Jump to content


Photo

T-rex Dna Find


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2005 - 09:47 AM

How would this falsify evolution in any way? It may falsify yours and others ideas about evolution. Finding the things you speak of would simply change the way we view the evidence.

What is "evolution" other than a certain way of viewing the evidence?

#82 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 11 April 2005 - 09:11 AM

How would this falsify evolution in any way? It may falsify yours and others ideas about evolution. Finding the things you speak of would simply change the way we view the evidence.

View Post


It would throw out one of the greatest areas of evidence for evolution, the link between stratigraphy (order of fossils in the geologic column), phylogeny, and DNA similarities/dissimilarities. As the fossil record stands now, the estimated time since common ancestory between species matches when two independent measures are used, namely DNA and radiometric dating. Also, the phylogenies constructed by fossil morphology agrees with the order of fossils found. Finding a dino fossil or a whale fossil in verified pre-cambrian sediments would falsify all of the evidence that I have mentioned in this paragraph. It would seriously change the way we view the evidence; we would view evolution as a theory in serious trouble.

#83 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 April 2005 - 01:25 PM

Big media beat up? See hear for an analysis of the events and what the discoverers really stated Soft Tissue?

#84 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:02 AM

Good ol' Gary Hurd making more claims that Dr.Wieland was wrong.And here is another article from Hurd Dino Blood but if you read Wieland's first article dino blood finds. You can see that Hurd misrepresents Wielands material from,Dino Blood ex:Hurds claim that Wieland said the bone was unfossilized false Wieland showed in his article what he ment so i am skeptical about Hurd's articles and how reliable thay are.

#85 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 01:37 PM

Good ol' Gary Hurd making more claims that Dr.Wieland was wrong.And here is another article from Hurd Dino Blood but if you read Wieland's first article dino blood finds. You can see that Hurd misrepresents Wielands material from,Dino Blood ex:Hurds claim that Wieland said the bone was unfossilized false Wieland showed in his article what he ment so i am skeptical about Hurd's articles and how reliable thay are.

View Post


Reading the links, I find Hurd’s in-context quotes and references to the source material rather more convincing. Is there some specific point about the Wieland claim you wish to discuss further?

#86 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 01:55 PM

in-context ha here is a quote from Gary Hurd 'talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html'p.2 " ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old.

And he ends with

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" "





and what does Wieland say[answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp]p.1 line.15 ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ hmm in-context qoute,no!

#87 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 15 June 2005 - 02:06 PM

in-context ha here is a quote from Gary Hurd  'talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html'p.2 " ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.


The problem is that no hemoglobin was found, only heme was found. Heme is the iron cluster that is bound inside of the protein hemoglobin. As would be expected after 65 million years of time, only highly racemized amino acids remained, not intact protein. It is not surprising that the iron cluster remained given that the calcium/phosphate matrix of bone is able to bind ions which would stabilize the iron clusters. As has been discussed elsewhere in this thread the appearance of morphology (blood cell shaped cells) and actual cellular material are two different animals.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old.


So why can't we recover DNA from these fossils? We can recover DNA from mammoths and neanderthals, why not T. rex?

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]


Notice that he says "evidence of hemoglobin". This evidence is the presence of heme, the iron cluster found in hemoglobin.

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" "
and what does Wieland say[answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp]p.1 line.15  ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ hmm in-context qoute,no!

View Post


I don't understand how "not completely fossilized" leads to "intact flesh" or "could only be a few thousand years old".

#88 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 02:23 PM

in-context ha here is a quote from Gary Hurd  'talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html'p.2 " ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old.

And he ends with

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" "
and what does Wieland say[answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp]p.1 line.15  ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ hmm in-context qoute,no!

View Post


here is the full page quoted AIG LINK
Show me how hurd is quoting out of context.

#89 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:21 AM

here is the full page quoted AIG LINK
Show me how hurd is quoting out of context.

View Post

I just showed you Hurd did not tell his readers that Wieland told his[Wielands]readers what he meant by Unfossilized,so yeah Hurd is doing what we call selective quoting.

#90 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:41 PM

I just showed you Hurd did not tell his readers that Wieland told his[Wielands]readers what he meant by Unfossilized,so yeah Hurd is doing what we call selective quoting.

View Post


I still don’t see it Wieland is not quoted out of context the quotes show what was written, The lasts quotes have to be taken in context with the punch of the article. So unless you can clarify further I think we should move onto additional claims, made by Wieland, yes?

#91 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:29 AM

I still don’t see it Wieland is not quoted out of context the quotes show what was written, The lasts quotes have to be taken in context with the punch of the article.  So unless you can clarify further I think we should move onto additional claims, made by Wieland, yes?

