Ancient Ecosystem Found in Israel

[Elspode]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli scientists said on Wednesday they had discovered a prehistoric ecosystem dating back millions of years.

The discovery was made in a cave near the central Israeli city of Ramle during rock drilling at a quarry. Scientists were called in and soon found eight previously unknown species of crustaceans and invertebrates similar to scorpions.

"Until now eight species of animals were found in the cave, all of them unknown to science," said Dr Hanan Dimantman, a biologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

He said the cave's ecosystem probably dates back around five million years when the Mediterranean Sea covered parts of Israel.

The cave was completely sealed off from the world, including from water and nutrients seeping through rock crevices above. Scientists who discovered the cave believe it has been intact for millions of years.

"Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution," said Dimantman.

Samples of the animals discovered in the cave were sent for DNA tests which found they were unique, he said. The cave has been closed off as scientists conduct a more detailed survey.

"This is a cave of fantastic biodiversity," Dimantman said.

[Pie]

Don't worry, Spode. This is the middle east. Someone will be by to blow up the cave (and all its diversity) rsn.

[WabUfvot5]

So now that the cave has been burst into does that mean the ecosystem is more or less dead?

[Undertoad]

Sorry, spode, I had to IotD it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're now a celebrity hero, Elspode.
Oh....wait....you already were.
Nevermind.

[salty]

Nice story. I can't find it independantly on any newswire, even those is Israel. Care to show the source?

[Undertoad]

JPost story (posted on IotD thread)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[Elspode]

I got it off of Yahoo Science News...

[jdent19037]

"Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution," said Dimantman


lol ok so i love it how, amoung evolutionists, theres no room for any other viewpoint. but in the rest of the world, we're taught to accept and tolerate every other viewpoint.
its also funny to me that in this statement, the automatic explanation for the loss of eyesight is some kind of evolution. this statement is made without any research or knowledge of the species whatsoever. hell, this is a completely different organism than we've been seeing for "5 million" years and evolutionists automatically assume that current theories apply.
c'mon, evolution is still just a theory, not cold hard fact...treat it that way

[glatt]

Well, the current theory fits better than any other.

[robbersdog]

jdent, please read up on what a scientific theory is.

Have a look here for an explanation.

Evolution is a lot more than what most people think of a theory. It is a scientific theory.

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis. That is, it:

1) is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense;

2) is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct;

3) makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory;

4) is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

5) is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.

It's not just a guess.

[Undertoad]

If they had been found with eyes in an atmosphere that was without light for tens of thousands of years, and the researcher had found them and reached hard for an evolutionary explanation why this might be, you might have a point, jdent.

But no, it was yet another case of a species that lives in a light-free environment, having no eyes and no coloration.

Instead of the big counter-example we're all waiting for, it was just another example of proof that the theory is correct.

That's about 10,000 examples that prove evolution to none that don't. Can I get snarky about this? It is possible that we're just being fooled. Stick with that idea if you like. Maybe that "intelligent design" thing will work for you, after all, somebody had to put those scorps in that cave eh? Surely they didn't just dig in... the hand of an intelligent designer put them there and blinded them, to fool us.

[Flint]

...they were blinded by his noodley appendage!

[Undertoad]

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by jdent19037

hell, this is a completely different organism than we've been seeing for "5 million" years and evolutionists automatically assume that current theories apply.

Exactly. That's how scientific theories work. They make predictions, and then look for data that supports or contradict those predictions. The further removed a new species is from known species, the better, because it has the greatest chance to contradict current theory. On the other hand, if it supports the theory, it is quite strong evidence for the correctness of the theory.

c'mon, evolution is still just a theory, not cold hard fact...treat it that way

One prediction of evolutionary theory: Given time, a species cut off from light will lose its eyes and coloration.
Cold hard fact: an ecosystem cut off from light for millennia lost its eyes and coloration.
Conclusion: The theory has been supported.