Comments about ‘Prehistoric rodents from Utah highlighted’

Very interesting Facts to know=
Vernal has much more stories of flinstone Dino Life

Once again, poor science,

by ASSUMING a relationship to modern day creatures.

To the truth,

Yeah, because we all know those dino creatures were from other planets that were assembled into this earth where Adam was placed as the first man only about 6,000 years ago!

What? Have you been reading Skousen again?

how much something that supposedly took millions of years to morph into something else still looks exactly like what it is being classified as today. I hate to say it, but the photo looks like the jaw bone of something that's been dead about a month. Aren't fossils all created from the sediment around it and therefore rock? So, instead of looking like tooth and bone, this specimen should be all grey. Right?

"Aren't fossils all created from the sediment around it and therefore rock?"

No. Fossils are the remains, imprints, or traces of an ancient organism that have been preserved in the rock record. Bones, shells, casts, tracks, and excrement can all become fossils. Depending on circumstances, the remains may have been mineralized (the original organic material has been replaced by minerals from the surrounding rock) or the original material may still be more or less intact.

While the little jawbone may look to you exactly like the jawbone of a living mouse, paleontologists (who actually study these things carefully) can spot the subtle differences that distinguish them.

It always amazes me how little the general public knows about science.

Deductive reasoning is not the same as a bare assumption. By your description, Sir Isaac Newton ASSUMED that it was gravity that made the apple fall off the tree. I suppose you prefer a theory of Intelligent Falling.

I strongly suggest you take a science class. I recommend Physical Science 100 at BYU.

Newton did NOT assume anything.

He did not waht is was,

but just called gravity,

many years later we still trying to understand waht iti is,

we all we know of "gravity" is mass effects it, and "it" seems to affect other things.


westill do know wahtthis for c we call "gravity" is.


and yes the are assuming/supposing this so called ancient rodent is related to modern rodents.


what "scientific" proof are they basing a relationship on?

looks?

none, but it looks good on their magical fairy tale evolutionary tree chart.

There is NO hard scientific proof that something can fundamrntnally change into something else.

Birds are still birds,

Fish are still fish,

viruses are still viruses, etc.


Meanunwhile you must ignore all evidence things not changed,

like shark and crocdiles, coelcanths, to insects ferns ans trees


All have is evidence of minor adaption, but they are what the always were.


ALL else must be assumed or supposed.

and must do ton of this to be able to accept or believe any part the theory.