Maybe something that only interests me, but, science is cool, and we all need a break from politics now and then
The discovery of rocks as old as 4.28 billion years pushes back age of most ancient remnant of Earth’s crust by 300 million years.
McGill University researchers have discovered the oldest rocks on Earth – a discovery which sheds more light on our planet’s mysterious beginnings. These rocks, known as “faux-amphibolites”, may be remnants of a portion of Earth’s primordial crust – the first crust that formed at the surface of our planet.
The ancient rocks were found in Northern Quebec, along the Hudson’s Bay coast, 40 km south of Inukjuak in an area known as the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt.
The previous oldest Earth rock was 3.96 billion years old. You can see, and touch, a piece of it at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. They have also just added a new piece from the same area, but looks a bit different.
WayCool-posted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, The Pink Flamingo, and Wingless, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I saw a show called I think, History of the earth on the History channel the other night… that stuff is amazing to me,,,,,,, really puts perspective into your day…
:/flag
I think I have seen that one, like 2 hours long or so, right? One of the things I find incredible is that the Moon was pretty much formed in about a month, they think.
But, to find a rock that old is wild, what with all the subduction of the Earth’s plates for all this time.
You’re right, Teach, science is cool!
What I don’t understand is why you question the fact that small, incremental, cumulative changes over billions of years resulted in the formation of new species from older species. The fossil record clearly shows transitions from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.
OK, let’s look at it this way: the fossil record may show some changes (though that is mostly hypothetical,) but, how does it occur? By accident? If it is all random change, where are all the screw up and bad changes? Why do all the changes tend to be the best?
Teach said: OK, let’s look at it this way: the fossil record may show some changes (though that is mostly hypothetical,) but, how does it occur? By accident?
The changes occur mostly (though not exclusively) through mutation and natural selection. When a species becomes geographically isolated it will split and become two separate species that eventually can no longer reproduce with one another. Now imagine that process over a geologic time span.
You can see some of the “hypothetical†changes here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Ddsg6kHMg
If it is all random change, where are all the screw up and bad changes? Why do all the changes tend to be the best?
Natural selection is not random it is a cumulative process. As for where are all the screw ups…it’s not so much that they screwed up, it’s that their environment changed. It is believed that of all species that ever inhabited the Earth over 99% of them are now extinct.
Hypothetical. In other words, not science.
Another point is that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is about random mutation. And, again, you would think that there would be some sort of fossil that shows nature at her worst. But, we do not have any real goof ups. Nor anything in the fossil record that allows for anything other then conjecture that one species slowly turned into another.
Why are eyes on our heads? Seemingly the best place? Where are the fossils of eyes on our shoulders or knees? None. It almost seems as if putting them on our faces where they are was purposeful.
Let Them Eat…Nothing…
While this so-called economic ‘crises’ carries on and on and on, people are waking up to the facts of not only how this happened, but why, who, when, etc. It does not look good for the lot of them politicians…
If evolution is indeed true, then global warming is a non issue. The ability to adapt to changes in our environment would be encoded in our DNA, both plant and animal. And if not, perhaps this is Mother Earth’s way of doing away with people.
good points, Stacy. We would all adapt, as has happened time and time again, such as with the Gallapagos finches, whose beaks shrink or get langer depending on whether it is wet or dry for long periods of times. But, unlike what Darwin proposed, they are still finches.
Teach said: Another point is that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is about random mutation.
Actually Darwin never used the words “random mutation.†He called it “descent with modification.†What Darwin’s theory offered was a mechanism for evolution – natural selection. Yes, the modern theory of evolution involves an element of chance in random mutation but the other part, natural selection, is anything but random.
And, again, you would think that there would be some sort of fossil that shows nature at her worst. But, we do not have any real goof ups.
There are many “goof ups†and it’s actually some of the most powerful evidence for common descent. Vestigial characteristics are a form of morphological evidence that show the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections. Why do male mammals (including human males) have nipples? Why do some snakes (notably boa constrictors) carry the rudiments of a pelvis and tiny legs buried inside their sleek profiles? Why do certain species of flightless beetle have wings, sealed beneath wing covers that never open? Darwin raised all these questions, and answered them, in The Origin of Species. Vestigial structures stand as remnants of the evolutionary history of a lineage.
Nor anything in the fossil record that allows for anything other then conjecture that one species slowly turned into another.
What other explanation is there, Teach? Do you know of any evidence that species appeared instantaneously and fully formed in their present condition?
Where are the fossils of eyes on our shoulders or knees?
Evolution doesn’t work that way. It builds incrementally on existing structures and it requires that the organism live long enough to reproduce. We can see evidence today of people and animals being born malformed but most of them do no live to reproduce.
It almost seems as if putting them on our faces where they are was purposeful.
In a way natural selection is purposeful. It selects those traits which confer a reproductive advantage on a population of living organisms.
But, what causes it to happen, Silke? That is the question. Is it simply random? Or, is there a mechanism that causes these changes to occur to a point that makes sense?
It’s not worth getting worked up over Silke. Life is life. Agreeing to disagree is the most noble of acts. All of this could be gone tomorrow with the crashing of an asteroid on our planet and this conversation would be irrelevant.
Work hard, play hard, love hard. Take lessons from the past, plan for the future, explore new frontiers.
You fight with so much passion over things of which you have no control. I don’t argue with people in regards to my belief in Creationism. It is my choice and I will not force it upon anyone, or make them feel as if they are being degraded or ignorant for not agreeing with me.
Nope, I’ll just enjoy this beautiful day. Maybe make some cookies for my family, and be thankful for all that I have.
Cookies. Choco-chip?
Teach said: But, what causes it to happen, Silke? That is the question. Is it simply random? Or, is there a mechanism that causes these changes to occur to a point that makes sense?
The mechanism is natural selection (which has both a purpose and a direction) working through populations of organisms that can reproduce. The small, successive changes in existing forms over unimaginably long periods of time result in new species. We can test this theory by predicting where to look for certain transitional fossils (both geographically and how far down in the strata). And it has proven successful many times.
How do you explain the origin of species?
Stacy said: It’s not worth getting worked up over Silke.
You’re right, Stacy. It really doesn’t matter. I enjoy discussing scientific topics because they interest me but I hope I didn’t offend you.
I don’t argue with people in regards to my belief in Creationism.
I can understand that. Personally, I believe science provides natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us and because of that I find no conflict between faith and science. To me evolution suggests a God infinitely more subtle and magnificent than ever before imagined. What could be more divine than fashioning a creation that creates itself?
All is well.
The husband demands chocolate chip. The kids get tired of them. Personally I want oatmeal raisin.