The fossilized remains of two pregnant fish indicate that sex as we know it - fertilization of eggs while they are still inside a female - took place as much as 30 million years earlier than previously thought, researchers said this week.
so when do these scientists reckon that sex, sperm, eggs, in this case a womb all connected up with the ability to feed the embryos, and a male and female version with appropriate genitalia were evolved?
But they couldn't breed until ALL of these components were available and working so I don't understand how the animals reproduced before this had happened.
The fossilized remains of two pregnant fish indicate that sex as we know it - fertilization of eggs while they are still inside a female - took place as much as 30million years earlier than previously thought, researchers said this week.
according to the front cover and feature article in New Scientist,
21 Jan 2009, p34-39.
Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus , which evolved into us. Now, habilis and erectus are now thought to be sister species that overlapped in time.
See how the professors present a picture of how these 'sister species' evolved over time without having to justify (prove) that evolution is true at all! First theory was wrong, so just make up another explanation. Of course no one knows if the new explanation is accurate!
Click for more details
T-Rex flesh found inside the fossilised thigh bone of a T-Rex. How can flesh survive 70 million years?
click here for more