Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur research backs link to birds
AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/14/07 | Randolph E. Schmid - ap

Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - Researchers have decoded proteins from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the oldest such material ever found. The unprecedented step, once thought impossible, adds new weight to the idea that today's birds are descendants of the mighty dinosaurs.

"The door just opens up to a whole avenue of research that involves anything extinct," said Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

While dinosaur bones have long been studied, "it's always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs, she said.

So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T. rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.

And now, researchers led by John M. Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston have been able to analyze proteins from that bone.

The genetic code that directs the development of living things is the DNA, but that is more fragile and they didn't find that.

"But proteins are coded from the DNA, they're kind of like first cousins," Schweitzer said

What Asara's team found was collagen, a type of fibrous connective tissue that is a major component of bone. And the closest match in creatures alive today was collagen from chicken bones.

Schweitzer and Asara report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's all based on the architecture of the bones," said Asara. "This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."

"The fact that we are getting proteins is very, very exciting," said John Horner of Montana State University and the Museum of the Rockies.

And, he added, it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."

To scientists that's a big deal.

In science, a hypothesis is an idea about something that seems probable, while a theory has been tested and is supported by evidence. Previously, the bird-dinosaur relationship was based on similarities in the shape of bones, now there is solid evidence of a relationship at the molecular level.

Horner, who found the bones studied by Schweitzer and Asara, said this is going to change the way paleontologists go about collecting specimens — they will now be looking for the best preserved items, often buried in sand or sandstone sediments.

This summer, he said, his museum is organizing nine different field crews involving more than 100 people to search for fossils in Montana and Mongolia.

Asara explained that he was working on a very refined form of mass spectrometry to help detect peptides — fragments of proteins — in tumors as part of cancer research.

In refining the technique, he had previously studied proteins from a mastodon, and when he heard of Schweitzer's finding soft tissues in a T. rex bone he decided to see if he could detect proteins there also.

He was able to identify seven different dinosaur proteins from the bone and compared them with proteins from living species. Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog.

Co-author Lewis Cantley of Harvard Medical School noted that this work is in its infancy, and when it is improved he expects to be able to isolate more proteins and seek more matches.

"Knowing how evolution occurred and how species evolved is a central question," Cantley said.

The Smithsonian's Carrano, who was not part of the research teams, said the report is an important confirmation of Schweitzer's techniques and shows that "the possibility of preservation is more than we had expected, and we can expect to see more in the future."

Matt Lamanna, a curator at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, called the finding "another piece in the puzzle that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are related to birds." Lamanna was not part of the research team.

So, does all this mean that a T. rex would have tasted like chicken? The researchers admit, they don't know.

Both research teams were supported by the National Science Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. Schweitzer had additional support from NASA and Asara had added support from the Paul F. Glenn Foundation.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birds; dinosaur; dinosaurs; hollowbone; link; maryschweitzer; research; trex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
To: js1138

If you’re curious dig it up. It’s not likely available on the net, since it was done by a private company (Applied Radiation Co. Later bought out by High Voltage Co.) in about 1960. I was in highschool at the time, but spent considerable time in their lab, and in the cave, after school and on saturdays. Foods sealed in poly wrap and then irradiated would keep for years, still looking fresh, but the same foods just left in the wrap un treated would usually mold out within a few days. I had a deal with them to irradiate our camping rations for our scout troop (it was strictly illegal at the time), so we didn’t need to carry any ice with us.

There is just a huge amount of bacteria and molds on about every suqare inch of the earth, and it works fast.


101 posted on 04/16/2007 8:10:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

So, were dinosaur bones so similar to bird bones? It’s clear that these sources say that the bones were hollow, but only one source, the Boston Globe, uses the comparison to birds, and only when speaking about some of the bones.

Are we talking about bird-like hollowness, or man-like hollowness? Our bones are hollow, at least the long bones (and a couple others), and filled with marrow. But they’re not bird-like.

I’ve seen a lot of great Discovery and Science Channel shows about dinosaurs, and none of them compared the hollowness of dinosaur’s bones to birds bones.

Am I really missing such an interesting similarity? I’ve seen documentaries that compare dinos to birds, and never heard this claim before.


102 posted on 04/17/2007 3:23:29 AM PDT by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons; Rokke; editor-surveyor

[”What was the name of the charm school that gave you your degree?”]

[”You are obviously a summa cum laude graduate of the ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ academy.”]

