What about the DNA evidence?

[lasthero]

Mary Schweitzer a prime example, who was afraid to present her findings, even when test after test after test confirmed her findings.

Oh, she's afraid, all right.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

She's afraid of YOU.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Anyway, you're citing a 14 minute news clip. What you should have done was cite Schweitzer's actual paper.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183.full

Schwietzer actually explains in her paper why these substances were able to survive so long. Basically, they were sealed into the t-rex's bone, and protected from things that would have caused them degrade. It was essentially a sealed canister

You would know this if you actually read the paper, instead of just listening to a news show that's meant to sensationalize things for ratings.

Thankfully Jack Horner is a maverick and doesn't care about funding as has his own fame and fortune already and we have heard about this. Otherwise it would probably never have been reported.

Yeah, that's why it was posted in a scientific journal, because no one ever reads those things.

And why do I get the feeling that, if Jack Horner successfully creates the 'dino-chicken' he's talking about in the latter half of the clip and presents this as evidence of evolution, you'll be less than supportive of his 'maverick' status?

 

[lasthero]

Oh, and one more thing.

Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.

Guess who said that? Come on. Guess.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is what I want to hear about too..an orderly sequence I can understand for that argument,but there have been mutations that have raised red flags..
This is a small example minuscule to the point. Troglofauna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..frogs,fish and and other critters that have lost their eye sight and no longer have skin pigmentation all point to disruption and the mutation of DNA sequencing due to long term environmental conditions..
Change within a specie IS evolution!

No, chnges within a species is "adaptation", evolution is changes from one species to another. Do we need to discuss dogs and cats all over again. We have seen this change in appearance within our own lifetimes, but they always remain cats and dogs. That a birds beak might change to enable it to eat nuts instead of seeds is not surprising, that a bird changes into something different is a flight of fantasy. That a mans skin is darker in hotter climates is not surprising, that a man becomes anything other than a man is a flight of fantasy. That a frog might loose its skin pigmentation when no longer needed to protect from sunlight it does not receive any longer is not surprising, that the frog becomes anything other than a frog is a flight of fantasy. You have never observed evolution, merely adaptation of kinds to their environment. And no, adaptation is NOT evolution, regardless of how badly you may want it to be. The gene controlling pigmentation is merely turned off or on, depending on the environmental situation, but that gene has always been there. Nothing has been lost, and nothing has been gained. That a salamander in complete darkness might begin reabsorbing useless eyes is no surprise, but that it becomes anything other than a salamander is a flight of fantasy.

 

[CabVet]

So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?

Apparently you missed the memo. Evidence and facts are there to be ignored... Not even evolution is evolution anymore:

No, chnges within a species is "adaptation", evolution is changes from one species to another.

 

[sfs]

No, chnges within a species is "adaptation", evolution is changes from one species to another.

I'm sitting here in a lab in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and here we're under the impression that evolution includes changes within species. Please don't lecture people about things you don't understand.

And no, adaptation is NOT evolution, regardless of how badly you may want it to be. The gene controlling pigmentation is merely turned off or on, depending on the environmental situation, but that gene has always been there. Nothing has been lost, and nothing has been gained.

The only problem with your statements here is that they're wrong.

 

[freezerman2000]

No, chnges within a species is "adaptation", evolution is changes from one species to another. Do we need to discuss dogs and cats all over again. We have seen this change in appearance within our own lifetimes, but they always remain cats and dogs. That a birds beak might change to enable it to eat nuts instead of seeds is not surprising, that a bird changes into something different is a flight of fantasy. That a mans skin is darker in hotter climates is not surprising, that a man becomes anything other than a man is a flight of fantasy. That a frog might loose its skin pigmentation when no longer needed to protect from sunlight it does not receive any longer is not surprising, that the frog becomes anything other than a frog is a flight of fantasy. You have never observed evolution, merely adaptation of kinds to their environment. And no, adaptation is NOT evolution, regardless of how badly you may want it to be. The gene controlling pigmentation is merely turned off or on, depending on the environmental situation, but that gene has always been there. Nothing has been lost, and nothing has been gained. That a salamander in complete darkness might begin reabsorbing useless eyes is no surprise, but that it becomes anything other than a salamander is a flight of fantasy.

Adaptation is one of the driving forces of evolution....BTW,I've never brought up cats and dogs..

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, she's afraid, all right.



She's afraid of YOU.

Funny because she was afraid of ridicule from her peers, fellow evolutionists, the thought of creationists never entered her mind. But it's your fantasy, tell it like you want to make it sound better. warp the truth, it's nothing we don't expect from evolutionists.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Anyway, you're citing a 14 minute news clip. What you should have done was cite Schweitzer's actual paper.

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present

Schwietzer actually explains in her paper why these substances were able to survive so long. Basically, they were sealed into the t-rex's bone, and protected from things that would have caused them degrade. It was essentially a sealed canister

You would know this if you actually read the paper, instead of just listening to a news show that's meant to sensationalize things for ratings.



Yeah, that's why it was posted in a scientific journal, because no one ever reads those things.

And why do I get the feeling that, if Jack Horner successfully creates the 'dino-chicken' he's talking about in the latter half of the clip and presents this as evidence of evolution, you'll be less than supportive of his 'maverick' status?

Yah, uhh huh, that's why every single bone that has ever been tested has shown soft tissue. You don't believe that fabricated story any more than I do. So this miracle of soft tissue surviving has happened over and over and over, but hey it's your story. It is virtually impossible, before this find you assured us such could never happen. Now it happens over and over and over.

Of course she supports evolution, do you really expect her to face osterization? Let's make a deal, fabricate a story to explain the results of the impossible. Lol, so pathetic. C-14 testing backs up the finding of soft tissue, C-14 testing you claimed was impossible too. Just face up to the facts, they are not as old as you once believed them to be. Just as baby dinosaur were not the transitory species you believed them to be. Just as the fossil record does not support gradualism. Just as DNA testing does not support you upward branching tree.

Stop ignoring the evidence and making up Fairie Dust to support your flights of fantasy. You always claim the evidence points to this and that, then a few years go by and we find it was all hogwash, so new Fairie Dust is added. It's the same story over and over, the mechanism changes but never the theory. So pathetic that when a theory is falsified you make up Fairie Dust to keep it alive.

Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model

Quit swaying the evidence and dismissing anything that doesn't fir your pretty little picture.

it is not an isolated event, stop pretending it is.

Mummified dinosaur skin yields up new secrets | The University of Manchester
Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA)
Himalayan fossils of the oldest known pantherine establish ancient origin of big cats

First we were assured such was patently impossible, that no soft tissue could exist beyond 2 million years. Now you assure us that such is entirely possible, and even want to extract DNA, something your own science says would be absolutely impossible if they are really the age you are claiming. So which is it? The race to extraction of DNA has now begun. Either you are duping the public to secure additional funding for something you know to be patently impossible, if your dates are correct; or else you are duping the public as to their actual age and so expect to find DNA. So which is it?

One way or another they are lying to the general public, I'm betting they are lying about the age, what do you think?

 

[bhsmte]

Stop ignoring the evidence and making up Fairie Dust to support your flights of fantasy. You always claim the evidence points to this and that, then a few years go by and we find it was all hogwash, so new Fairie Dust is added. It's the same story over and over, the mechanism changes but never the theory. So pathetic that when a theory is falsified you make up Fairie Dust to keep it alive.

Quit swaying the evidence and dismissing anything that doesn't fir your pretty little picture.

One way or another they are lying to the general public, I'm betting they are lying about the age, what do you think?[/QUOTE]

Project much?

 

[lasthero]

Yah, uhh huh, that's why every single bone that has ever been tested has shown soft tissue.

Completely untrue.

First we were assured such was patently impossible, that no soft tissue could exist beyond 2 million years.

Who? Assured...by whom? When? Where?

And why are you completely ignoring the scientific paper that explains how this is possible?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sitting here in a lab in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and here we're under the impression that evolution includes changes within species. Please don't lecture people about things you don't understand.


The only problem with your statements here is that they're wrong.

Really, then please provide me a sequenced gene sample of where you have discovered one species evolving into another species? Well, come on, get to providing the sample.

That's what I thought, flights of fantasy.

 

[freezerman2000]

Completely untrue.



Who? Assured...by whom? When? Where?

And why are you completely ignoring the scientific paper that explains how this is possible?

Depends on the source,questionable or not.

Assured by wannabe scientists.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Completely untrue.



Who? Assured...by whom? When? Where?

And why are you completely ignoring the scientific paper that explains how this is possible?

Read your own evolutionary articles, of why no one has ever tested for soft tissue in the last 100 years. Certainly you don't expect me to believe that no one looked because they thought it possible, but just hadn't got around to it? If you really believed you could have found some, finding some would not have happened by complete accident. I mean come on, is that the best you got?

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745.full

 

[lasthero]

Read your own evolutionary articles, of why no one has ever tested for soft tissue in the last 100 years. Certainly you don't expect me to believe that no one looked because they thought it possible, but just hadn't got around to it? If you really believed you could have found some, finding some would not have happened by complete accident. I mean come on, is that the best you got?

So your answer is basically 'no one, I just made it up'.

 

[lasthero]

Also, you do realize that many dinosaur bones don't have to be sliced open - they're often found in fragments, broken apart by natural processes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So your answer is basically 'no one, I just made it up'.

Here, I'll quote the published article again.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745.full

Seems "you" made it up that they could.

So I admit I was wrong, they estimate 1.5 million years, I said 2 million, was being generous.

 

[lasthero]

Here, I'll quote the published article again.

The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils

Seems "you" made it up that they could.

So I admit I was wrong, they estimate 1.5 million years, I said 2 million, was being generous.

That's about DNA. Where in her paper does she mention finding DNA?

 

[Split Rock]

Really, then please provide me a sequenced gene sample of where you have discovered one species evolving into another species? Well, come on, get to providing the sample.

That's what I thought, flights of fantasy.

A single gene mutation does not normally result in speciation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's about DNA. Where in her paper does she mention finding DNA?

Then why are your scientists looking for it?

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.u...gramme-explores-the-seemingly-impossible.html

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1191.short

Dino DNA: the hunt and the hype
"the minute I saw those structures, getting the DNA became my goal."

So once again, are you duping the public just for funding, or do these scientists know their age is flawed and are actually looking?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A single gene mutation does not normally result in speciation.

In other words you have zip, zero, zilch, nada. But you do have good imaginations, even if you lack any evidence whatsoever.

 

[freezerman2000]

In other words you have zip, zero, zilch, nada.

When it comes to peer reviewed papers,neither do you..you have pseudoscience,we have hard evidence..just go back in the thread,follow the links,and you will see..
Seek and ye shall find.