What about the DNA evidence?

[lasthero]

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?

Don't know. Ask them.

Now, on topic - when did Schweitzer say she found DNA? And why are you on about DNA when we were just talking about soft tissue?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Don't know. Ask them.

Now, on topic - when did Schweitzer say she found DNA? And why are you on about DNA when we were just talking about soft tissue?

You and I both know the odds of soft tissue lasting for 65 million years is so slim as to be non-existent. Your own evolutionists would have been looking for it to prove your links if they thought they had even a slight chance of finding any. All you are doing is the evolutionists best defense, pretending that what you once believed as fact, you never believed at all.

HowStuffWorks "How can soft tissue exist in dinosaur fossils?"
"This question became a controversial topic of discussion in 2005 when a team of North Carolina State University paleontologists published a paper titled "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex" in the journal Science."

Why so controversial if scientists actually thought it was possible? Why were your own evolutionists attempting to discredit the find as mere contamination if they believed such was possible? Why did you never test for it before if you thought such was possible?

Why didn't she believe what her own observations were telling her?

NOVA | T. Rex Blood?: Expert Q&A
"Yeah, it did sort of "blow my mind." Still does. I spent about three weeks saying that I couldn't be seeing what it looked like I was seeing. I kept looking at them over and over, and I would get goosebumps. I kept thinking that there had to be some kind of mistake, and I had my technician repeat the studies over and over and over with new chunks of bone to be sure we could get the same results."

Why would she think finding soft tissue had to be a mistake, if anyone at all before this had thought it even remotely possible?

Face it, you are grasping at straws in an attempt to divert the public from the truth. That you all thought such a thing impossible, but yet, there it is.

 

[Split Rock]

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

That's not what I wrote. And to claim that we have no evidence is a falsehood. What does the bible say about falsehoods?

 

[Split Rock]

You and I both know the odds of soft tissue lasting for 65 million years is so slim as to be non-existent. Your own evolutionists would have been looking for it to prove your links if they thought they had even a slight chance of finding any. All you are doing is the evolutionists best defense, pretending that what you once believed as fact, you never believed at all.

HowStuffWorks "How can soft tissue exist in dinosaur fossils?"
"This question became a controversial topic of discussion in 2005 when a team of North Carolina State University paleontologists published a paper titled "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex" in the journal Science."

Why so controversial if scientists actually thought it was possible? Why were your own evolutionists attempting to discredit the find as mere contamination if they believed such was possible? Why did you never test for it before if you thought such was possible?

Why didn't she believe what her own observations were telling her?

NOVA | T. Rex Blood?: Expert Q&A
"Yeah, it did sort of "blow my mind." Still does. I spent about three weeks saying that I couldn't be seeing what it looked like I was seeing. I kept looking at them over and over, and I would get goosebumps. I kept thinking that there had to be some kind of mistake, and I had my technician repeat the studies over and over and over with new chunks of bone to be sure we could get the same results."

Why would she think finding soft tissue had to be a mistake, if anyone at all before this had thought it even remotely possible?

Face it, you are grasping at straws in an attempt to divert the public from the truth. That you all thought such a thing impossible, but yet, there it is.

Where is the DNA, AS YOU CLAIMED?

 

[Loudmouth]

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!

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Changes in allele frequencies within a population is definitely evolution. Always has been.

Do we need to discuss dogs and cats all over again.

We need to discuss the DNA evidence demonstrating common ancestry between divergent species. It seems that creationists always want to avoid this evidence.

We have seen this change in appearance within our own lifetimes, but they always remain cats and dogs.

Yes, just as humans have remained eukaryotes, remained vertebrates, remained mammals, remained primates, and remained hominids. That is how evolution works. Your point?

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.

How is a change in beaks not something different? It seems that you are being extremely arbitrary.

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.

If I show you a common ancestor between humans and chimps you will say that isn't evolution because man is still a primate. If I show you a common ancestor for bears and humans you will say that it isn't evolution either since humans are still mammals. If I show you a common ancestor for fish and humans you will say that isn't evolution either, since humans are still vertebrates.

Right?

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.

Humans are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates. So you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with primates, mammals, and vertebrates, right?

You have never observed evolution, merely adaptation of kinds to their environment.

Evolution is adaptation of kinds to their environment.

And no, adaptation is NOT evolution,

YEs, it is, no matter how much you don't want it to be. Adaptation within the primate kind, which humans belong to, has occurred over millions of years and was caused, in part, by mutation and selection which is evolution.

The gene controlling pigmentation is merely turned off or on, depending on the environmental situation, but that gene has always been there.[/qutoe]

A mutation caused the reduced gene expression. The environment did not cause the mutation, but it did select for the mutation.

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.

Humans are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates.

 

[Loudmouth]

You and I both know the odds of soft tissue lasting for 65 million years is so slim as to be non-existent.

We know no such thing. All we have are your assertions.

