The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue

[LoG]

In the same way, your claim that evolution is unfalsifiable based on the dino example is moot unless you can show that evolution cannot accommodate a recent dinosaur find, since evolution does not necessarily predict that dinosaurs should be extinct today.

Nowhere in this thread did I say that a live dinosaur would refute evolution. I would certainly question why there hasn't been a dinosaur fossil found that is less than 65 mya but would realize that it will just be one of the large collection of "missing fossils" we hear so much about. I would also question the amount of "truth" that we are being allowed to hear.

Why is a theory unfalsifiable if irrelevant evidence fails to falsify it?

When evidence is found inside a supposedly 65 mya fossil that cannot be the same age, it cannot be termed irrelevant. The really extraordinary aspect to this story which you will not read about in a "scientific journal" is some of the particulars of the area where the find is located.
You can read about it here and make your own conclusions: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm

 

[shernren]

Yes, I found the answers site, and I wasn't satisfied with their cursory review. I was right to be. Alymlestes is represented by a single molar. One genus represented by one molar and you want to turn evolutionary theory upside down, when the molar dates to well within the existence span of the containing clade of the zalambdalestids?

Well, I'd thought we evolutionists were the ones who used scanty evidence ...

 

[LoG]

...........however, then I'd probably consider YECism seriously again ...

I find that an interesting statement. Do you believe the proofs for an old Earth aside from the evolutionary aspect to be inconclusive?

 

[shernren]

I find that an interesting statement. Do you believe the proofs for an old Earth aside from the evolutionary aspect to be inconclusive?

No, but an Alymlestes predating the rise of the zalambdalestids would be a good start.

When evidence is found inside a supposedly 65 mya fossil that cannot be the same age, it cannot be termed irrelevant. The really extraordinary aspect to this story which you will not read about in a "scientific journal" is some of the particulars of the area where the find is located.
You can read about it here and make your own conclusions: [URL="http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm"]http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm[/URL]

Alright, I'll lay it straight out for you. The theory of evolution has two components:

1. Theory of evolution: The frequency of alleles in a population is determined by natural selection and genetic drift operating on genetic recombination, random mutation, and gene flow.

2. Historical occurrence of evolution: The changes in frequencies of alleles thus predicted is sufficient to explain, and indeed did cause, the expansion of life to its current biodiversity from a single ancestral life-form.

Now, which of the following possible implications of the dinosaur find, if true, disprove any of the above statements?

1. T-Rexes may be alive today, or may have been alive in the recent past.
1. b. T-Rexes may have been contemporaneous with humans.
2. It is possible for soft tissue to be preserved for over 65 million years.
3. It is not possible for soft tissue to be preserved for over 65 million years (assumed from outside the case), therefore it is possible for relatively young fossils to be found in supposedly old strata.
4. Dinosaurs had similar biostructures to modern birds.
5. Satan is getting better at making fake dinosaur fossils.

 

[LoG]

Now, which of the following possible implications of the dinosaur find, if true, disprove any of the above statements?

Who cares. This thread isn't about disproving evolution except as a potential seconday result of insufficient geological ages. After doing some searching on Google this morning I've learned that this wasn't the only find of biological material in a supposedly 100 mya fossil. Additionally in Alaska there have many unfossilized bones found.
Carbon dating of some of these things that aren't supposed to have carbon in them yields time frames of 9,000-25,000 years. Aside from throwing the geological column into complete chaos,(and radiometric dating) it proves dinosaurs and man coexisted, something you and other TE's have vehemently argued against. Now I see you are willing to allow for the possibility in case the evidence for recent dinosaurs refutes evolution. flip/flop, flip/flop.

Considering that this evidence against "old" dinosaurs has been aound for 17+ years it is signigicant that scientists are still studying the issue. In other words, other than some conjecturing they haven't been able to come up with a good reason for how it is possible to have tissue inside of a 65+ mya, partially fossilized dinosaur bone.
Truly a "Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue."

I'm done in the Origins Forum.

 

[Mallon]

Not that I expect you to reply since you're officially done here, but...

After doing some searching on Google this morning I've learned that this wasn't the only find of biological material in a supposedly 100 mya fossil. Additionally in Alaska there have many unfossilized bones found.

Having no practical experience in science yourself, how would you know if you were being lied to? This is an important question for each person to consider, especially for those not educated in the earth sciences, in this case. If you are offered two conflicting statements about a subject you know virtually nothing about, how do you determine which is correct?

 

[gluadys]

Who cares. This thread isn't about disproving evolution except as a potential seconday result of insufficient geological ages. After doing some searching on Google this morning I've learned that this wasn't the only find of biological material in a supposedly 100 mya fossil. Additionally in Alaska there have many unfossilized bones found.

In what species? Dinosaurs or mammoths? I haven't heard of dinosaur finds in Alaska, but I have heard of mammoth finds with unfossilized bone.

Now I see you are willing to allow for the possibility in case the evidence for recent dinosaurs refutes evolution. flip/flop, flip/flop.

It is one thing to allow for the possibility. We have examples of "living fossils" in the coelacanth and the newly-rediscovered extinct rat in Asia.

But until they actually turn up, the evidence is still against dinosaurs more recent than 65mya.

 

[shernren]

Who cares. This thread isn't about disproving evolution except as a potential seconday result of insufficient geological ages. After doing some searching on Google this morning I've learned that this wasn't the only find of biological material in a supposedly 100 mya fossil.

In other words, the possibility that man and dinosaurs coexisted does nothing to harm evolution, though it does call into question timeframes and processes of fossilization. He said so himself. In that case, I'm done here too, for now.

 

[steen]

I gave this a lot of thought today Willtor, but frankly cannot see why the scenario you listed would present a challenge to the ToE. Historical precedents would disagree since this type of thing has presented a challenge before without causing anything more than a temporary hiccup. The branching off was first deemed to be 35mya-->55mya-->75mya with molecular biology coming up with dates of 89-125mya. If there is something you see in this as being a reason to doubt evolution then perhaps it has more to do with discernment than rationale.

How about a human foot print imbedded in a trilobite? That would imediately invalidate most of the early info on evolution. So go find one, why don't you?