Well, let’s see, Al Simmons. Maybe we should try to be more charming by following your example?

Here are some of your endearing quotes from this thread:

“Perhaps you need to re-check your eyeglasses prescription? Or attend a remedial reading course?”

Lovely, Al Simmons. Win any friends with that one? Well this jewel must have charmed them:

“If this quote is representative of your overall ability to understand scientific text, I thank God you’ll never be piloting any plane I’m gonna be in....”

Or, how about this?

“Not odd that it hasn’t been circulated in ‘Creation Science’ circles at all, I suppose.”

You have nothing to teach about charm or winning friends. You are rude, condescending and close-minded.

And you are a hypocrite.


103 posted on 04/17/2007 3:46:08 AM PDT by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
There is just a huge amount of bacteria and molds on about every suqare inch of the earth, and it works fast.

What do you think the primary component is of insects preserved in amber?

104 posted on 04/17/2007 6:38:34 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I suspect that the amber must have some anti-microbial properties, in addition to excluding the atmosphere from the equation.

Additionally, insects are much easier to preserve due to their exterior skeletal nature.


105 posted on 04/17/2007 8:12:41 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Additionally, insects are much easier to preserve due to their exterior skeletal nature.

What do you think an insect's skeleton is made of?

But answer my question. How does protein decompose in the absence of moisture, light and air? Show me your research.

106 posted on 04/17/2007 10:53:50 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Ok. Explain in detail each individual "postive" mutation and the appropriate biochemical reactions resultant that prove your thesis.

All those tired of hearing grandiose statements that "Dinos evolved into birds", please flush now! Wow! Tidal wave!

107 posted on 04/17/2007 11:06:00 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("You couldn't tame me, but you taught me.................")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Bob Bakker must be pleased to get some confirmation of his BADD theory.


108 posted on 04/17/2007 11:10:18 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Don't question faith. Don't answer lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim35

What’s odd is that you are the only person who has this information. Last I checked, dinosaur bones are just as solid as our own bones, and this includes the therapods.

It it the microvascularization found in these bones that leads to the conclusion that they are related to birds, not hollowness.

Last year examination of this very same fossil revealed layers of bone morphologically identical to ostrich medullary bone. Avian medullary bone is a specific feature unique to birds, used by females for rapid storage of calcium prior to egg laying. Medullary bone of this type has not been found in any other type of animal until this point. This provides another piece of evidence suggesting an evolutionary link between birds and the theropod dinosaurs.

109 posted on 04/17/2007 11:43:37 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: js1138

An insect’s shell contains silicates that make it harder than the blood proteins that were in the bone.

Your assumption of absence of moisture or air are absurd. If you’re going to try to say that any part of the bone was fossilized, moisture and it’s accompaning air have to b e present. Ask your evo pals, and I’m sure that they will straighten you out on that.


110 posted on 04/17/2007 12:08:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
An insect’s shell contains silicates that make it harder than the blood proteins that were in the bone.

Proteins are known to survive up to ten million years. This latest find was unexpected, but the conditions of fossilization are unusual.

I'm going to ask again for your documentation that this is impossible, rather than unusual.

111 posted on 04/17/2007 3:20:31 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Give up!

You’re making a fool of yourself.


112 posted on 04/17/2007 3:25:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: jim35
So, were dinosaur bones so similar to bird bones? It’s clear that these sources say that the bones were hollow, but only one source, the Boston Globe, uses the comparison to birds, and only when speaking about some of the bones.

The bones are hollow, but to claim that hollow bones (and only hollow bones) makes it an avian is an unsupported conclusion (such as the Boston Globe seems to do). Hasn't the creationist intelligent design crowd always complained that science jumps to unsupported conclusions?

But if something has hollow bones, a wishbone, and feathers, and lays eggs, what would you call it?
... And now they've found proteins matching chickens, ... Jim, it's a pretty safe bet that Tyrannosaurus rex (& friends) are related to birds.

Are we talking about bird-like hollowness, or man-like hollowness? Our bones are hollow, at least the long bones (and a couple others), and filled with marrow. But they’re not bird-like.

So how are they different?
(Never mind that was a rhetorical question,...)

Like most of the 5000 species of living mammals, human bone has thick relatively homogeneous walls and are filled with marrow, as you state.
Birds have thin laminar walls and are air-filled.
The bones of T. rex are like the bird pattern, --so much alike that they can determine the sex of the specimen.

