What about the DNA evidence?

[stevevw]

Polystrate Trees

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7



Yet another interesting finding concerning petrified trees, is that many of them extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock. How can this phenomenon be explained? A common explanation is that these do not represent areas of the standard geologic column, but areas of rapid local flooding and sedimentation. Therefore, the layers that these trees pass through do not represent thousands and millions of years. However, the pictures shown to the right are of a petrified tree (located near Katherine Hill Bay next to Flat Rocks Point, Australia) extending up through many sedimentary layers and through two separated coal seams (See Video Below).4 The tree itself is twelve feet tall, and was uncovered by a coal mining company. If the two separated coal seams represent long periods of time, how could this tree be extending between them both? It seems to me that this is a difficulty for the current understanding of science. Notice also that the layers themselves show no weathering between one layer and the next even though each layer was supposedly the surface of the earth for thousands if not millions of years. These combined mysteries are more easily explained by rapid underwater burial with quickly forming sediments. The theory that each fossil bearing layer in the geologic column represents eons of time seems inadequate to explain such problems that are easily explained by a quick catastrophic event.

Polystrate Fossil Tree - YouTube

 

[stevevw]

Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.


Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells : Nature News & Comment

 

[stevevw]

And you have shown that you do not understand evolution. There is not "highest level evolved creature". I can ignore the nonsense that follows.

I do understand evolution maybe not down to the genetic level as i am not a biologist. But i believe i can comprehend the basic idea of the theory as anyone else on here has shown. When i say highest evolved i mean that man has supposedly come from apes. We have become more adapted and we have become smarter. We have become more aware and we have a sense of self. All these seem to be above the animals so we are more highly evolved. At this point in time of all the animals that we are supposed to be related to and all come from a common ancestor we have the ability to have an affect on the process of evolution itself. We can wipe a species out and we can destroy our environment and the environments of other animals. We are the only animal that can do this and know we are doing it. So it is not all subject to natural selection we can have an influence and change all that.

I think i understand it fairly well. You see i am a layman and i dont know what level of training you have or whether you have studied this subject most of your life. I haven't and i would say most people dont either. But this is how most people understand it, they read what they can and get the info from the data that's out there.

Not everyone is a university biologist so they rely on what others have said. Perhaps the problem is with the information. As i have read there are all levels of quality data out there , some of the highest standard from written papers on the subject to poorly written books that misrepresent the facts.

So any misunderstanding can also come from the fact the information is so varied and contradictory and causes confusion among the average person trying to understand. I tend to read and research before i answer that's why it may take me a bit of time to get back. I try to look at both sides of the story and whats said. I try to look at the facts but as i said a case can be made for both sides and the debate will go on with one person saying one thing and having some backup only to be refuted by another with backup. Each claiming that the information they are using is untrue or misrepresented.

 

[stevevw]

No, if creationism was true there still should be some consistent scientific facts that point to it. So far there are none. The evidence in the fossil records does not support creationism. Again, if creationism was true a creationist should be able to predict what we would find in the fossil record using a creationist paradigm. No one had managed to do so yet. Without a theory or hypothesis you cannot claim that a scientific fact supports your belief by definition. The people that try to say fossils support creationism are not honest, or too terribly bright.

This has already been stated many times. A lack of transitional fossils, so they moved to punctuated evolution. Even Darwin himself was concerned, according to him he thought he would find transitional fossils everywhere. This is from the guy who formed the theory. The Skulls found at Georgia are the latest example. Scientist were quick to name every skull a new species now they believe there is only one species of man. This is happening with many species, what they labelled a new species is a variation of an existing species.

They use to dispute flood catastrophe as part of evolution, now they embrace it because 1) there is to much evidence of flooding all over the world and 2) it helps them explain the anomalies that are in the fossil; records for evolution.

It seems then that catastrophism is only recently being accepted by more mainstream scientists. It seems also that significant portions of many different sedimentary layers within the geologic column are now thought, even by popular science, to have been the result of rather sudden catastrophic deposition - with the bulk of time passing in between these episodes of catastrophe. Although the notion that the geologic column might not actually represent millions of years of time is far from mainstream, mainstream thinking is actually drifting back toward a position that can actually begin to consider that catastrophes and episodicity are "the rule, not the exception." This notion is something fairly new in mainstream thinking. Even today there is strong resistance of any notion that comes to close to suggesting catastrophes of "Biblical proportions" - perhaps due to the engrained bias against literal Biblical interpretations that suggest such things as a worldwide flood.

