Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 12 December 2017, 2:59:43 AM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
  Print  
Author Topic: Science proves evolution  (Read 25730 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: 08 June 2017, 16:23:43 PM »

From New Scientist.
SHORT SHARP SCIENCE  7 June 2017
Bird caught in amber 100 million years ago is best ever found
By Michael Le Page, science Lida Xing, Jingmai K. O'Connor, Ryan C. McKellar, Luis M. Chiappe, Kuowei Tseng, Gang Li, Ming Bai
Insects are not the only creatures that got stuck in amber during the time of the dinosaurs. Bits of ancient birds and dinosaurs have been found too – and now the most complete bird yet has been found.
A 100-million-year-old chunk of amber found in Myanmar contains the head, neck, wing, tail and feet of a hatchling. It was just a few days old when it fell into a pool of sap oozing from a conifer tree.

“It’s the most complete and detailed view we’ve ever had,” says Ryan McKellar of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, in Canada, a member of the team that described the find. “Seeing something this complete is amazing. It’s just stunning.”

While it looks as if the actual skin and flesh of the bird are preserved in the amber, it’s basically a very detailed impression of the animal, McKellar says. Studies of similar finds show the flesh has broken down into carbon – and there’s no usable DNA, fans of Jurassic Park will be disappointed to learn.
The amber does preserve some of the feather colours – but in this case they are not terribly exciting, McKellar admits. “They were little brown jobbies.”
The unfortunate youngster belonged to a group of birds known as the ‘opposite birds’ that lived alongside the ancestors of modern birds and appear to have been more diverse and successful – until they died out with the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
Previous fossil finds and a couple of wings preserved in amber suggest that opposite birds hatched with flight feathers, ready to fend for themselves.
The new find adds to this evidence, as the hatchling had a full set of flight feathers and was growing tail feathers – but oddly it mostly lacked body feathers rather than being covered in down like today’s hatchlings.
They probably hatched on the ground and climbed into trees, says McKellar, making them particularly likely to get stuck in sap.
In appearance, opposite birds likely resembled modern birds, but they had a socket-and-ball joint in their shoulders where modern birds have a ball-and-socket joint – hence the name. They also had claws on their wings, and jaws and teeth rather than beaks – but at the time the hatchling lived, the ancestors of modern birds had not yet evolved beaks either.
The amber containing the bird was collected by a museum in China several years ago. When it realised what it had, the museum contacted Lida Xing of the China University of Geosciences in Beijing, who led the team that described the find.
Why the opposite birds died out while the ancestors of modern birds survived is not clear, but the lack of parental care may have played a part. Most modern birds require parental care – the brush turkey of Australia (which is no relation to American turkeys) is one of the few exceptions.
Journal reference: Gondwana Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2017.06.001
Logged


oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: 01 July 2017, 23:04:39 PM »

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
FEATURED PRODUCT
Featured Product image
EBOOK
Homo Floresiensis – the 'hobbit' 10 years on
$4.99
VIEW DETAILS
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: 01 July 2017, 23:06:18 PM »

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: 01 July 2017, 23:06:42 PM »

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: 02 July 2017, 21:41:28 PM »

Missing link whale.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139203-missing-link-whale-could-filter-feed-and-hunt-larger-prey/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1498833906
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: 18 July 2017, 1:20:11 AM »

Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.
Tom Krattenmaker, Opinion columnist Published 8:26 a.m. ET July 13, 2017 | Updated 5:48 a.m. ET July 14, 2017
People aren't dumping faith. They're reconciling creationism and evolution in a way that suggests how we can bridge other polarizing divides, including the current health care impasse.
Fundamentalists are vowing to make a last stand for God in Dayton, Tenn., on July 14 when a new statue will be installed on the courthouse lawn. Going up alongside a likeness of William Jennings Bryan is a depiction of Clarence Darrow, Bryan’s pro-evolution adversary in Dayton’s historic Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.
The creationist organizing the protests is threatening to bring in a militia to thwart installation of the Darrow statue, which she calls an insult to God and Christians. It will take a lot more than that, though, to stop Americans’ growing acceptance of evolution and apparent shift away from the strict creationist view of the origin of the species.
New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.
Has atheism taken over so thoroughly? No, and that’s why this apparent break in the creationism-vs.-evolution stalemate is significant and even instructive to those in search of creative solutions to our other intractable public arguments.
As the poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.
"Science doesn't have to drive people away from faith,” says Deborah Haarsma, president of an organization called BioLogos that promotes harmony between science and Christian faith.
It’s endlessly frustrating to secular and religious liberals, but the creationist view has held strong sway in this country in the decades since the famous Darrow-Bryan courtroom duel. Over recent decades, percentages in the upper-40s have taken the creationist position; the figure stood at 46% in Gallup’s 2012 survey.
Tenacious anti-evolution resistance continues to influence debates over issues including public school curricula, government support for creationist installations like the Noah’s Ark replica in Kentucky, and research access to national parks. A creationist researcher, for instance, claimed religious discrimination in his successful legal fight with the U.S. Park Service over its refusal to grant him access to collect rock samples. His purpose: marshalling evidence in support of the creationist belief that the Grand Canyon was created by a great global flood a relatively recent 4,300 years ago — the same flood that Noah and company are said to have ridden out on the ark.
Ken Ham discusses the future of the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter.
 Shae Combs
Creationists will believe what they want to believe. But they should know the consequences. Continued fighting to promote creationism is hurting religion’s credibility in an age when science and technology are perceived as reliable sources of truth and positive contributors to society. Anecdotal and polling evidence implicate religion’s anti-science reputation in the drift away from church involvement — especially among younger adults, nearly 40% of who have left organized religion behind.
Belief in God doesn't undermine evolution: Not surprising, in view of our growing secularization, the percentage of Americans taking the strict evolution view — no divine role — has grown significantly since the 1980s, from 9% to 19% in the latest Gallup survey.

But the latest movement in public opinion shows one-time creationists taking refuge not in the “no-religion” zone but in “both/and” position. The percentage of people choosing the hybrid view — around 30% in 2014 — was eight points higher in Gallup’s poll.
These tea leaves tell us that more people are refusing the all-or-nothing choice between faith and science and opting instead for a third way: Acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution while seeing a divine role in the process. “Divine evolution” is a term some use for it.
If we were to apply this approach to other stalemated arguments and false binaries, what other possibilities might emerge? Can’t we support Black Lives Matter and police officers who serve conscientiously? Can’t we support the legal availability of abortion and strategies that would reduce its incidence? Can’t we accept the scientific consensus on climate change and acknowledge a role for free-market business innovation as part of the solution? In the ongoing tussle over health care, can't we envision a system that combines the best private and government solutions?
For now, something to appreciate: Growing public rejection of an unhelpful creationism-vs.-evolution fight that does no favours for either religion or science. As more believers are wisely accepting, you can embrace both — and both are better for it.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: 27 July 2017, 20:41:04 PM »

From New Scientist:

