Posted on 10/01/2009 8:25:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community, however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior to publication--and thus be effectively censored from public access.
Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,[1] dinosaur DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research) continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.
Dino DNA
An article published in Science in 1993 illustrates how and why dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Unlike Jurrasiac Park shows, there is no Dino DNA. It’s all been decayed or fossilized over time.
Ping!
Thought you might be interested in this one.
All the best—GGG
Thanks for the ping!
An interesting legal argument from this article which bears directly on the case of the birthers.
Excellent photo of the species Helenus Thomasaurus.
“Excellent photo of the species Helenus Thomasaurus.”
Sorry, proper latin nomenclature would be Helethomas terribulus. (or horribulus by some specieists)
I read this this morning- just like hte 98% ‘similarity’ claim between chimp and human genome- the comparisons between dino and chicken protiens was HAND PICKED- ignoring evidnece that didn’t fit so that they could come to a biased conclusion- Funny hting is though that the results put the dinos more ‘similar’ to Amphibians than to chikens or Ostriches- but don’t let’s let the facts get in the way of a good story, as TV shows and news articles were very quick to tout the ‘dino-bird connection’- again, foisting a complete LIE on our kids- they KNEW they were printing a lie- but they went ahead and printed it anyways- and these evos have the gall to claim Creationists have an ‘agenda’?
[[Excellent photo of the species Helenus Thomasaurus.]]
I Mistook the picture for a hadrosaur
RULE OF 48...
They have already recovered all kinds of DNA from the soft tissue contained in dino bones. The question is, is it dino DNA...and this, as the article so ably points out, is what the Temple of Darwin is trying to cover up.
There’s been a tremendous amount of corruption in the presentation of Macroevolution, and htis corruption is taught in our schools as fact. Take hte supposed evolution of hearing for example- go to any ‘science’ book in school, and you will see a nice neat little chart, supposedly showing a nice neat little progression/movement of the jaw bone to the inner ear (supposedly). You will see skulls of water species drawn the exact same size as those of land species so that it looks like a neat little progression in similar sized skulls- but upon further research and careful exmaination- not only do supposedly millions of years seperate the ‘closest kin’, but there is a trememdous size difference too between the suppsoed ‘closest kin’- they draw a rat sized species skull the exact same size as a hippo sized skull to HIDE the fact that the supposed ‘kin’ are completely different- they make it look like there was very little difference between the two species. But mind you- this is the ‘most compelte, and best example of, evolution in action, to date’ accordign to those textbooks
As well, these books speak of how science can ‘witness evolution in action in the lab’ and they tout eukoroytes as their example, but upon further carefu lexamination- they HID the fact that the examples given were NOT one species evolving into another, as claimed, and as taught for years in school, but rather it was nothign more than a symbiotic relationship between two wholly dissimilar species- in other words, it was a parasitic invasion which developped into a symbiotic relationship where TWO seperate species thrived in conjunction with hte other- Those teaching it was ‘evolution in action’ HAD to admit finally that it is was not, and that they KNEW this all along- but taught it as fact anyways- they were caught red-handed flat out LYING to our kids- and I think you can still find textbooks making the false claim today even.
Not to mention other equally deceitful examples such as the intentionally misdrawn fetus’ development, intentional misrepresentaiton of skull fragments, misrepresentation of antibiotic resistence as ‘evolution in action’ once again- when they KNOW full well it;s nothign more than a species utilizing informaiton already present but unused- on and on it goes-
It’s funny though- watchign htem throw up their hands in feigned surprise and say ‘What? We did nothign wrong- We can’t help it if ‘mistakes’ were made- science is an ever evolving discipline where old ideas are thrown out when new info becomes available’ lol Yeah- they ‘did nothign wrong’ by intentionalyl lying and coverign up their lies (while forcing hteir lies on our kids- their motto seems to be ‘damage the kids first by feedign htem lies- then after awhile, admit ‘mistakes’ were made, but only AFTER the damage has been done)
Woodward’s paper on the dino bone dna can be found here:
DISP: Bioinformatics LabDINO DNA sequence in the BLAST web form and “BLAST” it. We will use all the default settings, so just press the format button. ...
myweb.dal.ca/js551958/Tutorial/Lab2.html
Well worth reading!
I’ll check it out...thanks for the link!
It cracks me up when I think about how God set up His creation such that Creationists and IDers can put the massive Temple of Darwin machine to shame on nothing more than a shoestring budget. LOL!
You might want to give a look at the link I provided before making flat statements on the subject.
Percentage differences are not credible comparators when dealing with an information carrying media like DNA. All DNA strands, whether for a gnat or a human contain the same four complimentary bases; adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. In this respect they are 100% similar. All DNA strands are comprised of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases. Again 100% similar.
Consider the preamble to the constitution. It is 52 words comprised of 330 characters. If the word "not" was added to the end of it the meaning would be significantly different with 99% similarity.
Here is the proper is a link commenting upon a sort of
Who was it that was crying "heretic" whenever research indicated that *some* ideas that could be linked to aspects of Lamarckism were correct? Who is it that is scared that they might be linked with such an ancient departure from dogma?
I did PCR in the mid 90s and it was a real bitch to avoid contamination. I had to bleach almost everything used, even the interior of the pipettes to get rid of the contamination.
Back in 94 the databases were orders of magnitude smaller. Yeast wasn't even sequenced (the first entire genome sequenced- would have made my thesis work easier).