S

o to me the evidence points more to creation than evolution or at the very least puts the theory of evolution on shaky ground. IE first there were many ape men fossils to accommodate different species for slow evolutions now only one species and flooding catastrophe more in line with creation and the bible.

 

[[serious]]

Polystrate Trees

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7



Yet another interesting finding concerning petrified trees, is that many of them extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock. How can this phenomenon be explained? A common explanation is that these do not represent areas of the standard geologic column, but areas of rapid local flooding and sedimentation. Therefore, the layers that these trees pass through do not represent thousands and millions of years. However, the pictures shown to the right are of a petrified tree (located near Katherine Hill Bay next to Flat Rocks Point, Australia) extending up through many sedimentary layers and through two separated coal seams (See Video Below).4 The tree itself is twelve feet tall, and was uncovered by a coal mining company. If the two separated coal seams represent long periods of time, how could this tree be extending between them both? It seems to me that this is a difficulty for the current understanding of science. Notice also that the layers themselves show no weathering between one layer and the next even though each layer was supposedly the surface of the earth for thousands if not millions of years. These combined mysteries are more easily explained by rapid underwater burial with quickly forming sediments. The theory that each fossil bearing layer in the geologic column represents eons of time seems inadequate to explain such problems that are easily explained by a quick catastrophic event.

Polystrate Fossil Tree - YouTube

PRATT

Claim CC331:

Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 107-108.
Berg, Randy S., 2005. The "fossil forests" of Nova Scotia: A review of the literature. Polystrate Fossils
Response:

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
Links:

MacRae, Andrew, 1994. "Polystrate" tree fossils. "Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Further Reading:

Frey, Robert W., 1982. Sedimentology photo. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52(2): 614.

CC331: Polystrate fossils and deposition

 

[stevevw]

Claim CC331:

Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 107-108.
Berg, Randy S., 2005. The "fossil forests" of Nova Scotia: A review of the literature. Polystrate Fossils
Response:

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
Links:

MacRae, Andrew, 1994. "Polystrate" tree fossils. "Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Further Reading:

Frey, Robert W., 1982. Sedimentology photo. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52(2): 614.

Except some have layers of volcanic ash at bottom and top of trees with many layers of sediment in between. Polystrate fossils are found all over the world which indicates many liquid catastrophes and there are many other signs of sudden fossilization with animal tracks, skin, feathers, food in gut of fossilized animals, animals fossilized giving birth, animals in mid combat. All signs of sudden catastrophe from liquid.

 

[[serious]]

Except some have layers of volcanic ash at bottom and top of trees with many layers of sediment in between.

addressed in the quote:

Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.

I'll even go a step further. A petrified tree could last through thousands of years of sedimentation. If a tree is buried in a single event, mineralized, then subsequently exposed, extensive layering can occur over even greater time frames. If it is a preserved root, it's even easier. The tree may have actually grown through layers of sedimentation. Really not an issue.

Polystrate fossils are found all over the world which indicates many liquid catastrophes and there are many other signs of sudden fossilization with animal tracks, skin, feathers, food in gut of fossilized animals, animals fossilized giving birth, animals in mid combat. All signs of sudden catastrophe from liquid.

Actually, a sudden massive flood would wash away many of those signs. Animals don't remain "locked in combat" through a flash flood nor do fresh footprints survive sudden inundation.

 

[stevevw]

I'll even go a step further. A petrified tree could last through thousands of years of sedimentation. If a tree is buried in a single event, mineralized, then subsequently exposed, extensive layering can occur over even greater time frames. If it is a preserved root, it's even easier. The tree may have actually grown through layers of sedimentation. Really not an issue.[/quote]

Many are found with no roots indicating they may have been uprooted. Some are found with coal seams through them.

 

[[serious]]

Many are found with no roots indicating they may have been uprooted. Some are found with coal seams through them.

Why would any of that be an issue?

 

[stevevw]

Why would any of that be an issue?

No its not just wondering how some got there and lasted so long. Seems to indicate some sort of flooding or deluge.

You mentioned a tree could be buried in a single event but what about the ones that have several thinner layers including slate, sandstone, ash ect. How do many inundations occur quickly without the tree rotting away when it is not petrified.

 

[Loudmouth]

Polystrate Trees

That has nothing to do with the topic, which is the DNA evidence for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.


Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells : Nature News & Comment

Your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Claim CC331:

Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.

Sudden deposition does not require a global flood. Here is a polystrate telephone pole. Surely you don't think that this telephone pole is from the time of Noah, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trust me, you have no idea what you are talking about. And I already covered this article.