The eyes have it: How spotting naive prey made fish walk on land
By Brian Switek
SEEN through the right geological lens, the bucolic countryside near Chirnside, a village in south-east Scotland, becomes a tropical swamp. The rocks divulge a picture of a sweltering and soggy landscape, tangled with all manner of tree ferns, horsetails and 30-metre-high clubmosses that look like giant scaly asparagus spears.
Here, 350 million years ago, off the edge of a muddy bank, a pair of eyes poked above the water. They belonged to a newt-like creature with a broad head, a wide mouth full of needle-sharp teeth and a long tail. It also boasted four limbs, with which it shuffled awkwardly onto the bank.
This amphibious vertebrate, nicknamed Tiny by its discoverers, might be the most important fossil you’ve never heard of. It lived through a time for which our records are sparse, but when one of the most significant transitions in life’s history was taking place. This was the era in which fish-like things hauled themselves out of the water for new life on land, setting the stage for the rise of amphibians, reptiles and mammals like us.
So far, we’ve uncovered a number of flagstones on the evolutionary path from fish to four-legged land animals, or tetrapods. In rocks dating from 375 million years ago, the end of the Devonian period, palaeontologists have found a fossilised shoal of fishy creatures that document the evolution of fins into the limbs and fingers that would eventually carry them onto land. Fleshy-finned fish related to today’s lungfish mark the start of the transition, with fossils like Panderichthys from Latvia and the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik from Ellesmere Island, Canada, demonstrating how fin bones were modified into the rudiments of our own appendages.
Fast forward about 10 million years and vertebrates seem even better suited to wandering ashore. There was Acanthostega, roughly salamander-shaped and 60-centimetres long, with well-defined limbs and eight fingers on each hand, and the larger Ichthyostega, with its seven digits. Although recent studies suggest it would have been more comfortable in water, Ichthyostega was capable of dragging its body along the mud banks. At this point, early tetrapods had limbs, fingers and the ability to breathe air, inherited from their lungfish-like ancestors. Life seemed perfectly poised to crawl onto land for good.
But that’s where the fossils disappear. For the first 15 million years of the Carboniferous – between 360 and 345 million years ago – the descendants of the first tetrapods seemed incredibly scarce. Where palaeontologists had expected an explosion of tetrapod species, there were fewer than they could count on their fingers. When the fossil record picks up again, there is a riot of amphibian life at the water’s edge, including the first creatures to fully abandon the water for life on land.
This vast hole in the fossil record is known as Romer’s Gap – after US palaeontologist Alfred Romer, who first called attention to it – and it has long been a mystery. What happened in the period between Ichthyostega pushing its way through weed-choked swamps and the early amphibians making themselves comfortable further ashore? And why so few fossils?
But the fossil record has a habit of surprising us. The first hints came in 2002, when Jennifer Clack at the University of Cambridge and her colleagues looked more closely at the bones of Pederpes finneyae, previously identified as a fish that lived just within Romer’s Gap, about 348 million years ago. Clack identified Pederpes as a tetrapod with five functional toes on feet that were much less paddle-like than those of its predecessors. It was not fully terrestrial, she says, but its limb anatomy suggested Pederpes was more capable on land than any previous vertebrate. More than that, it was a hint that Romer’s Gap might not be so barren, after all.
“Bigger eyes and better eyesight revealed the bounty of prey on land”
Encouraged, palaeontologists returned to long-neglected rocks dating from Romer’s Gap for a closer look. And they were shocked by what they found. In 2015, Jason Anderson at the University of Calgary, Canada, and others drew from a collection of fossils found at Blue Beach, Nova Scotia, to argue that a diverse array of tetrapods had lived there at the time.
The following year, Clack and a team of colleagues returned to a riverbed not far from Chirnside to discover a bumper crop of new fossils – not one but five new tetrapod species.
The reason they were missed for so long is that the rocks from Romer’s Gap do not contain commercially exploitable resources such as coal, limestone or iron ore.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: 07 December 2017, 0:50:05 AM »

Little Foot skeleton unveiled in South Africa
The skeleton was discovered in the Sterkfontein caves
One of the oldest and most complete skeletons of humankind's ancestors has been unveiled in South Africa.
A team spent more than 20 years excavating, cleaning and putting together the skeleton of Little Foot.
Its exact age is debated, but South African scientists say the remains are 3.67 million years old.
This would mean Little Foot was alive about 500,000 years before Lucy, the famous skeleton of an ancient human relative found in Ethiopia.
Both Little Foot and Lucy belong to the same genus - Australopithecus - but they are different species.
Scientists believe this shows humankind's ancestors were spread across a far wider area of Africa than had previously thought. It also suggests there were a diverse number of species.
Little Foot was discovered in the Sterkfontein caves, north-west of South Africa's main city Johannesburg
It is thought that she was a young girl who fell down a shaft of one of the caves.
"It might be small, but it might be very important. Because that's how it started, with one little bone. And it helps us to understand our origins," the team leader, Professor Ron Clarke, said.
The research team spent years cleaning and excavating the bones
The process of removing the bones from the caves was painstaking, as the fossil had "very fragile bones", which were "extremely soft" and "buried in a natural concrete-like material", he added.
"We used very small tools, like needles to excavate it. That's why it took so long. It was like excavating a fluffy pastry out of concrete," Prof Clarke said.


Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: 07 December 2017, 3:42:16 AM »

Ape-Men? 2


Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g).


Figure 13: Ramapithecus. Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth (h).




Figure 14: Nebraska Man. Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig.  Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

d . Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. Lewin,      Bones of Contention, p. 61.

At least eleven people have been accused of being the perpetrator of the famous Piltdown hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer may have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

e.   Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f.   Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.

g.   Hammond, p. 43.