I’ve seen a lot of great Discovery and Science Channel shows about dinosaurs, and none of them compared the hollowness of dinosaur’s bones to birds bones.

Maybe they aren't willing to get out onto thin ice ... and just because you haven't seen E. coli doesn't mean it's not there.
--or that you won't get sick from eating contaminated hamburger.

Am I really missing such an interesting similarity?

Apparently.

... I’ve seen documentaries that compare dinos to birds, and never heard this claim before.

I thought you said you haven't seen it before?
... no matter, I think you're going to see more of them now.

113 posted on 04/17/2007 3:51:57 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

You use the word identicle, yet the science reports I see say ‘similiar’ not identicle.

As well, this goes offtopic (not that it isn’;t slightly important) from the main issue of how old the bone is- to which the scientific comunity has to make a cop-out statement that there ‘must have been a fairly remarkable preservation system inplace in Montana’ and that “geochemical and environmental factors” that could have preserved the tissues are “as yet undetermined,” Boy howdy I’ll say!


114 posted on 04/17/2007 4:11:38 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

protiens “matching” chickens?

” The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows.”

“Moreover, while some of the peptide fragments showed sequence matches to chickens, others matched frog, or newt, or even fish and mice. The authors did point out that not all organisms are in the database. Although the chicken was the closest match from the database, it is possible that animals not included could be a closer match. “

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken

We ‘match’ Banana DNA too- but I dunno bout you, but I don’t think we’re all bananas lol


115 posted on 04/17/2007 4:17:19 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Give up! You’re making a fool of yourself.

Good, well reasoned answer to a specific question.

Perhaps you should limit your postings to prayer threads, where you can tell people their loved ones' illnesses are due to moral lapses, and that medicine is useless.

116 posted on 04/17/2007 4:27:37 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
http://www.answersingenesis.org/a ...

Beware of creationist websites; They'll rot your brain.

117 posted on 04/17/2007 5:33:01 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

yeah- especially when they expose facts that contradict evolution- good response


118 posted on 04/17/2007 5:48:34 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
You have a source? A book by Hal Linsay.

Can you do better than that? I don't know, may cite the specific instance? (I don't happen to have Mr. Linsay's telephone number off hand) I should warn you that I think your elephant anecdote is almost certainly bogus.

119 posted on 04/17/2007 6:08:03 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
yeah- especially when they expose facts that contradict evolution- good response

... and Art Bell is a trusted investigative journalist.

120 posted on 04/17/2007 6:10:20 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
You have a source? A book by Hal Linsay.

Can you do better than that? I don't know, may cite the specific instance? (I don't happen to have Mr. Linsay's telephone number off hand) I should warn you that I think your elephant anecdote is almost certainly bogus.

I am still waiting for the citation showing the basis for Hal Linsay's claim. I asked for it some days ago, but have had no reply.

I tend to distrust creationists' claims regarding science as I have found many such claims, in the few fields with which I am familiar, to be misrepresentations, wishful thinking, or gross exaggerations. Many of the claims I have examined in these fields have turned out to be simply bogus--an attempt to make science match scripture.

121 posted on 04/17/2007 6:25:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Well you must look for them ost obscure off the wall ones to ‘investigate’ and determine the whole field of creation science must therefore be littered with bogus science because most of what I’ve read has proposed facts that get met with ‘counterpoints’ constructed of assumptions and generalizations- you know, suppositions that make the science fit their scriptures (of darwinism)


122 posted on 04/17/2007 7:04:55 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

not sure how that rebuttled what was written- but oh well


123 posted on 04/17/2007 7:05:51 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Well you must look for them ost obscure off the wall ones to ‘investigate’ and determine the whole field of creation science must therefore be littered with bogus science because most of what I’ve read has proposed facts that get met with ‘counterpoints’ constructed of assumptions and generalizations- you know, suppositions that make the science fit their scriptures (of darwinism)

Your post makes no sense. Please try to use better grammar, spelling, and composition. I am not looking to engage in a scavenger hunt to figure out what you are trying to say.

If you can't do better than that, don't bother to post to me.

124 posted on 04/17/2007 7:16:31 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.
-- About Answers in Genesis

(A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ...
(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. ...

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. ...
(D) GENERAL
1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. ...

6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
-- AiG Statement of Faith

AiG relies on apologetics --defense of faith instead of scientific research as it's argument.

Science; Learn it. live it. love it.

