Quadriderme And Infants

Religion has nothing to do with science science

Religion has nothing to do with science - and vice versa

Scientists like Richard Dawkins say the universe has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, But These Things are not the business of science, says geneticist Francisco J. Ayala . They are the exclusive preserve of religion

By the same token, religion should not make assertions about the natural world that are contrary to science. Photograph: Max Rossi/Reuters

Are religion and science incompatible?

Some scientists assert that valid knowledge can only come from science. They hold that religious beliefs are the remains of pre-scientific explanations of the world and amount to nothing more than superstition.

On the other side, some people of faith believe that science conveys a materialistic view of the world that denies the existence of any reality outside the material world. Science, they think, is incompatible with their religious faith.

I contend that both – scientists denying religion and believers rejecting science – are wrong. Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters.

The scope of science is the world of nature: the reality that is observed, directly or indirectly, by our senses. Science advances explanations about the natural world, explanations that are accepted or rejected by observation and experiment.

Outside the world of nature, however, science has no authority, no statements to make, no business whatsoever taking one position or another. Science has nothing decisive to say about values, whether economic, aesthetic or moral; nothing to say about the meaning of life or its purpose.

Science has nothing to say, either, about religious beliefs, except when these beliefs transcend the proper scope of religion and make assertions about the natural world that contradict scientific knowledge. Such statements cannot be true.

People of faith need not be troubled that science is materialistic. The materialism of science asserts its limits, not its universality. The methods and scope of science remain within the world of matter. It cannot make assertions beyond that world.

Science transcends cultural, political and religious beliefs because it has nothing to say about these subjects. That science is not constrained by cultural or religious differences is one of its great virtues. It does not transcend these differences by denying them or taking one position rather than another. It transcends cultural, political and religious convictions because these matters are none of its business.

Some scientists deny that there can be valid knowledge about values or about the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life. The biologist Richard Dawkins explicitly denies design, purpose and values.

In River out of Eden, he writes:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

William Provine , a historian of science, asserts that there are no absolute principles of any sort. He believes modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

There is a monumental contradiction in these assertions. If its commitment to naturalism does not allow science to derive values, meaning or purposes from scientific knowledge, it surely does not allow it, either, to deny their existence.

In its publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science , the US National Academy of Sciences emphatically asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world:

"Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science."

The academy adds:

"Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution ."

Science as a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe has been immensely successful and of great technological and economic consequence. The US Office of Management and Budget has estimated that 50% of all economic growth in the US since the second world war can be directly attributed to scientific knowledge and technical advances.

The technology derived from scientific knowledge pervades our lives: the high-rise buildings of our cities, throughways and long-span bridges, rockets that take men and women into outer space, telephones that provide instant communication across continents, computers that perform complex calculations in millionths of a second, vaccines and drugs that keep pathogens at bay, gene therapies that replace DNA in defective cells.

These remarkable achievements bear witness to the validity of the scientific knowledge from which they originated.

People of faith should stand in awe of the wondrous achievements of science. But they should not be troubled that science may deny their religious beliefs.

Nor should people of faith transgress the proper boundaries of religion by making assertions about the natural world that are contrary to scientific knowledge. Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and human life, the proper relation of people to their Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern their lives.

Science, on the other hand, concerns the processes that account for the natural world: how the planets move, the composition of matter and the atmosphere, the origin and function of organisms.

Religion has nothing definitive to say about these natural processes: nothing about the causes of tsunamis or earthquakes or why volcanic eruptions occur, or why there are droughts that ruin farmers' crops. The explanation of these processes belongs to science. It is a categorical mistake to seek their explanation in religious beliefs or sacred texts.

Science provides an account of how galaxies, stars and planets came about after the big bang. It has discovered how the HIV epidemic originated and how Aids spreads. A person of faith may interpret these events in religious terms, but they are explained by science.

There are people of faith who see the theory of evolution and scientific cosmology as contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. But Genesis is a book of religious revelations and of religious teachings, not a treatise on astronomy or biology.

According to Augustine , the great theologian of the early Christian church, it is a blunder to mistake the Bible for an elementary textbook of astronomy, geology, or other natural sciences. As he writes in his commentary on Genesis:

"If it happens that the authority of sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly."

He adds:

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [the Earth, the heavens, the motion and orbit of the stars, the kinds of animals and shrubs]."

Successful as it is, however, a scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete. Matters of value and meaning are outside the scope of science.

Even when we have a satisfying scientific understanding of a natural object or process, we are still missing matters that may well be thought by many to be of equal or greater import. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions and illuminate the significance of life and the world, but these matters are outside the realm of science.

Francisco J. Ayala is a molecular biologist and evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, and winner of this year's Templeton Prize

Source

Good Waxing Lowell Ma

When (not) proves God

As promised here I am in having to remove, for the umpteenth time and in record time, rambling statements posted in R & D. This time is a little longer than usual but it is the penalty.

superstar Mandarancio that now is the question:

decides to answer that:

omit the rest but then I put the link if you want to read the entire boiata (er ..) response mythical Mandarancio

Now se uno crede ad un amico immaginario onnipotente che gli vuole bene a me non me ne frega assolutamente niente (ancora meno del Grande Fratello, il che è tutto dire) solamente non deve spacciare per realtà scientifica questa sua convinzione. Meno che meno a me...

Ma andiamo con ordine:

“Infatti la scienza ha dimostrato che lo stato dell'universo, e quindi di tutta la materia (biologica e non biologica), è determinato da specifiche equazioni matematiche, le leggi della fisica”

Non ci siamo davvero capiti...

Tutto ciò che, per ora, conosciamo può essere espresso tramite physical and mechanical laws.

(Small aside: There are many other thing not yet, but no empirical safely then there are only theories, valid but not yet proven with certainty.)

Like when the ancient Greeks saw lightning gave them the credit (or guilt) to Zeus, slowly we discovered that it is not the fault of a big man sitting on Mount Olympus, but the difference in electrical potential. It 'appeared that things continue to go in this direction.

equations and mathematical formulas understand how it is referred to the phenomenon under consideration but they do happen, it seems clear.

So we have a bolt of lightning incinerates a tree, we understand how it works Do not bring up God and they still want to give the credit (or blame) for that lightning to their invisible superhero.

later is even more hilarious expressed the view:

Contrary to widespread today, science has shown that the brain, so the matter can not quite generate consciousness, whose existence implies the presence in humans of an entity non-biologica/non-materiale.

Oh yeah? Neurons are there to do that? Wait, now that I read I understand, obviously your are on vacation ...

fact we now know that our brain is just a collection of particles such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagnetic field. Each biological process is due only to chemical reactions that in turn are caused by electromagnetic interaction between electrons and protons of atoms that make up our body. Each neuron (brain cell) and each cell are simply collections of electrons, protons and neutrons, with a certain spatial location, the electromagnetic interaction can be attractive and this fact means that attract the particles can form certain geometrical arrangement in space . The properties of each molecule (including molecules DNA, hormones, etc.). and every biological process is due only to the laws of physics, more precisely, because our bodies do not occur in nuclear reactions and gravitational forces are too weak to interfere with molecular processes, each biological process is due solely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics.

Obviously whoever wrote this thing has not the slightest idea that there is also quantum chromodynamics and, among other things, the Freedom 'asymptotic particles inside a proton.

In simple words: Do not build monuments

particle accelerators by millions of euro to take a picture e poi replicarla sempre uguale, le collisioni fra fasci di protoni, per esempio all'LHC, danno SEMPRE un risultato diverso, diverse subparticelle risultanti, di diversa velocità e diversa massa. Alla faccia delle leggi perfette di Dio...

Andiamo avanti che c'è sempre più da ridere (o da piangere):

La scienza ha dimostrato che tutti i processi chimici, biologici e cerebrali consistono unicamente in successioni di processi fisici elementari, i quali sono determinati unicamente dalle leggi della fisica quantistica. Tale visione dei processi biologici non può rendere conto dell'esistenza della nostra vita psichica; dunque il materialismo is incompatible with science.

Ah yes, your neurons are still on holiday ..

Moreover, any attempt to explain our mental life in the context of materialism implies that what suffers, loves, desires, senses, etc.. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. But the objects I can not feel anything, items can not prove neither joy nor sorrow, nor pleasure nor pain, etc. ..

I say, but you are there or are you doing?

are interpretations we give to electrical impulses and chemical colors non esistono, sono una parte di luce che viene riflessa e che il tuo cervello interpreta come colore. Un impulso elettrico che è stato trasformato (alla rovescia, tralatro, ottimo progetto Signore..) dalla retina e trasmesso attraverso il nervo ottico. La stessa cosa vale per i nostri pensieri, impulsi elettrici che vengo interpretati dal cervello.

Se si ipotizza che il campo elettromagnetico sia l'origine della nostra vita psichica, allora la sola logica conclusione sarebbe che anche la nostra lavatrice, la nostra televisione, il nostro tostapane di tanto in tanto saranno depressi o felici o sofferenti... Infatti, dal punto di vista scientifico non vi è alcuna differenza tra i campi elettromagnetici present in our brain and those present in the apparatus.

Perhaps you forgot to say that there is no difference, at the atomic level, including a sandwich with mortadella and a tiger, or between brain neurons and cells that make up the hole ass ... (Maybe I'll reveal the secret?)

Award to the electrons in our brain properties (such as to generate feelings or emotions) and not attach the same property to all other electrons of the universe, it means contradicting the quantum physics, which states that all electrons are identical and indistinguishable, that all have the same exact characteristics and properties.

For no one, and I mean nobody, has ever imagined that a clock radio can think through the electrons which pass through it. For the umpteenth time, there are cells that turn electrical impulses into what we consider to sight, smell, taste, love, etc. .... NON electrons.

addition, the laws of physics state that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields, so the idea of \u200b\u200bthe typical physical conditions in which electrical impulses in the brain generate sensations, emotions, etc.., Is in striking contradiction with the laws of physics. In turn, the electromagnetic waves generated by electrical impulses in our brain are equivalent to those generated by any other electrical pulse, and these waves come from our brains and are scattered in outer space at light speed, like all electromagnetic waves.

blissful ignorance.

The electrical impulses do not generate only electromagnetic fields but also heat (work out the resistance of the oven) and depend, however, how they are used. It would be like trying to iron a shirt with a full HD TV. Are not the same electrons that pass through the user?

Dulcis in fundo:

A questo punto sorge la domanda : da dove ha avuto origine la nostra psiche ? Il fenomeno della vita psichica dimostra che la psiche ad un certo punto certamente comincia ad esistere in noi. Le leggi della fisica dimostrano che la psiche non può essere il prodotto di processi fisici, chimici o biologici. Dunque l'origine dell'anima è trascendente rispetto alla realtà fisica.

Sì, e quando inizia questa anima?

L'uomo nasce prematuro perché la sua scatola cranica non passerebbe attraverso il canale del parto se fosse pienamente sviluppata. Millenni di selezione naturale (non è una parolaccia) hanno now meant that a human baby is far, far less than one animal of the same age. He does not see, can not walk, can not articulate the movements (the things they do well doo few minutes the horses, for example).

So our friend the Almighty does not yet given a soul? If you do not have all the powers of the mysterious mentioned above obviously does not even have this famous "soul."

It concludes:

I think it is safe to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God be proven scientifically.

And I, instead, I believe that if one wants to have an imaginary friend is free to do so but should avoid trying to demonstrate a fable by arbitrary interpretations of scientific discoveries that tend in the opposite direction.

Here, as promised, the link:

http://it.answers.yahoo.com/question/index; _ylt = Atz8hQDkYG4THFSXRgZo3p_wDQx.; _ylv = 3? 20100528071108AASOv1z qid = & show = 7 # profile-info zIC4dHoAaa-

Astaroth, 28/05/2010

Forum Host That Can Put Ads

Why Does morality need God


"If God is not, everything is permitted." Or So They Say. Except they're wrong. Dangerously so.

This dictum - That burdens without absolute divine authority, then morality is arbitrary at best, at worst, annihilated - is unsheathed and bandied about all-too-often these days.

Recently, it's reared its seditious head in response to the trial of an ethics-based complement to scripture in NSW. The church has pulled out all the stops to block the ethics class, and one of the reasons posed is that ethics without God is hollow, that teaching secular ethics is like teaching English without books, maths without numbers, science without observation.

But the notion that God is required in order for morality to have any real clout is demonstrably false. In fact, if you want a comprehensive, robust and flexible ethics that can address the problems we face today, then you need to explicitly look for a morality without God.

This is because the subject matter of morality is very much grounded in the real world: morality deals with real people, real issues and has to navigate real conflicts. And the real world is a complicated place where not everything is as it seems. One of our best tools for understanding the real world is the humble question "why." But often you have to ask "why" more than once to get to the answer.

Why is the bus late? Why did the driver not leave on time? Why wasn't his bus ready for him at the depot? Why is the NSW government still in power? And so on.

To get to your answer, you need to be able to ask "why" as many times as necessary - at least until you exhaust all possible evidence (as in the scientific process) or all possible reason (as in the philosophical process).

But religion stifles this process, with dangerous consequences. This is because religion, by its very nature (no pun intended), is grounded in the supernatural. Its teachings hinge on belief in beings, forces or realms that cannot be seen, felt or known without resorting to faith.

This means that when trying to understand the world from a religious perspective, you can only ask "why" so many times before you hit the brick wall of the supernatural. There's a point where the answer to your last "why" is simply "because God/the Bible/the Space Fairies said so". And if you're not happy with that answer, tough. You just lack faith.

Unfortunately, when it comes to constructing a robust and reliable morality, the supernaturalist approach is horribly prone to error. One belief held dogmatically on supernatural grounds can yield moral outcomes that end up causing untold harm, such as the Catholic prohibition on contraception, for but one example.

That's not to say a secular approach isn't also prone to error. But, the big difference - the difference that really counts - is that the secular approach is always open to scrutiny. It always allows for others to ask "why" about any of its moral prescriptions. And, as such, it is open to revision in light of new evidence or new arguments, and it's more easily able to correct its errors.

The suggestion that we need some supernatural authority to compel us to obey the moral law - well, that's also bunk.

This is because morality - whether it's justified by reason, nature or the divine - is, and always has been, believed, doubted and argued by everyone. Even the most dogmatic religion has experts - anointed or appointed - who debate the interpretation of the scriptures. And practitioners of even the most dogmatic religions are known to stray from the path, only to be guided back, by carrot or stick, by their peers.

The same is true of secular morality. The reason we behave morally is partly psychological, partly ideological and partly through desire for praise and fear of punishment. Whether the ideology is backed up by some supernatural power makes no difference in practice to whether the morality is persuasive or not; non-supernatural forces can be terribly persuasive, just ask Fergie.

Ultimately, the argument that 'without God, anything goes' is just plain false. There might be other reasons to question secular morality, or to support religion, but let it not be that morality requires God. It doesn't. Morality will only be stronger and better able to deal with the pressing problems that we all face if it is free to question the world and itself. That kind of ethics ought be taught in school.

To not do so would be, well, immoral.


Fonte

Cigarette Torcher Pain

poetic angle.

"Er passero ferito"

di Natale Polci



Era d‘Agosto. Un povero uccelletto,
ferito da la fionna d’un maschietto,
s’agnede a riposà co ‘n’ala offesa,
su la finestra aperta d’una chiesa.

Da le tendine der confessionale,
un prete intese e vidde l’animale,
ma dato che lì fori, c’ereno nun so quanti peccatori,
richiuse le tendine espressamente,
e se rimise a confessà la gente.

Ma mentre che la massa de persone,
diceva l’orazzione
senza guardà pe’ gnente l’ucelletto,
‘n omo lo prese e se lo mise in petto…

Allora ne la chiesa se sentì,
un lungo twittering: we-we, we-we ... Er

priest, reflecting the animal, er left the confessional,
then, worse of pitch-black, black, and there purpo
s'arampicò sur said:
"Brothers, who the birds, please allow time fora
go der Lord. " Li

males, all of them in a Vorta,
p'annà went to the door, but
er Priest, que sbajo the glaring:
"Stop!" Called out "I know that I expressed myself badly ...
Go back and Statemate Listen:
here, who took the birds must be released. "



Head down and the crown in hand,
hundred women s'arzorno slowly.

But as if 'n'annaveno de fora, er
ristrillò priest: "I sbajato yet."
fije Re-enter all of them loved, wanted
h'io nun of Quero you think.

I have I already said and I return to say,
that those who took the birds must be released, but I'll tell
clear voice rolled out, the birds
who took in the church! " .

At that very moment, the monic
s'arzorno all of them,
and then, my heart full of blushing face, left the house
der Lord.

(concluding verse added later by an anonymous):

Er prete co’ la faccia imbambolata,
capì che aveva detto ‘na cazzata
e sentenziò: "Rientrate piano piano…
sorta chi adesso cià l’ucello in mano!".

Una ragazza che cor fidanzato,
stava co’ lui a sede sur sagrato,
disse impaurita, cor visetto smorto:
"Che te dicevo? A stronzo! Se n’è accorto!".

Ma quello che nessuno ha mai capito
è perché pure er chirichetto
s'è arzato e se n’è ito.

What Kind Of Boxers Does John Cena Wear

Waiting for the return of Erich

Recover Lock Combination -dial

The Bible and the imperatives such as "be put to death" Fishy


L'uccisione, in forma di pena di morte, e' prescritta dal Padreterno [PE] ripetutamente, per almeno una dozzina di 'delitti', e in particolare per:

- chi non rispetta il divieto di lavorare il sabato,
- chi bestemmia
- chi si dedica ad una divinita' non gradita al PE
- chi maledice i genitori
- chi propina botte ai genitori
- offenders to specific orders [and sometimes seemingly futile]
- those who commit a kidnapping, abduction of person
- who profess homosexuality '
- who gets to have sex with animals, man or woman it
- who and 'keeper of animals that have caused the death of someone
- who kills someone.

It follows that, with regard to capital punishment, who is right: the EP or Cain [Cain]?
Given the enormous imbalance of authority in favor of the EP, it seems that Cain and 'the wrong side, and with some faction Cain supporters, as well as a good number of the Penal Code.
Ammenocche 'you is not to say that the EP wanted a joke, when he made those orders, sometimes it happens that we are told. But then someone should explain why the EP wanted to joke about forty times at least, since for at least forty times repeated that certain 'crimes' must be punished with the death of the perpetrator. Not only that, but it has at least one ammazati about three million, which was on its way, with stones, hail, snakes, pests, by his own hand, and a sword of angels and other ugly mugs of 'willing executioners'. Anyway, here are the necessary evidence required on the EP.

Gen
6:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

EX
19:10 The Lord said to Moses : ... 12 sets a limit for the people all around, saying: Take heed to climb the mountain and touch the water. Whoever touches Mount be put to death.

20:22 The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites ... 21:12 He who strikes a man causing his death, be put to death.

21:15 Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death .

21:16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, if he is still in his hand, he be put to death.

21:17 He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death .

22:18 Anyone who brutalizes a beast be put to death.

22:29 But if the ox was accustomed to gore and even before the boss had been warned and had not guarded, if it causes the death of a man or a woman ox shall be stoned and his owner also shall be put to death .

31:12 The Lord said to Moses: .......Chiunque farà un lavoro di sabato sarà messo a morte .

35:2 Per sei giorni si lavorerà, ma il settimo sarà per voi un giorno santo, un giorno di riposo assoluto, sacro al Signore. Chiunque in quel giorno farà qualche lavoro sarà messo a morte.

LEVITICO
20: 1 Il Signore disse ancora a Mosè: 2 «Dirai agli Israeliti: Chiunque tra gli Israeliti o tra i forestieri che soggiornano in Israele darà qualcuno dei suoi figli a Moloch, will be put to death , the people of the land shall stone him.

20: 9 Anyone who mistreats his father or his mother will be put to death;

20:13 If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman , both of them have committed an abomination; will be put to death ;

21:9 If a priest's daughter is prostituting disgrace, dishonor his father be burned with fire.

24: 13 The Lord spoke to Moses ....... 15 Say to the Israelites and say to them .... 16 He who blasphemes the name of the Lord will be put to death : the whole community must stone him. Alien or native-born, if he has blasphemed the name of the Lord shall be put to death .
00:17
who strikes a man to death will be put to death .
00:21
who kills a beast shall make it, but whoever kills a man be put to death .

NUMBERS
1:48 The Lord said to Moses .... 51 When the tabernacle is to be starting, the Levites shall take it down, and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up every stranger who comes near shall be put to death .

3:5 The Lord said to Moses : ... You settle 10 Aaron and his sons, because they keep the functions of their priesthood and the stranger that you are come near be put to death. "

15:35 The Lord said to Moses: "The man must be put to death ; the whole community stone him outside the camp '.

18: 1 The Lord said to Aaron, ... I am giving you the priesthood as a gift and the stranger who comes near be put to death. "

35:31 Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer deserves death, because will be put to death.

35:33 Do not defile the land where you are, because the blood defiles the land, you can not do the country no atonement the blood that is shed, except by the blood of those who shed it.

DEUT
13:6 As for that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, he will be put to death , as proposed apostasy from the Lord. ..

13:7 Qualora il tuo fratello, figlio di tuo padre o figlio di tua madre, o il figlio o la figlia o la moglie che riposa sul tuo petto o l'amico che è come te stesso, t'istighi in segreto, dicendo: Andiamo, serviamo altri dei, ... 10 .. devi ucciderlo : la tua mano sia la prima contro di lui per metterlo a morte ; poi la mano di tutto il popolo; 11 lapidalo e muoia , perché ha cercato di trascinarti lontano dal Signore tuo Dio...

17:12 L'uomo che si comporterà con presunzione e non obbedirà al sacerdote che sta là per servire the Lord your God or the judge, that man must die , so put away the evil from Israel

18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak in my name, I have not commanded him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must 'die.

19:12 the elders of his city shall send to take over and deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood because be put to death.

21:18 If a man have un figlio testardo e ribelle che non obbedisce alla voce né di suo padre né di sua madre ... 21 Allora tutti gli uomini della sua città lo lapideranno ed egli morirà ; ..

21:22 Se un uomo avrà commesso un delitto degno di morte e tu l'avrai messo a morte e appeso a un albero, ...

22:22 Quando un uomo verrà colto in fallo con una donna maritata, tutti e due dovranno morire : l'uomo che ha peccato con la donna e la donna. Così toglierai il male da Israele.

22:23 When a girl is virgin girlfriend and a man in the city, lie with her, you will lead both to the gate of that town and stone them so that they die: ..

22:25 But if a person finds the girl girlfriend for the fields and making violence lie with her, then he must die only man who has sinned with her

24: 7 When you find a man who has kidnapped one of his brothers among the Israelites, he has exploited as slave or has sold, the thief will put to death; ...

24: 16 Do not be put to death for a crime other fathers of the children, nor children put to death for the sin of the fathers: every man be put to death for his own sin.

Source

Remington Tires Tire Pressure

The Origins of Humans Revealed

(I have expanded my blogroll to several English blog, I'm a bit 'of time I'm going to translate)

Prehistoric Humans Have hardy fish ancestors to thank for paving the way to possibly Their evolution, a new study Suggests.

About 360 million years ago a mass extinction event hit the reset button on Earth's life, wiping out most of the fish that existed then near the time when the first vertebrates (all animals with backbones) crawled from water towards land. The species fortunate enough to survive set the stage for modern vertebrate biodiversity.

"Everything was hit; the extinction was global," said study leader Lauren Sallan of the University of Chicago. "It reset vertebrate diversity in every single environment, both freshwater and marine, and created a completely different world."

The extinction hit near the end of the Age of Fishes (more commonly known as the Devonian Period, from 416 to 359 million years ago) for the broad array of species present in Earth's aquatic environments.

Armored prehistoric fish called placoderms and lobe-finned fishes — similar to the modern lungfish — dominated the waters, while ray-finned fishes, sharks and tetrapods — vertebrate animals with four feet — were in the minority.

But between the Devonian Period and the following Carboniferous period, placoderms disappeared and ray-finned fishes rapidly replaced lobe-finned fishes as the dominant group, a demographic shift that persists today.

"There's some sort of pinch at the end of the Devonian," said study team member Michael Coates of the University of Chicago. "Something happened that almost wiped the slate clean, and, of the few stragglers that made it through, a handful then re-radiate spectacularly."

The researchers analyzed the vertebrate fossil record and pinpointed a critical shift in diversity to the Hangenberg extinction event. The Hangenberg event hit 15 million years after another extinction event — the Late Devonian Kellwasser event, considered to be one of the Big Five extinctions in Earth's history — that scientists have long theorized that was responsible for a marine invertebrate species shake-up.

Prior to the extinction, lobe-finned forms such as Tiktaalik and the earliest limbed tetrapods such as Ichthyostega had made the first moves toward a land-dwelling existence.

But after the extinction, a long stretch of the fossil record known as "Romer's Gap," is almost barren of tetrapods, a puzzle that had confused paleontologists for many years. The 15-million-year gap was the hangover after the traumatic Hangenberg event, said the study's authors.

When tetrapods finally recovered, those survivors were likely the great-great-grandfathers to the vast majority of land vertebrates present today, including humans.

The study was published in the May 17 online issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Da Live Science / via Richard Dawkins.net