Posted on 09/14/2009 9:02:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Yeh, but them chickens ain’t all white meat.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29537188/
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/25/chicken-dinosaur.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reviews-jun09
In high school biology class we watched a 16mm film on dissecting a frog. But instead of rewinding the reels I switched the projector to reverse and announced,
“We are now going to see a film entitled, “How to Assemble a Frog!”
The absurdity of frog parts being brought together accompanied by unintelligible gibberish earned me a trip to the principal’s office when the teacher returned unexpectedly.
“How to Reverse-Engineer a Chicken” has a similar ring.
;^)
bump
Or, more likely, starve! Unfortunately, they’re trying to starve us too!!!
The have already done it.. turning genes back on that produce “beak teeth”, long bony tails, and other prehistoric (raptor) genetic traits.
The three links you posted did not back up your statement. Got any others? I think you must have mis-read.
I have a feeling that no matter what link I posted, you would find it “inadequate”
yup...and all that lab work is intelligently designed at that.
The have already done it.. turning genes back on that produce "beak teeth", long bony tails, and other prehistoric (raptor) genetic traits.
It was recently part of a program on the discovery channel.
They had indeed done it, but were terminating the chick embryos.
Can anyone spot the psudo-religious anti science assumption(s) in GGG’s coment?
SUch an act is a necessary, but no sufficient, evidence for Evolution.
If you CAN do it, it doesn’t prove that this is HOW things happened.
But if you CAN’T do it, it proves that it is impossible that we evolved.
In fact, if you can’t reverse-engineer each plausible mutation, and prove that the intermediate steps were viable and could reproduce, that would disprove evolution.
And even though we have all the genetic mappings, nobody’s bothered yet to show how we got, mutation by mutation, from some common ancester to the current genetic makeup of Humans and Chimps.
And if that can’t be done — if there is no viable series of step-by-step mutations — evolution is disproved.
It is not enough that we can find commonalities and differences in the genetic makeup of different species. We have to show that the evolutionary steps that take us from one to another are, each and every one, viable.
By viable, we mean absolutely that each intermediate step would be alive, and that it would be able to reproduce with the non-mutated version, passing along the genetic change.
And while every single mutation doesn’t have to yield a direct advantage, it is necessary that a preponderance of the millions of genetic changes be beneficial to the one representative of the species that gets that mutation, in order for those unique representatives to be able to compete and thrive so their mutation drives out the previous genetic pool.
BTW, if you accept “intelligent design”, or a “creator” into your science, then that last step is not necessary anymore, because a creator or designer can simply force each mutation step to become dominant, regardless of whether it improves the species or not.
This need for million of genetic changes across thousands of species to ALL be viable, and for most to be beneficial (each individual step) is what makes Evolution so implausible.
He says this with a straight face after linking PMSNBC, Discovery and Scientific American, (nevermind what you said).
self-fulfilling prophecy.
He says this with a straight face after linking PMSNBC, Discovery and Scientific American, (nevermind what you said).
self-fulfilling prophecy.
He says this with a straight face after linking PMSNBC, Discovery and Scientific American, (nevermind what you said).
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thanks for sharing, but what does your statement of religious faith have anything to do with the question asked by the article?
LMFAO!
In his recent book How to Build a Dinosaur...
Didja really read that book, Brian?
by purposeful design
Ooooo....."design"....say it again...."design"...does that mean this researcher is God?
demonstration of evolution
I prefer the next statement, as it's a little more concise, but a reader has to look it up themselves.
"If I can demonstrate clearly that the potential for dinosaur anatomical development exists in birds, then it again proves that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs."
Does it show this? Dunno....but I bet Brian will now go use the word "kind" and then finish this up with a false conclusion.
A long-tailed chicken would not truly demonstrate evolution. This “reverse-transitional” form would be less fit than its peers, having to drag around a uselessly long tail.
Brian here doesn't even "get it", but must get the reader to keep the image of a long-tailed chicken running around to have his great "research article".....hey Brian, the point is not to generate a chicken with higher genetic fitness than other chickens. It's to demonstrate that identifying mutations and playing with them, you can generate a dinosaur tail...ONE PART.....sort of a look at reverse evolution. But you don't even "get it" Brian, so get to the false conclusion already.
However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses fundamental problems for such a relationship.
Gee, Brian....are you showing evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old?
kind
There's the "kind"......how about a definition of "kind"? Last 2 times it was "species" and "taxa"...what EXACTLY is the definition of "kind", Brian?
the amount and precision of genetic and cellular alterations that would have to be bioengineered to transform a chicken into a legitimately dinosaurian creature are so vast that no natural process could achieve it.
So now Brian here knows what the exact genetic make-up of dinosaurs was. Where'd you get your complete dino-DNA sequence, Brian? In addition.....baseless conclusion, Brian.
Rather than demonstrate evolution, these attempts to transform chickens will certainly demonstrate the precise and intricate design of this created kind.
Can't say I know what it will truly demonstrate, Brian, as I am not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist....but I surely can recognize a false conclusion.
Does this prove that Man walked the Earth with hundreds of species of large meat eating dinosaurs?
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.