]

Are there any Darwinists on TWeb?

K54

And I'm not even a Darwinist. I'm only 60 years old and not a Luddite.

K54

a thousand pardons.

you say it like its a bad thing,
nevertheless, I am going to try to remember not to use that 'D' word anymore.

[jordanriver]

1. These creatures were not squirrels (or even the ancestors of squirrels) as you erroneously claim in your OP. As I said:.......
.

sorry my bad.


yes, even the title of your thread was "squirrel-like"

ill try not to be so lazy from now on.

[klaus54]

I'll throw my hat in with Rogue and Beagle.

So that's three for the record.

And I'm not even a Darwinist. I'm only 60 years old and not a Luddite.

JR, if we DO find a rabbit embedded in a Cambrian stratum then YOU'LL have to explain how it got there. Maybe it was too slow or klutzy to get to higher ground to avoid the raging Mabbul, like Bugs and friends? Or maybe there was a manufacturing defect that made a bunny-sized hole in the hydrodynamic sorting sieve?

But it's hard to believe there'd be only one klutzy bunny. I lean towards the hole-in-the-sieve hypothesis.

How about you, JR?

K54

[rogue06]

I bet, sooner or later, somebody is going to find a mammal fossil in a known Precambrian layer.

I would happily take that bet.

Back in the Cambrian not only were there no mammals there were no amphibians, reptiles, birds or even insects. Flora-wise there were not only any flowering plants (angiosperms) there weren't even any gymnosperms from which they arose from.

As I explained when you first brought this silliness up in the thread about about the squirrel-like mammals^[1]:

Hardly.

It has long been known that the lineage that led to the mammals split off from the one that led to reptiles a long, long time ago (Early Permian IIRC). The question has been just how soon did the first true mammals originate from it.

You are trying to blow this way out of proportion. Sort of like claiming that the Icarus myth demonstrates that the ancient Greeks flew around in jet aircraft.








1. These creatures were not squirrels (or even the ancestors of squirrels) as you erroneously claim in your OP. As I said:

The new findings also presents evidence for their closest known relatives being rodent-like creatures known as multituberculates which existed for some 120 million years -- from 35 to 153 mya (Late Jurassic-Oligocene). Neither of these groups having any living descendants meaning that while these new discoveries may resemble modern squirrels they aren't related to them but are the result of convergent evolution.

They resemble squirrels but are no more squirrels than ichthyosaurs are dolphins or either are sharks just because they all share the same general shape.

[klaus54]

Are there any Darwinists on TWeb?

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

Are any Darwinists willing to go on record, that you will go on record, give up your belief in the THEORY of evolution when a mammal fossil is discovered in one of the Precambrian locations.

Not just a single fossil at a location as there are geologic processes (i.e overthrusts) that may change the temporal ordering of strata.

I'll go on record as saying if evidence is of a population of mammals - any mammals - is found in actual Precambrian age strata I'll denounce current evolutionary theory.

Anything else you need help with?

[jordanriver]

Rogue06 posted some nice links about squirrel fossils pushing back mammal origins a few millions of years.
deja vu, of the Poland discovery of tetrapods older than Tiktaalik and the other 'fishpod' (don't remember the less famous other fishpod, don't feel like looking it up either)

biologist JBS Haldane is famous for saying a rabbit fossil found in the Precambrian would cause him to give up is belief in evolution.

maybe

but what about now, ......really?

I bet, sooner or later, somebody is going to find a mammal fossil in a known Precambrian layer.

I also bet the theory will be 'adjusted'

Are any Darwinists willing to go on record, that you will go on record, give up your belief in the THEORY of evolution when a mammal fossil is discovered in one of the Precambrian locations.

....or half way, if that's too scary, you may insist , not just any mammal, but it has to be an actual rabbit.



...oh I suppose if you really want to hedge your bets, you can insist and specifying a black-tailed jackrabbit but it has to be discovered in Precambrian locations in Canada or anywhere far away from Texas and SW USA.


...im just trying to get ahead of this, I know I am going to kick myself if a rabbit is discovered in the Precambrian and nobody bothered to get Darwinists to go on record before it happened.