Docstoc

msg05309

Document Sample
msg05309 Powered By Docstoc
					                                          Re: Placental fossils in Oz?

Re: Placental fossils in Oz?

Source: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009−07/msg05309.html



      • From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      • Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:20:42 −0400

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Va77m.8096$cl4.5415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Anti−ToE blogger Cornelius Hunter writes a pretty decent article
        trying to discredit the biogeographical evidence for the ToE.

        http://darwins−god.blogspot.com/2009/07/sermon−by−jerry−coyne−on−biogeography.html

        "It is all over the map", he writes, suggesting that only a fraction
        of it fits into the neat pattern the ToE would prefer − evidence wise.

        There is some truth to that, but this claim caught my eye:

        In his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution
        Douglas Futuyma wrote that "The molelike and wolflike
        animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to
        each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached
        Australia." Once again, forcing the evidence into the
        evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental
        fossil species were discovered in Australia.

        Anyone know what he is talking about? Not just fruit bats,
        I presume.


Never mind. My question was answered by one of the blog's
readers − It is in reader response #5 at the parent link
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent−design/a−sermon−by−jerry−coyne−on−biogeography/

But actually, you've got that wrong too: a fossil bat was found in 1982,
probably round about the time Futuyama was writing (given that it was
released in 1983), but, well, it was a bat and one related to European
species so it's pretty obvious that it flew to Australia. Also, not really a
candidate for overthrowing the Marsupial Overlords of the Ancient
Outback, so nothing to force there even assuming Futuyama knew
about it before his book went to press. But, yeah, all the other placental
fossils were years in the future.

So, anyone want to guess what happened after those future fossils were


Re: Placental fossils in Oz?                                                                 1
                                         Re: Placental fossils in Oz?
found? Scientists started rethinking the old picture. What ever is the matter
with those people?

Chronology aside, so far, the Australian placental fossils only represent
a few species (two bats and a small rodent and also a diminutive little
creature for which only a single tooth is certain), and for the most part are
known from just a few bits and pieces at very specific sites (the 1982 bat
is the exception), so it's hardly like everything known about Australian
natural history was suddenly invalidated. It's a fantastic stretch to think
that invalidation would extend to evolutionary theory itself.

.




Re: Placental fossils in Oz?                                                    2

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:2/17/2012
language:
pages:2