They turned over a 150 year old evolutionary theory?

[pgp_protector]

These fossilized lamprey hatchlings disprove an age-old evolutionary theory

Lampreys have long been thought to be the earliest vertebrates. But new fossils of hatchling lampreys suggest that theory is completely wrong.

www.popsci.com

But research on new fossils of Paleozoic lamprey larvae, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, have turned that story upside down. “It was very clear to me, like that morning icicle hanging off my roof right there, that we turned over a 150 year old evolutionary theory,” says Miyashita, who was a lead author on the research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03305-9.epdf?sharing_token=3bQ4JwIcBkXj9GyibCX3JdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mx1hzGP9sO7xoFR2EvQJmc227O6czJmrLC85L5IIh98g1YwzmIl-u9Lpq9opvm_B8YaV2AHED9zIAiMmT8oIdFw8wm2sV4UFQGmrQBqi2b54jtFke3trQNL4oEhpBIohyoC4oHOz7C0MU_hidFs6QpoocN29HO4BbXoQadOdJnYH6YGOvjtFk1YNz7_LcNPcs%3D&tracking_referrer=www.popsci.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a theory in crisis.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolution is a theory in crisis.

From the article:

"Biologists had called the lamprey-as-ancestor theory into question before, but the problem rested on the sparse fossil record of lampreys."

"These phylogenetic insights also suggest that the last common ancestor of hagfishes and lampreys was a macrophagous predator that did not have a filter-feeding larval phase. Thus, the armoured ‘ostracoderms’ that populate the cyclostome and gnathostome stems might serve as better proxies than living cyclostomes for the last common ancestor of all living vertebrates"

Biologists confirm what was long predicted.

 

[Larniavc]

They turned over a 150 year old evolutionary theory?

Isn't it great?

 

[AV1611VET]

Biologists confirm what was long predicted.

They knew they were wrong all this time?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution is a theory in crisis.

It's really not.

They knew they were wrong all this time?

No, they didn't know they were wrong, nor even considered that it was wrong. They knew that it COULD be wrong. All scientific knowledge is provisional and will be replaced as we find out more and more.
Not that you really care at all...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is really cool to see though.

 

[Paulos23]

Evolution is a theory in crisis.

Because they find something wrong and correct it?

You have an odd sense of crisis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they find something wrong and correct it?

It's correct now, is it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's correct now, is it?

'Correct' is an absolute. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, only mathematics does.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution is a theory in crisis.

Not according to the article which suggest a different evolutionary path than was previously understood.

 

[Paulos23]

It's correct now, is it?

It is more 'correct' than it was before. That is to say, it explains the process of evolution better than it did before, based on new evidence.

Science is always testing and finding gaps and misunderstandings to fill in. Something that is rarely done outside of science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

'Correct' is an absolute. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, only mathematics does.

And the Sith.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And the Sith.

There was a Sith businessman. Just wanted to say that.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Correct' is an absolute. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, only mathematics does.

Fair enough.

I'll take Paulos' remark with a grain of salt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

I'll take Paulos' remark with a grain of salt.

Which you shouldn't because he's right when he says that it's 'correct', in that this finding explains more about evolution than we had before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which you shouldn't because he's right when he says that it's 'correct', in that this finding explains more about evolution than we had before.

You have a strange definition of "correct".

If 5 + 4 = 7 is incorrect, is 5 + 4 = 8 correct, because it's closer to 9?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have a strange definition of "correct".

If 5 + 4 = 7 incorrect, is 5 + 4 = 8 correct, because it's closer to 9?

False equivalency because, as I said, only mathematics deals in absolutes such as anything being truly correct.

Science does not say that anything is correct. Only science teachers do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science does not say that anything is correct.

Fair enough.

I'll take Paulos' comment with a grain of salt then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

I'll take Paulos' comment with a grain of salt then.

Again, I'll say: Which you shouldn't because he's right when he says that it's 'correct', in that this finding explains more about evolution than we had before.

Or do just want some fish and chips to go with all that salt?