View Post

i told you Hurd used his first and last paragraph to show Wieland lied but in middle of the article he said ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[enough said].Now i will let you pick out the claims.[since you want to]

#92 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 02:05 PM

i told you Hurd used his first and last paragraph to show Wieland lied but in middle of the article he said ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[enough said].

View Post


But in the very next sentence from Hurd, he states

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. 

Seems to me that this is not taking out of context at all, the claims are straight forward and Hurd even points out the fossilised and unfossilised statement by Wieland.

Now i will let you pick out the claims.[since you want to]

View Post


Ok rather than repeat what has already been posted, address the points made by Mariner Fan Posted Jun 16 2005, 07:06 AM

#93 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:15 AM

But in the very next sentence from Hurd, he states Seems to me that this is not taking out of context at all, the claims are straight forward and Hurd even points out the fossilised and unfossilised statement by Wieland.
Ok rather than repeat what has already been posted, address the points made by Mariner Fan Posted Jun 16 2005, 07:06 AM

View Post

On unfossilization.Well, actually, this is not the case. It’s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur.[TO LET YOU KNOW],this is what wieland said by‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[emphasis mine] So Hurd saying Wieland said fossilized and UNfossilized[remember ‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’some get it]

#94 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 11:54 AM

By now I am sure everyone has heard about the soft tissue find in a T-Rex thigh bone.
Does this affect evolution in any way? Does this help the yec position?

View Post


This evidence just shows that dinosaurs were relatively recently around far after 65 million years ago. The fact is, all life on Earth, including us, were created by scientists from another planet starting 25,000 years ago. The dinosaurs were here at around 14,000-20,000 years ago. They were wiped out by Noah's Flood around 14,000 years ago. They weren't recreated and that's why they're extinct.

#95 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:18 PM

This evidence just shows that dinosaurs were relatively recently around far after 65 million years ago.


Why does the evidence show this?

#96 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:39 PM

Why does the evidence show this?

View Post


Animals tissue won't last long, especially 65 million years. It would either deterioriate or more likely been eaten by scavengers or bacteria. In about a few years, all animals decay into just bones, even humans.

#97 ninhursag

ninhursag

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:45 PM

Animals tissue won't last long, especially 65 million years. It would either deterioriate or more likely been eaten by scavengers or bacteria. In about a few years, all animals decay into just bones, even humans.

View Post


Well, the mummies seem to last a little while longer. And, if you've ever happened to Italy, you'll have noticed that occasionally there are churches where some saints are displayed (in rather natural poses, I might add). All well preserved, all well over several hundred years old.

#98 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:50 PM

Well, the mummies seem to last a little while longer. And, if you've ever happened to Italy, you'll have noticed that occasionally there are churches where some saints are displayed (in rather natural poses, I might add). All well preserved, all well over several hundred years old.

View Post


Yes, but the mummies, saints, etc. were preserved artifically by lack of air and oxygen.
The preservation of T-Rex was probably preserved in a similar matter naturally. I can't see any dead matter lastly more than 65 millions years. Also, remember, after Noah's Flood, all life was eradicated and most probably buried underground (perhaps an explanation of how that tissue was preserved for around 13,000 years)

#99 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 21 June 2005 - 01:07 PM

Animals tissue won't last long, especially 65 million years. It would either deterioriate or more likely been eaten by scavengers or bacteria. In about a few years, all animals decay into just bones, even humans.

View Post


No scientist has made the claim that this is undecayed animal tissue. All that has been claimed is that flexible tissue, not animal tissue, has been preserved as well as cellular morphology. No one has yet to do a chemical analysis of what makes up this tissue. If it is recent then they should be able to recover large amounts of protein. If it is old then they should only find short peptides (2-3mers) that are highly racemized, at best. The comparison to the "Dino Blood" fiasco is quite appropriate. In this case, creationists equated the finding of heme to the discovery of whole hemoglobin. It seems that the same mistake is being made again.

Secondly, there are anoxic envioronments that prevent decay even today. There is no reason to think that these same environments did not occur 65 million years ago. The preservation of cell shapes has been seen before but none of these examples yielded the chemical makeup of a cell. I suspect the same will happen this time.

#100 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 June 2005 - 02:19 PM

On unfossilization.Well, actually, this is not the case. It’s an incompletely fossilized femur, which is very different from an unfossilized femur.[TO LET YOU KNOW],this is what wieland said by‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’[emphasis mine] So Hurd saying Wieland said fossilized and UNfossilized[remember ‘SOME parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’some get it]

View Post


You need to paragraph this post better, I am unable to determine, if you are claiming “who said what” or if they are your own statements. thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users