Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

Yes I love to bring it up because I admit I'm a bit of a button-pusher and I know you see radiometric dating as untouchable, despite its well-documented assumptions and axioms that are unfalsifiable. Now, I can provide you with the sources to back up what I've written by those with PhD's in Geology and well... more experience than you, and you can try to claim they are liars and religiously motivated... but seems less fun since we've already been down that path a time or two now.

Quick!! How do you know a system was closed since the formation of a rock?! Just kidding, it's a trick questions because you can't know for sure whether a system was closed the entire time, or that all of the daughter isotopes present were from the present radioactive parent isotopes.... but both are assumptions, along with a constant decay rate over time in isochron dating.

I'm just now seeing this. Some incidences of radioactive decay actually occur within a defined crystal lattice, thereby demonstrating isolation of a system upon decay of it's isotopes. For example, imagine you have a bunch of rectangular Legos, but your green Legos are radioactive and decay into circular Legos.

If you went and found a bunch of random green circular Legos, encased within a grid of rectangular Legos, you know that what you are looking at is a daughter product of decay.

And there are many other ways we know that the earth is old and that radioactive dating works. But again, you can't ask me to shoot 3s with you if you haven't learned to dribble yet.

 

[Job 33:6]

"


I only reference DNA as it was discussed in the AiG article: (Solid Answers on Soft Tissue)

"DNA Survival Rates. More recently, scientists analyzed the integrity of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 fossil Moa bones of various ages to determine a decay rate for mtDNA.3 Moas were giant flightless birds probably hunted to extinction several hundred years ago, last alive in New Zealand. The researchers calibrated their DNA decay rates with carbon dates taken from the same fossils.4 Accordingly, bone mtDNA could last no more than 650,000 years before it totally disintegrated.
So, even the oldest possible ages for these biochemicals keep them from lasting one million years, while showing they could last thousands of years."

The DNA was in reference to Moas, so you are correct that this was not in reference to a T Rex fossil.

Applauds*. Ok so aig is saying that dna decays within perhaps 600 thousand years. No DNA exists within the t Rex (or any other fossil ever discovered in the history of mankind), and yet all dinosaur fossils are allegedly just a few thousand years old. Makes sense...

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is an article @NobleMouse
Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

Last year, researchers estimated that the half-life of DNA — the point at which half the bonds in a DNA molecule backbone would be broken — is 521 years. That means that, under ideal conditions, DNA would last about 6.8 million years, after which all the bonds would be broken. But DNA would not be readable after about 1.5 million years, the researchers said.

The oldest DNA recorded was found in Greenland ice, and estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old.




Now, if DNA had a half life, which allowed for DNA to last over 6000 years...Then every single fossil ought to have the potential to contain DNA. Every single fossil of the millions that are out there.

We have thousands, if not millions of dinosaur fossils. So feel free to ask yourself, why there is no DNA is any of these dinosaur bones? Such as the T rex fossil.



There was DNA recovered from a mammoth, that was trapped in superpositionally shallow and younger aged ice layers. Thats about it.

Why is that? In the views of a young earther?

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is an article from AIG that suggests that the T rex bone, actually did have DNA in it.
One Step Closer to Jurassic Park
"More important, the team discovered DNA in the unfossilized osteocytes, and the tests show that the DNA came from a vertebrate, not bacteria"

@The Barbarian have you heard of this? Are you aware of if any DNA was actually found in the T rex fossil?

How about you @NobleMouse ?

Im not aware of any, if it was. And if its true that no DNA was found, then that would demonstrate that AIG is spreading false information.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[The Barbarian]

Far as I can get from the literature, we have so far only found proteins (or fragments of protein like heme) in dinosaur bones. Collagen seems to survive a long time, but I don't know of any DNA recovered from dinosaur bones.

However, Schweitzer does report of material in dinosaur bone reacting with reagents that react with DNA. No actual DNA was found, but it's an intriguing possibility that fragments of nucleotides or even bits of DNA might have survived, as fragments of hemoglobin have.

Bone. 2013 Jan;52(1):414-23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010. Epub 2012 Oct 17.
Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules.
Schweitzer MH1, Zheng W, Cleland TP, Bern M.

I wouldn't be surprised if some creationist, not very familiar with the terminology, jumped to the conclusion that DNA had been found in dinosaur bone.

 

[The Barbarian]

Research done independent of conventional dating methods shows collagen and DNA do not last a million years,

Since no DNA that old has been found, it's a moot point for nucleic acids. However, I'd be interested in seeing the research that proved collagen can't last for millions of years under unusual conditions. What have you got?