125 posted on 04/17/2007 9:01:12 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

it was perfectly readable and understandable- not sure what you didn’t understand there-


126 posted on 04/17/2007 9:14:36 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Ahahaha- yep- scientific evidence that shows another equally plausible conclusion such as design and might suggest creation automatically disqualify the scientific evidence- Sorry fella- biological evidences do suggest design more so than random mutations- Evolution relies on apologetics to defend the hypothesis of evolution every bit as much- so, if you’re trying to assert that apologetics disqualify the science- I guess you’re willing to disqualify evolution science as well.

You can make all the ‘apologetics’ accusations you like- the soundness of the science stands and can’t be waved away with such glib ignorance of what is presented.

Tell me, how’s the ‘missing link’ situation coming in eovlution? or the macro-evolution argument? or the abiogenisis argument? I ask because all the arguments put forth by evolutionists HAVE to rely on the very SAME OPINIONS that you villify creation scientists for having- so please- do keep making the broad dismissal accusations of ‘apologetics’- it just further shows the same biased head in the sand attitudes that can’t deal with coutner evidences..

Now, if you’d like to take on the specific science that is presented- I’d be more than happy to engage in a discussion about the facts- if not- then I’ll simply assume the problems with evolutio nare too much for some to handle and necessitate petty attacks on organizations simply because they -gasp- have opinions about the facts that are discovered.

Science- learn it, live it, love it.


127 posted on 04/17/2007 9:34:04 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Now, if you’d like to take on the specific science that is presented- I’d be more than happy to engage in a discussion about the facts...

You have presented no scientific evidence, merely unsupported statements.

As usual.

But if you want to present scientific facts and theories, be my guest.

(But you won't find them at AnswersInGenesis.)

128 posted on 04/17/2007 9:44:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Tell me coyote- is it scientific fact that the tissue found in this thread links dinos with birds? Has that been established? No? Then I guess we should discount ALL evo sites that state ANY thing that even resembles ‘dinos might be related to birds’ because all they’re doing is presenting OPINION and not scientific fact- right? All they’re doing is playing apologists for the evo movement.

You’ll find PLENTY of sound scientific fact on answersingenesis as well as several other Creation/ID sites, as well as equally valid OPINION about what that science means- but if you need to wave the hand about it to feel more secure in your own stance on teh matter- then by all means keep waving, and keep those biased blinders on and crying there’s no sound science to be had anywhere outside of the rank and file evo hypothesis/dogma


129 posted on 04/17/2007 11:05:23 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Coyote

Care to tackle any of the following from AIG?

“Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.

Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.

In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.

Chimps have 46 chromosomes and humans have 44 chromosomes (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).

To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.”

Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that ‘vestigial organs’ are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:

“Seems to regulate the function of other important glands—including the pituitary, the gonads, the adrenals and the thyroid.

Plays a central role in the circadian (night and day) rhythm. The synthesis of various compounds in the gland is markedly affected by exposure to or deprivation of light. The pineal undergoes a transformation immediately after birth which seems to be affected by depriving the organism of light.

Has a relationship (not understood) with some malignant tumors.

Affects the contractility of several types of involuntary muscle.

Far from being a useless hangover of antiquity, we see the pineal as an extremely active organ.”

Or is it juts easier to wave the magic dismissal wand and declare that there is no sound science presented on AIG, and that the study of the sound science is illigitimate because folks at AIG have opinions about the scientific facts that don’t jive with your own assumptions you’ve formed without any proofs to back those assumptions up?


130 posted on 04/17/2007 11:20:36 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
I should warn you that I think your elephant anecdote is almost certainly bogus.

To tell you the truth, I think that the process that they have for telling ages is bogus, I really get a kick when I read that something is 2 or 3 million years old, scientist are such guessers.

131 posted on 04/17/2007 11:42:36 PM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
To tell you the truth, I think that the process that they have for telling ages is bogus, I really get a kick when I read that something is 2 or 3 million years old, scientist are such guessers.

That's fair enough, you have every right to believe anything you want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

But what I object to is you making false, and possibly dishonest, claims about what the evidence suggests. I'm about 99% sure your elephant story is made up out of whole cloth (either by you or by Mr. Lindsay) and I'm still waiting for you to justify or (at the very least) adequately cite your assertion.

132 posted on 04/17/2007 11:56:17 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

But what I object to is you making false, and possibly dishonest, claims about what the evidence suggests. I’m about 99% sure your elephant story is made up out of whole cloth (either by you or by Mr. Lindsay) and I’m still waiting for you to justify or (at the very least) adequately cite your assertion.

