• 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.

What about the DNA evidence?

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.


Why did you copy and paste debunked nonsense? Did you think any of that garbage supported your view?

There are countless transitional fossils and we have linked many of them.

At best you have been trolling. Try to find some science that is not laughable to use to support your claims. Creationist videos fall under the category of foolishness.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
The point is if it is soft tissue how does it last
65 million years.

If you actually read the scientific paper that Schweitzer wrote instead of sticking to creationist sources and short articles, you would know. The paper actually explains how this was possible.

Basically, the material was encased within the bone and preserved, like a sealed canister. There were some environmental factors at work, too.

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

You can read about it in detail, there. Needless to say, it's not the great mystery that creationists are trying to make it out to be.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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 think the Cambrian proceeded the Cretaceous? :doh:
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

Two seconds of Google searching:
Evolution Falsified: Fossil Man
APES FROM?, 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​

Verdict - Quote mining.

eta - Page 363 of "Lucy" is available on Google Books. You can see what Johanson writes after the ellipsis.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,006
1,742
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,402.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you actually read the scientific paper that Schweitzer wrote instead of sticking to creationist sources and short articles, you would know. The paper actually explains how this was possible.

Basically, the material was encased within the bone and preserved, like a sealed canister. There were some environmental factors at work, too.

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

You can read about it in detail, there. Needless to say, it's not the great mystery that creationists are trying to make it out to be.

Well maybe you should also blame all the non religious sites that reference this. I dont quote creationists sites for that very reason, it is rejected straight away even though some of what they say makes sense.

The sites i am using are either science or nature sites. ie
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

None of these sites mention the encasing of the tissue and they all quote the very doctor who discovered it and wrote the paper.


It is not just the bones but they are finding it in feathers as well so its not encased in some preservative chamber to keep. In fact they have found some in the famous Archaeopteryx which is suppose to be 150 million years old.

The New Scientist report, Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx, put it:
It boasts more than just... impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils... Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years." ... palaeontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says [geochemist Roy] Wogelius. [RSR: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue.]


So you better start bagging the non religious sites as well. It talks about evolutionists denying it at first saying it wasnt tissue, then it was contamination. Many hadnt heard about it as it wasnt publicized but now they are starting to see and are amazed and cant work it out. Even the carbon dating is backing this up.


in dinosaur fossils): C-14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And btw you mean people who lie, like evolutions felt the need to do in a court of law?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You keep claiming this and linking to Piltdown. Are you sure you're not conflating Piltdown and the PRATT that Nebraska Man was supposed to be introduced as evidence in the Scopes Trial?

No scientific evidence was ever presented during that trial. The judge only allowed evidence for and against John Scopes violating the Butler Act.

To what exactly are you referring?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

Just to be clear here, the claim is "soft tissue".

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.

Neither osteocytes nor bone are "soft tissue".
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Many are found with no roots indicating they may have been uprooted. Some are found with coal seams through them.

Coal seams are just swamps that have had time to turn into coal. We see, from the Everglades to the Sunderbans that trees grow in swamps. I fail to see the problem here.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
None of these sites mention the encasing of the tissue and they all quote the very doctor who discovered it and wrote the paper.

Page 2 of the Smithsonian Magazine story:
In the 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. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved.​
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
Well maybe you should also blame all the non religious sites that reference this.

I did. To whom to you think 'short articles' was referring to?

None of these sites mention the encasing of the tissue and they all quote the very doctor who discovered it and wrote the paper.

Bottom line - if you want to learn about what scientists do, read what scientists write. Articles like that are nice, but their purpose is less to inform and more to entertain. They skim over details, sensationalize things. I don't have any thing against reports like this; I hope to do them professionally some day, myself. But they're no substitute for scientific literature.

It is not just the bones but they are finding it in feathers

Actually, no. Your article clearly states these are 'remnants' of feathers. Not feathers...remnants of feathers.

in dinosaur fossils):

Didn't you just say you avoid creation sites?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
16,006
1,742
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟321,402.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just to be clear here, the claim is "soft tissue".



Neither osteocytes nor bone are "soft tissue".

* "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: The T. rex photos above are actually old news, whereas all the latest published journal papers, through 2013, are listed chronologically, below. As for these photos though, North Carolina State University discovered this original biological tissue from a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells. See these and other T. rex photos at Smithsonian Magazine and MS-NBC, and see an early Nat'l Geographic report. Famed paleontologist Jack Horner of Montana State University worked the excavation site. In a 2011 development, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material is indeed original biological tissue from a dinosaur! Creationists refer to dinosaurs as missionary lizards for many reasons including:
- the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones
- the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and
- the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left handed if they were "Jurassic", and
- the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive. Interestingly, the renowned evolutionist PZ Myers ridiculed our Real Science Radio program by repeating what had been a widely-discredited secular hope that the "soft-tissue" dinosaur finds were "biofilm" contamination from bacteria. But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

* Dinosaur-strata tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: As below, and in this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.

* More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur: Consistent with the expectations of biblical creationists, according to Nat'l Geographic, there's yet another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels, connective tissue, and blood cell protein amino acid chains partially sequenced at Harvard University. This allegedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring previous claims by young-earth creationists due to the false evolutionary timescale which so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.
* Now Biological Material from a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these "dinosaur-era" finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But as late as 2012, so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSR:
1) have never even heard of these developments [Aug. 2013: this is starting to change]
2) initially deny them (soft-tissue deniers)
3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and
4) repeat, as PZ Myers did when criticizing Real Science Radio, the repeatedly debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but bacterial biofilm contamination.

Now, as cited below, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the discovery of various types of original biological material in archeopteryx feathers and bones that allegedly has survived for 150 million years.
The New Scientist report, Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx, put it:
It boasts more than just... impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils... Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years." ... palaeontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says [geochemist Roy] Wogelius. [RSR: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue.]
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0