Sequencing was totally different then. The associated paper used radio-labeled nucleotides and ran it on a gel. The sequencing gels were read by hand. Now fluorescent tagged nucleotides are used and the sequence is read directly off the gel by machine. In fact you send off your DNA and primers by FedEx or other courier and the next afternoon you are e-mailed your sequence. Much faster and accurate.
Doesn't prove anything except that dinosaur DNA hasn't been cloned.
I keep hearing posters say they've done this and that or have a degree in some field yet prove to be strangely ignorant about that very field.
A simple search of papers on the subject would be helpful to you but I'm not going to do it for you.
Exactly what am I ignorant about in relation to the post you responded to. ?
This was 15 years ago. I was describing how things have changed since the 1994 paper.
I’ve done PCR, sequencing, cloned DNA, and even got a patent on a modified DNA sequence I constructed. I have done these things myself, so I know what I’m talking about.
Do you have a background in molecular biology?
I read the paper and did the blast comparison. Mostly human and chimp cytochrome came up. Probably came from all the people that handled the bone before it got to the molecular biology lab. DNA from them probably got into the little nooks and crannies of the fossilized bone. The primers they used were human cytochrome. Reptile cytochrome primers would have been better to use, but the sequence probably was not known then (1994).
What is your education in? I want to know, because then I can put more weight behind what you say when you discuss that field. Mine is in molecular biology.
GGG said his is in religious studies. I don’t argue with him about what the bible literally says (by literally I mean what is written down, not the meaning). I disagree about his interpretation of it though.
I did a Pubmed search of dinosaur and DNA and didn’t get any references that showed the cloning of dinosaur DNA. How about listing them or at least the terms you used in your search.
Is there a point to this and your other comment?
Yes, that your post and the premise of this thread are wrong.
It shows that they made a mistake, that was shown to be a mistake a long time ago. Pure and simple.
Plus you called me ignorant.
ok, I’ll check it out. My apologies if I was wrong!
If you take that to mean yourself, so be it.
Woodward claimed to have sequenced dinosaur DNA and other researchers criticized his work as faulty due to contamination.
Maybe it was, I didn't suggest otherwise but provided a link since he was mentioned in the posted article.
As you say that was fifteen years ago and the methods not so refined as now but your self proclaimed education was also from that same time so presumably you learned what was current at the time.
However you did say you knew what you talking about.
“The primers they used were human cytochrome. Reptile cytochrome primers would have been better to use, but the sequence probably was not known then (1994).”
It appears at least one reptile cytochrome was being sequenced thiry years earlier.
From: “Biochem. J. (1991) 274, 825-831 (Printed in Great Britain)
Rattlesnake cytochrome c
A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence
R. P. AMBLER and M. DANIEL
Department of Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JR, Scotland, U.K.
The amino acid sequence of rattlesnake cytochrome c was originally reported in 1965, and was one of the earlier sequences
to be studied. When compared with other mitochondrial cytochromes c, the snake sequence was soon seen to be
anomalous. There were several positions in which the snake protein resembled human cytochrome c, although comparable
anomalies were not reported for the protein from other reptiles such as lizard and turtle. Explanations of these results have
included accelerated evolution in the snake lineage, paralogy rather than orthology, and faulty determination of the
sequence, and the rattlesnake is now often omitted from cytochrome c phylogenetic trees. We have re-investigated the
sequence of the snake protein, and believe that the correct sequence differs in nine places from that used for evolutionary
theorizing since 1965. Four of these differences are near the haem-attachment site, in a region that was only analysed for
amino acid composition in the original investigation. The other five differences are towards the C-terminus of the
molecule, and can be explained as being due to the wrong ordering of amino acids within peptides that had been
satisfactorily purified. Despite these corrections, the rattlesnake cytochrome c sequence still more closely resembles human
cytochrome c than it does that of any other protein we know. We believe that this is an example of convergent evolution,
although it does appear that there has been accelerated change in the line connecting the rattlesnake to the ancestral
vertebrate line. Detailed evidence for the amino acid sequence of the protein has been deposited as Supplementary
Publication SUP 50162 (16 pages) at the British Library Document Supply Centre, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West
Yorkshire LS23 7BQ, U.K., from whom copies can be obtained on the terms indicated in Biochem. J. (1991) 273, 5.”
What???!! Rattlesnake cytochrome c more closely resembles human cytochrome c than any other know protein?
It's an anomaly! Best leave the serpent out of the tree.
Maybe it's a good thing reptile cytochrome wasn't used as a primer.
That’s the amino acid sequence, not the nucleotide sequence that was found in 1965.
DNA sequencing was not invented until the later 1970s.
Two proteins can have identical amino acid sequences (I’m not saying the rattlesnake and human do) and have many nucleotide sequence differences. The genetic code uses 64 3-base codons to code for 20 amino acids and a stop codon (which designates the end of the protein). There are ambiguities in the third position of the codons for some of the amino acids.
Yes I learned what was current and did a few of the radionucleotide based sequencing gels in school, but by the mid 1990s, I “cloned by phone” and sent them out to be sequenced using the ABI Prism apparatus.
The amino acids of the active sites don’t vary much in all cytochrome c proteins.
The function of cytochrome c is a very basic one in the cell and once an efficient molecular structure arose for the function, there hasn’t been much selective pressure to change it.
Where’s your comeback?
You seem to be quiet since I showed that you don’t know the difference between amino acids and nucleotides.
But since I didn’t say one is the same as the other why do feel I don’t know the difference?
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.