Please show us why preserved soft tissue could not last 65 million years. Also keep in mind that it wasn't soft until it was soaked in several solutions for days at a time.

Will you be getting to the DNA evidence any time soon?

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

DNA has a 521-year half-life : Nature News & Comment
The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils

Please cite the scientific study demonstrating that soft tissue can not be preserved as found in the T. rex fossil for 65 million years.

 

[sfs]

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.

Widespread divergence between incipient Anopheles gambiae species revealed by whole genome sequences.

That's what I thought, flights of fantasy.

Mocking people about things you don't understand is even worse than lecturing them. Just who do you think you're impressing with this ridiculous behavior?

 

[AV1611VET]

Mocking people about things you don't understand is even worse than lecturing them.

... Okay, chief.

Welcome to the Internet.

 

[keith99]

Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. 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?

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

So one anti-Biblical idea from the godless atheists is equal to the other.

Germ theory bah, it is demon possession!

<End Sarcasm>

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's not what I wrote. And to claim that we have no evidence is a falsehood. What does the bible say about falsehoods?

It is exactly what you wrote. You have no evidence, merely wishful thinking of how you want it to be. I say dogs and cats changing appearance within a matter of a few generations should give you all the genetic evidence you need, but it doesn't does it? All it shows you is that cats are cats and dogs are dogs, regardless of their outward appearance or bone structure. Outward appearances you attempt to imply in the fossil record means transitory species, when the only direct evidence has shown you that these outward changes in appearance mean nothing.

No falsehood in the least, You have evidence you have mistaken as evolution, when the observation and fossil record clearly shows kind after kind. No gradualism, only fully formed creatures, the bedrock of evolution and upon which the theory was founded. That it was falsified leaves you foundering, to which you invented the miraculous punctuated equilibrium in an attempt to bypass your lack of transitory species. That you won't accept the truth is because you are practicing a religion, not a science. You are so blinded by your mythology, you can't see the evidence right before your very eyes.

 

[freezerman2000]

What does this have to do with anything?

An orderly sequence of DNA molecules passed down generation to generation would mean no evolution..but there ARE mutations..disorderly sequencing due to environmental conditions,leading to those mutations becoming the norm..hence the evolution of specialized species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Changes in allele frequencies within a population is definitely evolution. Always has been.

Only in your own mind. Yet dogs are dogs, cats are cats, frogs are frogs, bacteria is bacteria. Show me differently. You can't, all you can show me is different breeds of the same kind.

We need to discuss the DNA evidence demonstrating common ancestry between divergent species. It seems that creationists always want to avoid this evidence.

Still waiting for this evidence we are to discuss to be presented. You claim we are avoiding it, I see no evidence presented, merely words.
But yes, let us discuss it:

Yes, just as humans have remained eukaryotes, remained vertebrates, remained mammals, remained primates, and remained hominids. That is how evolution works. Your point?

Useless classifications that have no meaning. Humans are humans, chimps are chimps, dogs are dogs. If I tell you my mammal died yesterday, to which class of species am I referring? Totally useless except to play the name game, as we know scientists do love the name game.

How is a change in beaks not something different? It seems that you are being extremely arbitrary.

Because those orioles are still oreoles, they just changed appearance, they did not become something they were never before. This is what you can't accept, because you are not trying to defend a scientific theory, but a religion of evolution.

If I show you a common ancestor between humans and chimps you will say that isn't evolution because man is still a primate. If I show you a common ancestor for bears and humans you will say that it isn't evolution either since humans are still mammals. If I show you a common ancestor for fish and humans you will say that isn't evolution either, since humans are still vertebrates.

Right?

Wrong, because you can't show me one. You tried that already.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you will show me is a partial skull, a piece of leg bone, a couple ribs, not even found in close proximity, and from these few fragments tell me an entire transitory species existed. No, just a change of appearance or a mutation that died out for lack of viability. An artists rendering of what they believe they should draw, because they assume it is transitory.

Lets see what scientists say:

Donald Johanson, "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday..." Lucy,p.363
Richard Leakey, "Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and is all but blank for the apes." The Making Of Mankind, 43
David Pilbeam [Harvard] comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientists from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'Forget it; there isn't enough to go on.'" The Making Of Mankind, p.43
Earnst A. Hooten, Harvard, "To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.", Up From The Ape, p.332.
W. Howells, Harvard, "A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of these wondrous men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Tertiary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.", Mankind So Far, p.138.
David Pilbeam, Yale, "I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, 'theory' - heavily influenced by implicit ideas - almost always dominates 'data.' ...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." Bones Of Contention, p.127.
Lord Z.Zuckerman, "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." Beyond The Ivory Tower, p.19
Roger Lewin, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance...can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones Of Contention, 1987, p.123.
Richard C. Lewontin, Harvard , "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982] that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...and it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harper's, 2/84.
Lowenstein & Adriene Zihlman, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.78.
Bernard Wood, Prof. Of Human Origins, George Washington U. "There is a popular image of human evolution that you'll find all over the place ...On the left of the picture there's an ape... On the right, a man... Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans... Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It's such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion." New Scientist, 10/26/02.
MARY LEAKEY'S CONCLUSION, According To Associated Press, "Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution," Leakey said "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." 12/9/1996
LEAKEYS DENY, Roger Lewin, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo - large brain, toolmaking and so on - has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." Bones Of Contention, 1987, p.18.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, "His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa. ...Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level. ...while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids. ...it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors." Bones Of Contention, 1987, p.164, 165. "The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Beyond The Ivory Tower, p.78
Roger Lewin, Ed. Re. News, Science, "How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones - the cranial fragments - and 'see' a clear simian signature in them; and 'see' in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. ...It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Bones Of Contention, p.61, 68
William Howells, Harvard, "...with a date of about 4.4 million, [KP 271] could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.", Homo Erectus, 1981, p.79-80.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justatruthseeker, you forgot the rule that if creationists forget to include links for their supposed quotes they are to be treated as garbage?