If your really want to know the truth then do more research, I really don’t have time for this, I’m a busy man, but I can assure you that I am not a dishonest one.


133 posted on 04/18/2007 12:23:05 AM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
If your really want to know the truth then do more research, I really don’t have time for this, I’m a busy man, but I can assure you that I am not a dishonest one.

I can't research it, because you didn't provide enough information. If you at least cited your claim, I could look into it. If you can't cite it, retract it.

134 posted on 04/18/2007 12:25:18 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Good move. When you’re losing an argument, the best thing to do is declare victory.


135 posted on 04/18/2007 7:18:03 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You use the word identicle, yet the science reports I see say ‘similiar’ not identicle.

Nothing else remotely like avian medullary bone has been found in any non-bird species. This was unmistakably medullary bone. And that makes it more than slightly important. :-D

As well, this goes offtopic (not that it isn’;t slightly important) from the main issue of how old the bone is- to which the scientific comunity has to make a cop-out statement that there ‘must have been a fairly remarkable preservation system inplace in Montana’ and that “geochemical and environmental factors” that could have preserved the tissues are “as yet undetermined,” Boy howdy I’ll say!

It's only recently that we've had the sophisticated methods necessary to go searching for ancient molecules. People have been working on it for the past 30-some years with variable success. You're basing your objection upon both (it appears) a misunderstanding of the level of preservation involved and (like most people including scientists) the absence of prior evidence that such preservation is possible. We haven't had this evidence before because we haven't had the sensitive analytic methods needed nor have scientists been willing to turn over fossils to be destroyed in search of these molecules.

Science moves on, and research is ongoing in the process of molecular decay and preservation of detailed morphology over short periods of years, longer periods of hundreds of thousands of years, and up to millions of years. Mary Schweitzer (who found this fossil and has been working in molecular paleontology for years) already has proposed molecular conditions needed for preservation and that this type of superb preservation will be more likely in fossils preserved in sandstones, while not as likely in mudstones and marine environments. Future research will show if this hypothesis is correct.

Sometimes the responses to these finds make me scratch my head. Are we just supposed to give up research? Should we be happy with what we know and think we know? Or should we have a post-modern fit and say it's all unknowable, so why even bother? It almost seems like that's what creationists think people should do.

136 posted on 04/18/2007 7:48:12 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
I didn't say it wasn't important ahayes, it clearly is, however, all these 'identicle' similarities between birds and dinos turn out to be over-stated, overplayed and down right deceitfully presented as in the case of 'dino-feathers' that under closer scrutiny and careful examinatioin turn out not to be feathers at all but nothing more than fuzz unique to reptiles. We have a similarity in a medullary bone, that's it- oh, and they both lay eggs- it's a far far leap to suggest that dinos without birds unique flight capabilities and anatomical structures could take to the air. They lack the avian lung structures, the breastbone features that enable flight, the muscles necessary for flight, the nostril placement and systems to fly, on and on it goes- You're basing your objection upon both (it appears) a misunderstanding of the level of preservation involved and (like most people including scientists) the absence of prior evidence that such preservation is possible. We haven't had this evidence before because we haven't had the sensitive analytic methods needed nor have scientists been willing to turn over fossils to be destroyed in search of these molecules

I'm sorry, but this is wisdhful thinkin- As the article stated, there would have had to be extraordinary circumstances at play in Montana to preserve this material- we can have all the 'sensitive analytical methods' in the world, but we've only found a few instances of such material and this does infact indicate natural biological laws at work. You state Mary has a hypothesis, which may or may not hold true, but you didn't mention that these are extremely difficult to preserve through the supposedly endless climate and natural dissaster events this world would have experienced if it were billions of years old.,Sometimes the responses to these finds make me scratch my head. Are we just supposed to give up research? Should we be happy with what we know and think we know?

Noone is suggesting we just give up- it is exciting work no matter the position one has on the issue. I just find it odd that the Creation model is so vehemently ostracized and dismissed as 'apologetics' and accused of 'fitting the evidences' when it's quite clear that instances like this tissue issue are clearly trying to fit it to a hypothesis that supports the evolution stance. I'm not saying you feel this way about oposing views of evidences, but it's quite clear some on this thread can't get over trhe fact that certain scientists could have any other position about what the evidences might mean. And just for the record, Creationists don't 'fit evidences', they assert that the evidences agree with a design model- we're not twisting evidences to fit the model- we';re presenting it and stating that it's just as plausible that the evidence suggest a design that couldn't have arisen from random non-directional mutations, and they've got some powerful evidences to support htis.