 

[The Barbarian]

The tiktaalik is no longer on the creation science radar. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

It's just one of many transitional forms between lobed-fin fish, and tetrapods. It's of interest because it's the first known fish to develop a neck, with the head not locked to the shoulders. It had a functional wrist on the legs and a robust ribcage and shoulder, indicating that it could leave the water and move about on land. It also had spiracles which indicate primitive lungs.

Later forms like icthyostega had the same skull and neck, but more robust limbs and was clearly much more at home on land. There are a good number of other transitional forms. Would you like to discuss them?

Will you admit there are substantial incremental steps required for the transition from a fish head, girdle and circulatory system into the unconnected head morphology of the tiktaalik, of which there are no known transitional forms?

You've been misled about that. Let's talk about those.

At best the tiktaalik is an extinct mosaic.

All transitional forms are mosaics. Do you understand what the word means in paleontology?

 

[NobleMouse]

Applauds*. Ok so aig is saying that dna decays within perhaps 600 thousand years. No DNA exists within the t Rex (or any other fossil ever discovered in the history of mankind), and yet all dinosaur fossils are allegedly just a few thousand years old. Makes sense...

Collagen was found in the T-Rex fossil, and doesn't last a million years either.

 

[NobleMouse]

I'm just now seeing this. Some incidences of radioactive decay actually occur within a defined crystal lattice, thereby demonstrating isolation of a system upon decay of it's isotopes. For example, imagine you have a bunch of rectangular Legos, but your green Legos are radioactive and decay into circular Legos.

If you went and found a bunch of random green circular Legos, encased within a grid of rectangular Legos, you know that what you are looking at is a daughter product of decay.

And there are many other ways we know that the earth is old and that radioactive dating works. But again, you can't ask me to shoot 3s with you if you haven't learned to dribble yet.

This assumes the rectangular bricks have remained exactly as they are the entire time (that no green legos came in or left before the rectangular legos formed into place or that the rectangular legos always remained intact) and also still assumes a constant rate of decay, though radiohalos and helium trapped in zircon crystals show otherwise. Again, nobody with a PhD in geology and over 30 years experience believes in a biblical creation framework without supporting evidence.

 

[NobleMouse]

Here is an article @NobleMouse
Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

Last year, researchers estimated that the half-life of DNA — the point at which half the bonds in a DNA molecule backbone would be broken — is 521 years. That means that, under ideal conditions, DNA would last about 6.8 million years, after which all the bonds would be broken. But DNA would not be readable after about 1.5 million years, the researchers said.

The oldest DNA recorded was found in Greenland ice, and estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old.




Now, if DNA had a half life, which allowed for DNA to last over 6000 years...Then every single fossil ought to have the potential to contain DNA. Every single fossil of the millions that are out there.

We have thousands, if not millions of dinosaur fossils. So feel free to ask yourself, why there is no DNA is any of these dinosaur bones? Such as the T rex fossil.



There was DNA recovered from a mammoth, that was trapped in superpositionally shallow and younger aged ice layers. Thats about it.

Why is that? In the views of a young earther?

A biblical creationist would expect DNA to be abundant in fossils only thousands of years old; however, would argue that DNA has been found in dinosaur bones:
DNA in Dinosaur Bones?

 

[NobleMouse]

Here is an article from AIG that suggests that the T rex bone, actually did have DNA in it.
One Step Closer to Jurassic Park
"More important, the team discovered DNA in the unfossilized osteocytes, and the tests show that the DNA came from a vertebrate, not bacteria"

@The Barbarian have you heard of this? Are you aware of if any DNA was actually found in the T rex fossil?

How about you @NobleMouse ?

I was not aware.

The source AiG cited was:

M. H. Schweitzer, et al., “Molecular Analyses of Dinosaur Osteocytes Support the Presence of Endogenous Molecules.” Bone, 52 no. 1 (2013): 414–423

I also found the following:

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules - ScienceDirect

In this abstract it states:

"These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

Im not aware of any, if it was. And if its true that no DNA was found, then that would demonstrate that AIG is spreading false information.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"False information" , spreading of it, IS the hallmark of mankind, even so-called "science".
Be at peace, and ignore, anything containing dna. The overall general purpose of it is very very evil.

 

[The Barbarian]

Collagen was found in the T-Rex fossil, and doesn't last a million years either.

Actually, it's been known for a very long time that it can. Protein molecules have been recovered from marine invertebrates that old. Iron ions greatly improve the longevity of protein molecules like collagen.

 

[The Barbarian]

This assumes the rectangular bricks have remained exactly as they are the entire time (that no green legos came in or left before the rectangular legos formed into place or that the rectangular legos always remained intact) and also still assumes a constant rate of decay, though radiohalos and helium trapped in zircon crystals show otherwise.

You've been misled on that. First, the halos were only found where other radioactive material was also present, which explains the halos. Second, Gentry argued that these halos represented primordial granite at the beginning of creation, and so explained the halos. He apparently didn't realize that the granite was intrusive, having flowed as magma into fissures in pre-existing sedimentary rock. Which means the sedimentary rock had to be much older than the granite. Oops.

Again, nobody with a PhD in geology and over 30 years experience believes in a biblical creation framework without supporting evidence.

That's wrong too. For example, Kurt Wise admitted that even if all the evidence in the world indicated an old Earth and evolution, he would still hold to his personal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

I was not aware.

The source AiG cited was:

M. H. Schweitzer, et al., “Molecular Analyses of Dinosaur Osteocytes Support the Presence of Endogenous Molecules.” Bone, 52 no. 1 (2013): 414–423

See post 725. Your guy just got confused by the terminology.

 

[Job 33:6]

A biblical creationist would expect DNA to be abundant in fossils only thousands of years old; however, would argue that DNA has been found in dinosaur bones:
DNA in Dinosaur Bones?

This isn't really a response. As you admit, if these fossils were only a few thousand years old, then really it would be feasible that ALL fossils ought to contain DNA, as it has been demonstrated to at least last for over a million years.

But here we are with cutting edge research on exceptionally well preserved fossils, just to potentially find highly degraded DNA, if even that.

If dinosaurs were around just a few thousand years ago, we would have replicated Jurassic Park decades ago. Or at least we would have discovered some DNA. As you said, it ought to be abundant. But it's not, as we sit here with thousands of fossils and still no DNA.

 

[Job 33:6]

This assumes the rectangular bricks have remained exactly as they are the entire time (that no green legos came in or left before the rectangular legos formed into place or that the rectangular legos always remained intact) and also still assumes a constant rate of decay, though radiohalos and helium trapped in zircon crystals show otherwise. Again, nobody with a PhD in geology and over 30 years experience believes in a biblical creation framework without supporting evidence.

Well, the colored legos would not have encased the green Legos, had the green legos not been in place for the colored legos to form around them to begin with. So no, there is no assumption about late entry of compounds.

It's like if you built a house, there is no late entry of support beams, as the support beams had to have been there for the house to be constructed to begin with. You cant build a house on decayed beams. If a house is erected, and the support beams then changed shape(decayed), but the outer walls of the house remained the same, you could look inside and find the daughter product of the beams. Then you could look at the outside of the house to see if any doors are open or if there are holes in the walls. And if not, what you have is an enclosed system with beams decaying within.

The amount of decayed beams lying within the house is isolated from the outside world in an unobstructed and defined crystal lattice.

You just don't know what you're talking about. It's as simple as that. And because you aren't knowledgeable of geology, you're incapable of understanding radioactive dating and decay rates.yet here we are with you acting like you're a degreed scientist.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was not aware.

The source AiG cited was:

M. H. Schweitzer, et al., “Molecular Analyses of Dinosaur Osteocytes Support the Presence of Endogenous Molecules.” Bone, 52 no. 1 (2013): 414–423

I also found the following:

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules - ScienceDirect

In this abstract it states:

"These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

And the point of this, is that the aig website is clearly stating false information.

Which is why you can't rightfully use it as a source. They blatently state false information. And the aig states false information relatively often.

 

[Job 33:6]

Since no DNA that old has been found, it's a moot point for nucleic acids. However, I'd be interested in seeing the research that proved collagen can't last for millions of years under unusual conditions. What have you got?

@NobleMouse

I've actually asked for the same as above. But again, if all fossil life really lived just a few thousand years ago, it would be blatently obvious. Fossils wouldn't be fossils, and DNA would be everywhere we looked.

 

[The Barbarian]

@NobleMouse

I've actually asked for the same as above. But again, if all fossil life really lived just a few thousand years ago, it would be blatently obvious. Fossils wouldn't be fossils, and DNA would be everywhere we looked.

Yes, there is that. Humans found in bogs in Northern Europe have retained DNA to the point that we can sequence much of their genomes. And those are over 10,000 years old.