And yet it seems that all those specialists that not a few years prior who told us they were separate species and transitory to boot also didn't know what they were talking about. I'd say my opinion counts as much as theirs, since apparently they were wrong from the start, and I have simply claimed they were all just variations. Seems I was proven correct, and they were proven wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A biologist who was a specialist in this could explain this to you. I know I am not qualified. I know the people who wrote the popular article were not qualified. You are grasping at straws when you misinterpret that article. I see creationists do this all of the time.

They always look foolish afterwards.

Once again, this article only has to do with limiting the number of homo species. It in no way even hints that Homo erectus is not a proper species. In other words it supports evolution, it merely is arguing about how evolution happened.

You mean foolish like all the evolutionists that were claiming all these were transitory species, when we find they are nothing but variations of one kind? This the foolishness you are talking about? Poof, went half a dozen transitory species in one fell swoop. Give it a few years and we will end up with half a dozen more going the same way.

They insisted those variations were transitory too, turns out they were wrong and the creationists right. I see evolutionists doing this all the time, trying to defend their religious theory.

I never once said homo erectus was disproved, not once. I simply claim it is nothing but a variation of human, just as all the transitory species you claim are transitory are nothing but variations of the same kind. How many others have you mistaken as transitory when in reality they are merely variations?

And don't say none, that's what you said before this discovery.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet it seems that all those specialists that not a few years prior who told us they were separate species and transitory to boot also didn't know what they were talking about. I'd say my opinion counts as much as theirs, since apparently they were wrong from the start, and I have simply claimed they were all just variations. Seems I was proven correct, and they were proven wrong.

They are still transitional even when they are lumped into the same species. No living human has the morphology of those hominid fossils. H. erectus is not a modern human, and it has transitional features, even when you lump H. ergaster and the Dmanisi specimens in with them. Let's look at one, shall we?

Here is H. erectus (Turkana Boy):

Right awa, we can see those massive eyebrow ridges. Those are not seen in modern humans. The cranial capacity well below modern humans for a human of the same size, and the forehead slopes away from those massive eyebrow ridges. Next, the lower jaw is massive compared to modern humans, and there is no protruding lower chin which is one of the hallmark features of a modern human. H. erectus is NOT a modern human. It has basal ape features not found in modern humans. It is transitional. Here is an anatomically modern human skull for comparison:

Once again, notice the protruding chin below the teeth, the massive forehead that is missing in H. erectus, the lack of huge brow ridges, the larger cranium, and the smaller overall jaw that stays back of the nose.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean foolish like all the evolutionists that were claiming all these were transitory species, when we find they are nothing but variations of one kind?

In order to put these hominid transitionals all in the same kind you would need to put humans and other apes into the same kind.

Why don't you tell us what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps. My guess is that no matter what a fossil looks like you will go right back to the same denialism.

I never once said homo erectus was disproved, not once. I simply claim it is nothing but a variation of human,

Why don't you back up this claim with some real data. Show me a single living human that has the same features as H. erectus. Just one.

All you have is this empty claim, isn't it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sudden deposition does not require a global flood. Here is a polystrate telephone pole. Surely you don't think that this telephone pole is from the time of Noah, right?

No, but you would in 1000 years from now when you dated the surrounding soil and it showed to be older.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Polystrate Trees

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7



Yet another interesting finding concerning petrified trees, is that many of them extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock. How can this phenomenon be explained? A common explanation is that these do not represent areas of the standard geologic column, but areas of rapid local flooding and sedimentation. Therefore, the layers that these trees pass through do not represent thousands and millions of years. However, the pictures shown to the right are of a petrified tree (located near Katherine Hill Bay next to Flat Rocks Point, Australia) extending up through many sedimentary layers and through two separated coal seams (See Video Below).4 The tree itself is twelve feet tall, and was uncovered by a coal mining company. If the two separated coal seams represent long periods of time, how could this tree be extending between them both? It seems to me that this is a difficulty for the current understanding of science. Notice also that the layers themselves show no weathering between one layer and the next even though each layer was supposedly the surface of the earth for thousands if not millions of years. These combined mysteries are more easily explained by rapid underwater burial with quickly forming sediments. The theory that each fossil bearing layer in the geologic column represents eons of time seems inadequate to explain such problems that are easily explained by a quick catastrophic event.

Polystrate Fossil Tree - YouTube

steve, that is not a valid source.

You failed, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but you would in 1000 years from now when you dated the surrounding soil and it showed to be older.

A thousand years from now they would have practically the same date.

In a million years they would be the same date.

Polystrate trees were debunked over one hundred years ago. I am waiting for some sort of claim that requires a bit of debunking. To wit steve's claim of 80 foot trees has not been supported yet.