137 posted on 04/18/2007 8:55:09 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
It almost seems like that's what creationists think people should do.

Don't confuse the feelings of certain folks outside of science with htose in the sciences- there's plenty of creation/ID scientists that do not feel that way at all- Although there are folks within the evolution science camp that simply refuse to even take a look at anythign that doesn't agree with their model of evolution, I wouldn't for one minute suggest that all evolutionists are afraid of opposing views and won't investigate objectively- although that is what it seems like :b

138 posted on 04/18/2007 8:58:18 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Genomics is not my field.

Try quotemining from AIG's radiocarbon pages and I will be happy to address them for you.

139 posted on 04/18/2007 9:03:05 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Wow, you are dramatically oversimplifying the rationale for an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Unsurprising.

it's a far far leap to suggest that dinos without birds unique flight capabilities and anatomical structures could take to the air.

No one has suggested that dinosaurs such as T. rex flew.

I'm sorry, but this is wisdhful thinkin- As the article stated, there would have had to be extraordinary circumstances at play in Montana to preserve this material- we can have all the 'sensitive analytical methods' in the world, but we've only found a few instances of such material and this does infact indicate natural biological laws at work. You state Mary has a hypothesis, which may or may not hold true, but you didn't mention that these are extremely difficult to preserve through the supposedly endless climate and natural dissaster events this world would have experienced if it were billions of years old.

Suppositions, suppositions. Please provide evidence that such samples have been exhaustively searched for and not found. Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer's recent work). Please provide evidence that undamaged fossils such as this femur found in sandstone inevitably suffer "endless climate and natural dissaster events" while buried. Your objections are based on handwaving and wishful thinking.

I just find it odd that the Creation model is so vehemently ostracized and dismissed as 'apologetics' and accused of 'fitting the evidences' when it's quite clear that instances like this tissue issue are clearly trying to fit it to a hypothesis that supports the evolution stance.

I was forced to leave the ranks of the young earth creationists several years ago when it became amply clear that the evidence did not support this notion. An ancient universe and earth are supported through a variety of different lines of evidence (here's a good book that summarizes them in a relatively easy-to-read manner), and evolution as an active process is supported by multitudes more. Meanwhile I can't even get two different creationists to agree upon a definition of "kind", nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind (I almost got one creationist to agree that it is possible that dogs and cats could once have been one kind, others won't even say dogs and foxes are in the same kind). I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence, but about nitpicking mainstream science.

In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can't possibly be 68 million years old. So how about this--if this T. rex is 4000 (Flood death) to 6000 (pre-Flood) years old, why is the preservation so abyssmal when other fossils 4000-6000 years old have comparatively excellent preservation? Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation? If the majority of fossils on earth originated in the Flood, certainly some of the dinosaur fossils we have should appear quite young. For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory. That's the fallback position for when the evidence isn't really going your way.

140 posted on 04/18/2007 9:43:13 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; Coyote

[Wow, you are dramatically oversimplifying the rationale for an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Unsurprising.]

Lol- ‘oversimplifying’ lol- of course ‘Dinos evolved into birds’ isn’t based on oversimplified sketchy similarities. Here’s a thought- Dinos and birds had similiar designs- that’s it. A wolf and lion have similiar designs too.

[Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer’s recent work]

I never claimed it was impossible, I stated that most evidence for ‘old specimens’ shows clearly that tissue can not be preserved for millions of years. Tissue that has survived has two possible explanations- either they are not as old as we’re told, or there is a miraculous preservation system at play.

[nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind]

You never did address the other thread in which I explained macro-evolution includes ‘creation’ of new organs needed for KINDS to become other KINDS. Yuo say you left creationism, for what? For assumptions of evolution devoid of evidence?

[I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence]

That ‘fit the evidence? Don’t you mean ‘that fit the evolution assumptions and apologetics’? Tell me again how amino acids became protiens, or how DNA ‘evolved’ without first having evolved DNA repair genes? or how the process of evolution was so perfect that left hand amino acids wouldn’t contaminate right hand amino acids and kill them off before they could move on in their million year scenario to make the impossible leap to protiens? ‘Nitpicking’? Call it what you want- but the truth is, these are serious problems, as are the built in protection levels at the molecular level that prevent perversion beyond species specific caps. To think that ‘an accumulation of small mutations’ could ‘result in macro-evolution’ is nothing but unscientificly supported apologetics.

