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?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
In other words you have zip, zero, zilch, nada. But you do have good imaginations, even if you lack any evidence whatsoever.
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.
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,
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.
You and I both know the odds of soft tissue lasting for 65 million years is so slim as to be non-existent.
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
Widespread divergence between incipient Anopheles gambiae species revealed by whole genome sequences.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.
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?That's what I thought, flights of fantasy.
Mocking people about things you don't understand is even worse than lecturing them.
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 Darwins 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 didnt 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
That's not what I wrote. And to claim that we have no evidence is a falsehood. What does the bible say about falsehoods?
What does this have to do with anything?
Changes in allele frequencies within a population is definitely evolution. Always has been.
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.We need to discuss the DNA evidence demonstrating common ancestry between divergent species. It seems that creationists always want to avoid this evidence.
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.Yes, just as humans have remained eukaryotes, remained vertebrates, remained mammals, remained primates, and remained hominids. That is how evolution works. Your point?
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.How is a change in beaks not something different? It seems that you are being extremely arbitrary.
Wrong, because you can't show me one. You tried that already.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?
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, 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.
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?