New Sea Monster Found, Rewrites Evolution?

[Still Waters]

A new species of dinosaur-era sea reptile is rewriting the books on the evolution of so-called sea monsters, a new study claims.

The newfound—and potentially controversial—Malawania anachronus was a ten-foot (three-meter) long ichthyosaur, a group of dolphin-like creatures that could grow to 65 feet (20 meters) in length. These fast-swimming predators peaked in diversity during the Jurassic period.

http://news.national...ence-evolution/

[Myles]

A 65 ft dolphin? Holy cow!!

[Princess Serenity]

COOL! Thanks for sharing.

[Simbi Laveau]

Prehistoric waters were like Texas is today ,THEY DO EVERYTHING BIGGER !

[ineffectiveArtist]

Will this prove to the world that evolution is the only correct theory? Probally not...

[aquatus1]

I couldn't find the slightest trace of who said anything about this re-writing evolution (except for National Geographic). The closest the study came to was that this may require a revision of the ichysomethingsomething timeline.

[paperdyer]

I couldn't find the slightest trace of who said anything about this re-writing evolution (except for National Geographic). The closest the study came to was that this may require a revision of the ichysomethingsomething timeline.

But would have been as eager to read the article if it hadn't had "rewrite" in the title?

Edited May 16, 2013 by paperdyer

[mfrmboy]

Dang !! Now the poor mules have nothing to step on........

[Auldaney]

Evolutionists claimed Ichthosaurs became extinct in the Jurassic, now they found one in the Cretaceous, 66 million years later according to evolutionists.

The newfound Ichthosaur—and controversial—Malawania anachronus was a ten-foot (three-meter) long Ichthyosaur, a group of dolphin-like creatures that could grow to 65 feet (20 meters) in length. Of course they gave it a different name so it would not be recognized as identical to the Jurassic Ichthyosaur, proving it did not evolve for 66 million years!

Evolutionists are shocked because marine reptiles evolve rapidly!

This is the same thing that happened to the Archaeopteryx protoavis found in the Triassic, 70 million years before Archaeopteryx lithographica appeared in the Jurassic without any sign of evolution.

This is because evolutionists are mistaking depositional formations for periods of time, instead of depositional environments and water sorting during one long event.

[aquatus1]

Actually, it could re-write the evolutionary history of Ichthyosauria. Think of all the possible forms they could have evolved in during those 66 million years!

Which is a rather creative use by the article of a study which is actually about how little the fishie evolved in those 66 million years!

The newfound Ichthosaur—and controversial—Malawania anachronus was a ten-foot (three-meter) long Ichthyosaur, a group of dolphin-like creatures that could grow to 65 feet (20 meters) in length. Of course they gave it a different name so it would not be recognized as identical to the Jurassic Ichthyosaur, proving it did not evolve for 66 million years!

Well...not quite. Species names are more often to indicate a different location, or a particular evolutionary development, or, (back in a more egocentric era) the name of the researcher. Itchyfishie was not, after all, identical to the Jurassic version of itself. It was close to identical, which happens regularly enough in evolution to have a specific name assigned to it: Lazarus taxon. The real rarity in this find was a creature the size of the specimen. The previous largest species, the coelacanth, was much smaller (although to its credit, it is still alive and swimming).

What is fun about this particular name is that it emphasizes that specific Lazarus phenomena, not just the standard location/evolution/name of scientist we usually see.

Evolutionists are shocked because marine reptiles evolve rapidly!

Hmm...where did you hear this?

This is the same thing that happened to the Archaeopteryx protoavis found in the Triassic, 70 million years before Archaeopteryx lithographica appeared in the Jurassic without any sign of evolution.

No, no.

Not only has protoavis not been classified as an Archeopteryx, there is significant debate that it isn't a bird at all, or even an actual single species.

This is because evolutionists are mistaking depositional formations for periods of time, instead of depositional environments and water sorting during one long event.

Oh...you're one of those.

Well, I'm out. I would be happy to discuss science, but I'm not going to get into any sort of creationist nonsense.

But would have been as eager to read the article if it hadn't had "rewrite" in the title?

Ultimately...yeah, this is the most likely reason for that particular word choice...

[justcalmebubba]

looks like a swordfish but then i dont know dinos from any time period wait i know my x mother in law does she count as a dino?