[In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can’t possibly be 68 million years old]

No sir, that is a misrepresentation of what I’m saying- I’m suggesting that it is however strong support for the plausibility that dinos might not be as old as we’re told. Did you know that webbing between dino’s toes have been found intact? Or that skin has been found?

[Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation?]

Why? Because even Susan’s mentor told her to ‘try to disprove’ the fact that cells were present. Even secular scientists opposed Susan (Yet incredibly, she only whined about the big bad creationists who raised concerns lol) Why? Because as you well know, scientists never looked for the molecular material because of the faith bound beleif that bones simply could not contain molecular material. (Despite creationists discovering material from many locations and presenting it to hostile reviews- now however, they’ll have to take a SERIOUS look at the evidences now that one of their own has come out with like-mannered material. Bias in the scientific comunity? Oh heck no- must be just our imagination)

[For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory.]

Oh we do- yet the incredible bias that believes in old earth poo poo’s anything proposed. Radio-Halos have stood up to scrutiny for over 15 years now, yet there is fierce vehemence toward Gish and others who have declared that they show a valid plausibility for a young earth. Seems when the evidence is strong, the messengers character gets attacked rather than the evidence. “Chip holes’? I’m sorry- but pointing out obvious biological impossibilities that get covered up isn’t ‘chipping holes’, it’s demanding a less subjective- one-sided science.

Coyote- Ah- so the fact that they aren’t your field means they must be invalid along with all the other scientific material presented simply because the scientists have opinions. Perfectly reasonable- sigh.


141 posted on 04/18/2007 11:05:33 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Care to tackle any of the following from AIG?

My response to most of these is "So what?" It's more nitpicking. AiG is like a jackdaw leaping with alacrity on any shiny object that catches its eye. No real attempt is made to fit any elements together reasonably. I get the impression they are just disagreeing here for the sake of disagreeing, like (one can never have too many similes) a sullen toddler.

Regarding what scientists' think, we aren't fixated on the numbers because they don't tell the whole story--not even close. Scientists are interested in what genes are the same but more importantly in what genes are different. Scientists are interested in the types of chromosome remodelling (which should be illegal according to most young earth creationists) that have occurred and what effects these might have. We are interested in which transposable elements were favored in which species, and when these stopped propagating. AiG is just interested in the sparkly numbers.

The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.

So what?

Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.

No source, sadly, but that's par for the course. Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%'s, depending on what you are looking at.

In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.

I'm amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred. Besides my amusement, my reaction is "So what?" and a note of the arbitrary percentages (gee, it would be nice if they explained how they are calculating this--looks like they want everything lined up exactly in the same order in order to acknowledge it's identical).

To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.”

Baloney. In one method this was used as an aid, but stringent guidelines were followed to make sure errors did not occur. Later attempts did not use this.

Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that ‘vestigial organs’ are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:

Oh, if only that were the evolutionists' position! But slay that straw man!

142 posted on 04/18/2007 11:37:09 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

[Regarding what scientists’ think, we aren’t fixated on the numbers because they don’t tell the whole story—not even close.]

Boy howdy I’ll say- “mutation rate catastrophe” no need to fixate on the numbers such as deleterious mutations outnumbering ‘benificial’ (used in the loosest of terms as I know very loose terms are needed for evolution) and creating a quagmire that end up negating the few ‘benificial’ mutations to the point of species collapse. No need to go there. Better to simply propose that nature ‘overcame the hurdles’ by being ‘robust’ enough to transcend these obvious limitations to the theory of evolution. Mutational load calculations were such a problem that Darwinists tried to tackle the problem, yet in the end had to declare ‘a ‘robust system’ must have been inplace to overcome the hurdles.’ Let’s also not forget that species have an amazing ability to correct errors over time- couple this with the deleterious mutational build-up, and we’ve got us one life-sn\uffing proposition. Being that mutational ‘progress’ is not a ‘dirtected event’ and not guided, the rates of ‘benificial’ to deleterious mutations would have reamined a constant. Besides, all this is is an attempt at ‘explaining’ a tree when a forrest of improbabilities surround that one sapling. The idea of slow accumulating (or even faster accumulating (I know you folk like to assume conditions could have sped up mutations) mutations couldjoin hands and ‘evolve’ new organs and move a species into another KIND altogether is a swell proposition, but the biological evidence is so vastly against such a proposal as to make it an irrational wish I’m afraid.

To think that evolution saved every blessed hail Mary in the process, until finally, all the perfect combinations formed to create new organs is unsupported in the evidence and nothing but a hopeful assumption built upon the idea that problems along the way only amount to a response worthy of ‘so what’. Numbers numbers, who needs em? It’s ‘just argumentative’ and ‘nitpicking’- Recombination has never been shown to prevent runaway mutational problems, but at best, only to delay the inevitable in a few cases.

[Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%’s, depending on what you are looking at.]

Ah, and the disimilarities are how large again? Billions? Numbers, numbers- who needs em?

[I’m amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred.]

If this amuses you then you obviously aren’t well versed in what creation/id scientists beleive.

[Besides my amusement, my reaction is “So what?”]

So what? We’re told that we’re ‘up to’ 98% similiar to chimps and ‘therefore must be related’ because of the powerful evidence of similarities, yet when the equally powerful disimiliarities are pointed out that seperate us from lower species, the reaction is ‘so what’? Wow!

[Oh, if only that were the evolutionists’ position!]

Oh but it was (and continues to be in most less reputable evo-science writings and publications) Straw-man indeed.


143 posted on 04/18/2007 12:09:55 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Alas, I just wrote a humongously long response to your other post and then accidentally killed it. But that’s ok, since in reading your latest post I am completely convinced that you avoid thinking as much as possible and rely exclusively on straw men. I guess they’re comfy, like bean-bag chairs. And reading this post, I see you could make a mountain of them. Saves on furniture!


144 posted on 04/18/2007 12:23:06 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Evolution = Using intelligently design models in an attempt to discredit intelligent design.


145 posted on 04/18/2007 12:23:56 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

ahahaha- yeah- gosh- talk about handwaving. The magic wand of dismissal works for evolutionists I guess. Let’s see- serious problems with evolution = strawmen, creationists who bring up the problems = pseudo (fill in the blank), evidence that contradicts the evolution model in any way = silliness, pointing out biological impossibilities and serious problems = “argumentative” Have I vcovered everything?

Tech tip “CTRL+Z” will sometimes repost what is lost.


146 posted on 04/18/2007 12:29:50 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I can see why you left creationism, that shiny ‘dismissal wand’ was just too tempting. Anyway- that CTRL+Z tip- just click in the empty posting box if you accidently losde something, and hitr CTRL+Z- sometimes this works sometimes not I’ve even had it work when I hit post, and noticed that the whole post was lost- then hit the back button and CTRL+Z’d but not always.


147 posted on 04/18/2007 12:34:35 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

I apologize- I shouldn;t have made the craqck about hte dismissal wand, I just find it convenient that when folks point out problems that the problems are waved away as being ‘argumentative’ or ‘strawmen’. I’ve read some of your work and note that you are a fairly annalytical person, yet I also note that innevitably sniping does crop up- However, I’ll try to keep the discussion civil and refrain from sniping on evos and making cracks. No promisses though as I can only take just so many ‘creation science is nothign but apologietics and no valid science’ comments though.


148 posted on 04/18/2007 12:54:03 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Heh, the sniping only occurs after a history with a certain poster. With new posters who are genuinely interested I try to be very solemn.

Part of it is you present things that you see to be problems while I don’t see that they are problematic at all. Such as the chimpanzee genome—it’s been more than 5 million years since our common ancestors diverged, while that’s not a lot of time on a geological timescale, it’s enough for many significant events to occur. The differences that we observe between our genomes are consistent with the expected timeline, and so are the similarities.


149 posted on 04/18/2007 1:21:29 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I can see why you left creationism, that shiny ‘dismissal wand’ was just too tempting.

I see that you apologized below and apology accepted, but it took years for me to leave young earth creationism and was quite a difficult process.

Anyway- that CTRL+Z tip- just click in the empty posting box if you accidently losde something, and hitr CTRL+Z- sometimes this works sometimes not I’ve even had it work when I hit post, and noticed that the whole post was lost- then hit the back button and CTRL+Z’d but not always.

Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately I quit out of a Acrobat file that I thought was opened with Preview, and instead it was opened with Safari and all of my windows died without even asking "Are you sure?" Oh well!

150 posted on 04/18/2007 1:24:39 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson