Prove to me evolution is true

[Phred]

God told me science was true.

 

[bindaniel]

I haven't seen anyone point this out yet, so let me just throw in: the tissue wasn't soft when they found it. They soaked it in a solution to de-mineralize it. This isn't the first time fossilization has created resinous structures out of soft tissue. In short, the only difference between what was found and what you have been told was found (and are now arguing) is: they're completely different.

Or the structures were replaced with resins and covered by mineralization, so they weren't soft at all until a "chemical stew" was added to remove the minerals and make the resin flexible.

You will find that the article indicates that the acid solution used only effected the bones and not the already existing soft tissue:

from the text:

In course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues

You also find that DNA has already been taken from Dino Bone of cretaceous period:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5188/1229

You wil also find that DNA in ideal circumstances is still well short of 65 million years:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/acad/publications/papers/RoyalSoc%20review.pdf

 

[JBJoe]

You will find that the article indicates that the acid solution used only effected the bones and not the already existing soft tissue:

Indeed. Except that I have done studying beyond that press and I know, as the scientists involved know, that the pliable material was hydrated and made flexible in the acidic medium that removed the minerals in the first place.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

All of the fossil material was rehydrated during the same process that removed the mineral components of the bone. They were then buffered, and also some were fixed. The related press reports have created the impression that there are large features with the characteristics of fresh tissue. This is not true.

You also find that DNA has already been taken from Dino Bone of cretaceous period:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5188/1229

I often find it humorous that people supporting young earth hoop and holler about "hasn't been reproduced" but then turn around and point out things like this that are seriously doubted because the results have not been reproduced and the DNA in question shows clear signs of cross contamination:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/dna.htm


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15020302.800

 

[pwnagepanda]

There is no real law of biogenesis, abiogenesis just says that what happened was the formation of very simple, self replicating molecules, that over time grew more complex. Irreducable complexity is complete nonsense ( I hate Michael Behe) and has some false assumprions about how evolution works, It assumes that all earlier stages of this structure were used for the same purpose and also says that because I cant figure out how it worked it cant have happened (argument from personal incredulity). You seem to forget about natural selection when you talk about mutations. Organisms with harmful mutations generally get killled and do not reroduce, while those that do hve them do and make more babies. (btw, most mutations are neither harmful or beneficial, because so much DNA is in the form of noncodingsequences.). The fossil record: wow, here, you are just wrong. We find species in the gaps of the fossil record all the time, but they just make 2 smaller gaps, which creationists then sieze upon. Do you remember when last year theyfound the fossil that had primitive legs? Hmmmm...
WRONG!!!!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But even YECs aren't so stubborn as to deny evolution that can be observed. The debate is not whether evolution occurs, only whether it is the source of genetic variation.

I disagree. I think that the debate, if it can be called that, is between those who have no qualms with Evolution and it's consequences in light of the ocean of scientific evidence, and those who find themselves at odds with it and their Christian faith.

 

[bindaniel]

Indeed. Except that I have done studying beyond that press and I know, as the scientists involved know, that the pliable material was hydrated and made flexible in the acidic medium that removed the minerals in the first place.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

I often find it humorous that people supporting young earth hoop and holler about "hasn't been reproduced" but then turn around and point out things like this that are seriously doubted because the results have not been reproduced and the DNA in question shows clear signs of cross contamination:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/dna.htm


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15020302.800

Indeed: back at you.

Woodwards argument is that he checked out the cytochrome b in his specimen and it was not close at all to "modern human" and therefore not a lab contamination.http://discovermagazine.com/1995/may/dinosaurmine510

 

[sfs]

Indeed: back at you.

Woodwards argument is that he checked out the cytochrome b in his specimen and it was not close at all to "modern human" and therefore not a lab contamination.http://discovermagazine.com/1995/may/dinosaurmine510

Don't believe everything you read in a press release. From here:

In the Nov. 30 Nature, Stewart and Randall V. Collura explain how human DNA could have confounded Woodward's analysis. They discovered that several higher primates have multiple, imperfect copies of the cytochrome b gene, which jumped from the mitochondria into the nucleus as long as 30 million years ago. These nuclear inserts are nonfunctional.

When Woodward checked for human contamination, he compared the DNA strands against human mitochondrial genes, but the nuclear inserts had not yet been discovered.

Stewart and Collura's data confirm findings published in the May 26 Science. Hans Zischler of the University of Munich in Germany had identified pieces of the cytochrome b gene in the human nuclear genome and suggested that these nuclear inserts had contaminated Woodward's analyses of the dinosaur bone.

In the same issue, S. Blair Hedges of Pennsylvania State University in University Park identified the strands as human on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis. The bone DNA more closely resembles DNA from humans than DNA from reptiles or birds, the nearest living relatives of dinosaurs. "All of the evidence suggests that it is contamination," comments Hedges.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't believe everything you read in a press release. From here:

Quite right. The human contaminate was a numt (nuclear mitochondrial DNA). The discovery of numt's pretty much ended the golden age of ancient DNA for specimens older than 100,000 years. In the case of Woodward's sample, it was positively identified as a human numt (by Svante Paabo I believe). I can't find a good reference, but a google search does return hits for pay-only references.

 

[JBJoe]

Indeed: back at you.

Woodwards argument is that he checked out the cytochrome b in his specimen and it was not close at all to "modern human" and therefore not a lab contamination.http://discovermagazine.com/1995/may/dinosaurmine510

Back at me?! You do realize that my sources come a full year after yours? That they had the benefit of further analysis from multiple laboratories? Please, if you're going to attempt to bolster your position, you need NEWER analysis.

 

[bindaniel]

Quite right. The human contaminate was a numt (nuclear mitochondrial DNA). The discovery of numt's pretty much ended the golden age of ancient DNA for specimens older than 100,000 years. In the case of Woodward's sample, it was positively identified as a human numt (by Svante Paabo I believe). I can't find a good reference, but a google search does return hits for pay-only references.

So what are you suggesting if it is "human" as you put it. That humans did indeed walk with dinosaurs seeing as how the 100, 000 life cycle of DNA has been debunked amd 30 million yr old DNA exists.

 

[sfs]

So what are you suggesting if it is "human" as you put it. That humans did indeed walk with dinosaurs seeing as how the 100, 000 life cycle of DNA has been debunked amd 30 million yr old DNA exists.

No, we're suggesting that the sample was contaminated with recent human DNA, either during handling or in the laboratory. This kind of contamination happens all the time; PCR was used to amplify the DNA in the sample, and PCR will amplify even the tiniest trace of DNA. Just a few weeks ago we used blood from a healthy American volunteer (a lab person) as a control, and it came back positive for malaria DNA. She didn't have malaria; there were just traces of malaria DNA floating around the lab.

 

[notto]

So what are you suggesting if it is "human" as you put it. That humans did indeed walk with dinosaurs seeing as how the 100, 000 life cycle of DNA has been debunked amd 30 million yr old DNA exists.

Did you read the article? Did you miss this quote?

"Human DNA is probably the most common laboratory contaminant. It's exceedingly difficult to keep human tissue out of an experiment, because specks of dust have human skin and hair on them,"

We would not find human DNA on a fossil bone unless it came from a human handling the bone. To suggest otherwise would require you to put forth a scenario that explains how human DNA got inside the bone of buried and fossilizing dinosaur.

 

[tanzanos]

This is what happens when they stop teaching biology in school and teach Creationism instead. Keep it up America for pretty soon even Fatu Hiva will have more advance technology than America. The whole world will be advancing and America will revert to witch burnings. I am sure this will make even your most ardent enemy happy!

 

[bindaniel]

Did you read the article? Did you miss this quote?

"Human DNA is probably the most common laboratory contaminant. It's exceedingly difficult to keep human tissue out of an experiment, because specks of dust have human skin and hair on them,"

We would not find human DNA on a fossil bone unless it came from a human handling the bone. To suggest otherwise would require you to put forth a scenario that explains how human DNA got inside the bone of buried and fossilizing dinosaur.

Hi all
I did read the quote.
Woodward`s contention if you did not read it was he tested for Human DNA it was found not to come from a "modern human". Therefore could not have been lab contaminant from handling when that accusation was labelled at him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi all
I did read the quote.
Woodward`s contention if you did not read it was he tested for Human DNA it was found not to come from a "modern human". Therefore could not have been lab contaminant from handling when that accusation was labelled at him.

At the time, Woodward was correct in saying that the sequence he amplified did not match any known human sequence. However, a year later nuclear mitochondrial genes were found in the human genome and they matched the sequence that Woodward amplified.

Woodward tried to amplify mitochondrial DNA using degenerate primers for mitochondrial genes. This type of amplification is susceptible to contamination. In this case, Woodward amplified human DNA that had contaminated the sample. The reason that his sequence was different from known human mitochondrial sequences is that this gene had moved into the chromosomal DNA where it was not under any selection allowing it to accrue mutations at a much higher rate than the mitochondrial gene.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what are you suggesting if it is "human" as you put it. That humans did indeed walk with dinosaurs seeing as how the 100, 000 life cycle of DNA has been debunked amd 30 million yr old DNA exists.

Humans did indeed exist in the molecular biology labs where the PCR and sequencing was done. Humans did indeed handle and touch the dinosaur bones. Contamination by exogenous DNA is tough to get around when you are looking for such a weak signal.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

So what are you suggesting if it is "human" as you put it. That humans did indeed walk with dinosaurs seeing as how the 100, 000 life cycle of DNA has been debunked amd 30 million yr old DNA exists.

So all of geologic and biologic history is debunked by this single, highly questionable find?