I have found that well over 90% of the time that if creationists quote evolutionists without proper links to back them up they are lying by quote mining. You wouldn't want us to think that you were lying now, would you?

Odds are that you got your quotes from a lying source. You may not be aware of that, but even that is doubtful. I worry about the state of your soul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus it seems that Justa still does not understand the simple concept of clades. Evolution never claims that animals changed "kinds". The claim is that the "kind" changed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Plus it seems that Justa still does not understand the simple concept of clades. Evolution never claims that animals changed "kinds". The claim is that the "kind" changed.

And yet you have no proof of that either. Tyrannosaurus simply appears in the fossil record full blown and fully grown, same with triceratops, same with them all. And where are the progenitors of the Cambrian period?

You have even less so called facts supporting that idea than you do of speciation.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Yet you have nothing on any of those levels. The fossil record shows all fossils were the same from the first to the very last when they went extinct. it's all a tale of Fairie Dust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-Hall08-1

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, you forgot the rule that if creationists forget to include links for their supposed quotes they are to be treated as garbage?

I have found that well over 90% of the time that if creationists quote evolutionists without proper links to back them up they are lying by quote mining. You wouldn't want us to think that you were lying now, would you?

Odds are that you got your quotes from a lying source. You may not be aware of that, but even that is doubtful. I worry about the state of your soul.

Only evolutionists can do that right? And the publications they were taken from is listed, do a search, quit being lazy. If you actually did research we wouldn't be arguing about evolution, because you would realize it for the farce it is.

You got a library in your town? I know you got a computer, well do some research. Good try though, always evolutionists demand facts, but never seem to present a single solitary one when they respond.

Here's one, do the rest of the research yourself. Quit acting like a child and wanting mommy and daddy to do everything for you. That's your problem, the most you read is forums.

Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity - Google Books

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you have no proof of that either. Tyrannosaurus simply appears in the fossil record full blown and fully grown, same with triceratops, same with them all. And where are the progenitors of the Cambrian period?

You have even less so called facts supporting that idea than you do of speciation.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Yet you have nothing on any of those levels. The fossil record shows all fossils were the same from the first to the very last when they went extinct. it's all a tale of Fairie Dust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#cite_note-Hall08-1

No, there are predecessors to T-Rex. Here is one of them:
http://westerndigs.org/new-species-of-tyrannosaur-king-of-gore-sheds-light-on-evolution-of-t-rex/

And you should know why we have very few fossils of the predecessors to Cambrian life. Rather than embarrass you I will give you a few minutes to think of that reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only evolutionists can do that right? And the publications they were taken from is listed, do a search, quit being lazy. If you actually did research we wouldn't be arguing about evolution, because you would realize it for the farce it is.

Only creationists tend to lie that way. Evolutionists do not quote mine. Find me an example of an evolutionist lying by quote mining. The only time they do it that I am aware of is when they give an example of quote mining. For example "There is no God." from The Bible.

There, I gave you the source, find out for yourself how it is wrong. Now this one is easy since it has been used countless times. But if you were not aware of the source you can see how that is not a good enough reference. In these days when quotes are linkable there is not excuse not to.

You are supposed to be a Christian. That means your behavior is supposed to be above reproach. This behavior has not been so. I will not do your homework for you. You know how to do proper quotes. Please do them.

You got a library in your town? I know you got a computer, well do some research. Good try though, always evolutionists demand facts, but never seem to present a single solitary one when they respond.

You are acting just like any other liar that has been caught in the act. I am not doing your homework for you. Quote properly.

Here's one, do the rest of the research yourself. Quit acting like a child and wanting mommy and daddy to do everything for you. That's your problem, the most you read is forums.

Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity - Google Books

I will check out this one you have listed. If you are quote mining, shame on you. And one non-quote mined quote does not make the rest legitimate. Your statement is reportable. I have not called you a liar, I have pointed out that you are probably using lying sources. You should know that that is very close to committing that sin.