“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

h . “A single small water-worn tooth, 10.5 mm by 11 mm in crown diameter, signalizes the arrival of a member of the family of anthropoid Primates in North America in Middle Pliocene time.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 8, 15 August 1922, p. 245.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: 07 December 2017, 4:05:14 AM »

That is how science works.
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. In 1912, the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. After finding a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum. Dawson and Smith Woodward discovered more bones and artefacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"). The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.
As our knowledge progresses, we are able to correct earlier findings {and hoaxes}.
When scientists are proved wrong, they accept the facts.
When creationists are proved wrong they try to twist the facts to fit their fantasies.

Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #100 on: 07 December 2017, 5:46:30 AM »

That is how science works.
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. In 1912, the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. After finding a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum. Dawson and Smith Woodward discovered more bones and artefacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"). The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.
As our knowledge progresses, we are able to correct earlier findings {and hoaxes}.
When scientists are proved wrong, they accept the facts.
When creationists are proved wrong they try to twist the facts to fit their fantasies.

When have creationists been proved wrong?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: 07 December 2017, 14:39:26 PM »

Quote
  When have creationists been proved wrong? 
When, in spite of the radio dating  and astronomical evidence, they claim that the universe is 6000 years old.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: 08 December 2017, 2:44:48 AM »

Quote
  When have creationists been proved wrong? 
When, in spite of the radio dating  and astronomical evidence, they claim that the universe is 6000 years old.

Most evidence indicates a young universe.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: 08 December 2017, 14:29:15 PM »

Quote
Most evidence indicates a young universe.     

Only if you ignore evidence you do not like.
Logged
ncoddingrocco
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: 11 December 2017, 20:52:43 PM »

<strong><a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/">Rolex Yacht-Master II</a></strong><br>
<strong><a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/">Replik-Uhren</a></strong><br>
Replik Schweizer Uhren | <a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/">Replik Schweizer Uhren</a> | <a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/">Schweizer Rolex Repliken zum Verkauf</a>
Gefälschten Rolex- Uhren für Männer und Frauen
  US Dollar
  Euro
  GB Pound
  Canadian Dollar
  Australian Dollar
  Jappen Yen
  Norske Krone
  Swedish Krone
  Danish Krone
  CNY
Kategorien
Rolex Lady- Datejust
Rolex Datejust Special Edition
Rolex Cosmograph Daytona
<a class="category-top" href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/rolex-datejust-c-4.html">Rolex Datejust</a>
Rolex Datejust 36
Rolex Datejust II
<a class="category-top" href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/rolex-datejust-lady-31-c-3.html">Rolex Datejust Lady 31</a>
Rolex Day-Date
Rolex Day-Date II
Rolex Explorer
Rolex Explorer II
<a class="category-top" href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/rolex-gmt-master-ii-c-14.html">Rolex GMT- Master II</a>
Rolex Lady- Datejust
Rolex Milgauss
Rolex Neu 2013 Modelle
Rolex Oyster Perpetual
Rolex Rolex Deepsea
Rolex SKY- DWELLER
<a class="category-top" href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/rolex-submariner-c-2.html">Rolex Submariner</a>
Rolex Yacht-Master
Rolex Yacht-Master II
Top Artikel
[url=http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/]Replica Rolex Datejust II Watch - Rolex Timeless Luxury Watches [fa1e]Replica Rolex Datejust II Watch - Rolex Timeless Luxury Watches [fa1e][/url] &euro;24,047.01  &euro;190.65Sie sparen 99% ! [url=http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/]Replica Rolex Submariner Date Watch: Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M116613LB -0001 [e655]Replica Rolex Submariner Date Watch: Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M116613LB -0001 [e655][/url] &euro;7,669.71  &euro;195.30Sie sparen 97% ! [url=http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/]Replica Rolex Datejust Special Edition Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M81315 -0003 [8757]Replica Rolex Datejust Special Edition Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M81315 -0003 [8757][/url] &euro;11,823.09  &euro;189.72Sie sparen 98% !
Ähnliche Artikel - [mehr]
Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Platinum - M179136 -0017 [59e5]
Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Platinum - M179136 -0017 [59e5]&euro;11,373.90  &euro;194.37Sie sparen 98% !Replica Rolex Datejust Watch: Everose Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold Everose - M116231 -0092 [a640]
Replica Rolex Datejust Watch: Everose Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold Everose - M116231 -0092 [a640]&euro;10,707.09  &euro;194.37Sie sparen 98% !<a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/replica-rolex-lady-datejust-watch-yellow-rolesor-kombination-aus-edelstahl-904l-und-18-karat-gelbgold-m179383-0030-2419-p-41.html"><img src="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/images/_small//rolex_replica_/Watches/Lady-Datejust/Rolex-Lady-Datejust-Watch-Yellow-Rolesor-1.jpg" alt="Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M179383 -0030 [2419]" title=" Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M179383 -0030 [2419] " width="130" height="139" /></a>Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M179383 -0030 [2419]&euro;12,257.40  &euro;196.23Sie sparen 98% !
   
Neue Artikel im DezemberReplica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Gelbgold - M116238 -0058
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Gelbgold - M116238 -0058&euro;7,810.14  &euro;198.09Sie sparen 97% !
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116234 -0084
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116234 -0084&euro;8,064.96  &euro;196.23Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Weißgold - M116189 -0076
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Weißgold - M116189 -0076&euro;10,801.95  &euro;192.51Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M116285BBR -0008<a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.com/de/replica-rolex-datejust-36-mm-watch-18-ct-everose-gold-m116285bbr-0008-p-100.html?zenid=9b5jenq4u7cv1fs3nlbcm4hba6">Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M116285BBR -0008</a>&euro;7,781.31  &euro;191.58Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116244 -0034
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116244 -0034&euro;10,469.01  &euro;194.37Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116244 -0014
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M116244 -0014&euro;5,861.79  &euro;189.72Sie sparen 97% !
 
Ähnliche ArtikelReplica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M116285BBR -0008
Replica Rolex Datejust 36 mm Watch: 18 ct Everose gold - M116285BBR -0008&euro;7,781.31  &euro;191.58Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M179174 -0065
Replica Rolex Lady- Datejust Watch: Weiß Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold - M179174 -0065&euro;7,118.22  &euro;192.51Sie sparen 97% !
Replica Rolex Sky -Dweller Uhr : 18 ct Everose gold - M326135 -0001<a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.com/de/replica-rolex-sky-dweller-uhr-18-ct-everose-gold-m326135-0001-p-50.html?zenid=9b5jenq4u7cv1fs3nlbcm4hba6">Replica Rolex Sky -Dweller Uhr : 18 ct Everose gold - M326135 -0001</a>&euro;10,584.33  &euro;188.79Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust Special Edition Watch: 18 ct Gelbgold - M81298 -0011
Replica Rolex Datejust Special Edition Watch: 18 ct Gelbgold - M81298 -0011&euro;9,186.54  &euro;190.65Sie sparen 98% !
Replica Rolex Datejust Lady 31 Uhr : Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M178313 -0002
Replica Rolex Datejust Lady 31 Uhr : Yellow Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gelbgold - M178313 -0002&euro;6,434.67  &euro;191.58Sie sparen 97% !
Replica Rolex Datejust Watch: Everose Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold Everose - M116231 -0092
Replica Rolex Datejust Watch: Everose Rolesor - Kombination aus Edelstahl 904L und 18 Karat Gold Everose - M116231 -0092&euro;8,921.49  &euro;193.44Sie sparen 98% !
 
 
Erleben Sie eine RolexKontaktieren Sie Ihren lokalen Rolex FachhändlerHändlersuche
Zuhause& nbsp; & nbsp;
Versand& nbsp; & nbsp;
Großhandel& nbsp; & nbsp;
Sendungsverfolgung& nbsp; & nbsp;
Gutscheine& nbsp; & nbsp;
<a style="color:#000; font:12px;" href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/index.php?main_page=Payment_Methods">Zahlungsmethoden</a>& nbsp; & nbsp;
kontaktieren Sie uns& nbsp; & nbsp;
<a style=" font-weight:bold; color:#000;" href="http://www.rolexmenwatchescopy.com/de/" target="_blank">NEW Replica Watches</a>& nbsp; & nbsp;
Replica Rolex-Uhren& nbsp; & nbsp;
AAAA Replica Rolex-Uhren& nbsp; & nbsp;
Gefälschten Rolex- Uhren& nbsp; & nbsp;
Replica Rolex Oyster& nbsp; & nbsp;
Cheap Replica Rolex-Uhren& nbsp; & nbsp;
 
Copyright © 2012-2014 Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Rolex Yacht-Master II
<a href="http://www.highreplicawatches.cn/de/">Replik-Uhren</a>
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines