Mcstone, Fossils aren't recorded on DNA.Ã‚Â Fossils are rocks, therefore they don't contain DNA.
Of course, Blood, and Bone marrow has been Found in numerous types fossilized of bones, but then again Red Blood Cells, don't contain DNA.Ã‚Â Plus that confirms more YEC evidence because why in the world would those organic substances last for over 65 million years???Ã‚Â Seriously.
DNA progression is so false, that just by looking at the fossils (rock) one can quickly see the illogic in thinking that.Ã‚Â Why even begin to think that?Ã‚Â Oh we will take modern DNA samples, and test them with Fossilized DNA samples ( which don't exist...).Ã‚Â Therefore DNA progression studies based on fossils is pure speculation, and a very huge assumption on the evolutionist part.
Progressive Homology in the DNA of fossils is so fundamentaly false, that I can't even begin to understand why you'd continue on with such an idea.Ã‚Â The fossils can't be ordered that way because:
They don't contain DNA.
Also Mcstone your Idea that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded is patently false, because even paleontologist speculate on this, it is not a solid fact, and you know it.Ã‚Â Paleontologist debate the Warm-Blooded vs Cold Blooded all the time.Ã‚Â Why do they speculate on it?Ã‚Â Because they have no solid evidence to test this on.
The T-Rex may have been warm-blooded though, based on the Red Blood cells found in it's bone, which were very bird-like in nature, but the T-Rex has a Bird-Shaped frame, and for many years this has been thought about.
Now, what about Triceratops?Ã‚Â What about Diplodocus?Ã‚Â Those could've been cold-blooded because we have no evidence to make such claims as ALL dinosaurs being warm-blooded... A few carnivores maybe, and a few herbivores, but certainly not all of them.
Fossils eventually calcify into rocks, i grant you. Nevertheless, those well-preserved enough that we can extract DNA from confirm the trend; species higher up acquire the DNA of those below them. The T-rex proteins you rightly speak of are most closely related to the humble chicken. How fitting, then, that the flood thought to deposit chickens and other fowls higher up in the geological record. Why not t'other way round?
The fact is, even without DNA from fossils, we can confirm the pattern as long as genera - represented then as now - are extant, which is why preventable species extinction is such a crime. We see the same homology in the fossil record as we do in genomes. They are mirrors of each other.
(that is important to note) DNA homologies suggests that:
Chordate genomes were inherited by all fish
Fish genomes were inherited by all tetrapods
Tetrapod genomes were inherited by all amphibians
Amphibian genomes were inherited by all reptiles
Reptile genomes were inherited by all mammals
(cutting out many other intermediate steps)
That isnt to say that no change occurs at each stage; on the contrary, many big changes can occur. Nevertheless, the homologies, in HOX genes for example, are clear.
YEC accepts them too; as evidence of common design. What YEC doesnt explain is why things were added and taken away from the genome. Why the DNA shows a progressive change along this pathway. Why certain genes have been switched off, why new genes have appeared, why the same gaps and junk exists at the same place.
But even if you dont think evolution can happen, you cant deny the homology
In the fossil record - laid down by the flood remember - we see:
Chordates are lower than fish (no fish before chordates)
Fish are lower than tetrapods (no tetrapods before fish)
Tetrapods are lower than amphibians (no amphibians before tetrapods)
Amphibians are lower than reptiles (no reptiles before amphibians)
Reptiles are lower than mammals (no mammals before reptiles)
Your position is that this, essentially, is a co-incidence, and nothing more. Remember: the DNA is never - NEVER - the other way round.
Why do amphibians and reptiles lack distinctively mammal genes if the homology is so irrelevent?
Why have the homologies and fossil record been one way? How can you explain this?
As for the Dinosaurs, i think it would be more appropiate to start a new topic. But, your confusing debate on homeothermy
. They are not the same thing. Homeothermy is an advanced trait of mammals to control body heat. Endothermy is the ability to generate body heat without fine control.
Palentologists are of little doubt of the impossiblity of any large animal heating itself for literally days at a time before being able to move, as would be necessary. And they have
worked that out. There simply wouldnt be enough hours of sunlight in the day to even get started. Ectothermy is barely enough to sustain crocodiles and snakes, let alone any sort of dinosaur. Dinosaurs were a mystery. Thats probably why people like them so much. None of them were ecto-therms, because, as ive said, you can only have a certain size before your surface area is insufficient for the volume its got to heat. The whole clade of Dinosaurs were endotherms
, of one kind or another, (triceratop species included), but not homeotherms
, and thats why they were so successful. Thats pretty well established now. Its pretty damn obvious if you ask me. But then, there was that "thing" with stegosaurus's back plates absorbing heat for a while. Nope, that wouldnt work either.
How did the young survive (and grow) without large plates?