• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

randman said:
You know I used to believe dinosaurs were very old. I am not a young earth creationist. But they've been cutting into their bones and finding red blood cells and soft tissue. Biochemistry tells you that at least for those dinosaurs, they are not more than 10,000 years old.

You can cling to your theories or look at the facts. When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

Doesn't mean the earth is 6000 years old but it does mean those specific dinosaur bones are NOT 65 million years old.
Click to expand...
There is no similarity in cutting in to an ostrich bone and cutting in to a dinosaur bone that indicates the dinosaurs are less than 10,000 years old.
 
randman said:
I guess you didn't read much more than that one article. But even there, based on your comments, your link agrees with me. I certainly didn't make up the ostrich reference.

Define "recent" btw.
Click to expand...
Then cite the articles that support your claim. And I was arguing against the claims for recency you made in your post using your numbers.

That link and the field scientists qutoed certainly do not agree with you.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Are you guys that dense? You think I said every creature or any creature is exactly the same as another?

Unbelievable. It's like talking with children or something.

The idea is not that there are exactly the same as they can't be since they have different reproductive organs. The idea is why are the same designs repeated in the pairs when there is really no environmental reason for that to be so.

Moreover, the point you guys are really missing is that either way, my original point stands. You cannot have a theory that predicts all possible outcomes and it still be good science. You cannot say, well, if there are similarities are theory is it must be common ancestry, but if not, then our theory says it's convergent evolution. That's not a proper use of data.

You could say maybe it's like this but you need to admit you are undercutting your theory in the process.

Besides you 2 didn't even get the ad hoc comment directed towards another when he was bringing up gene regulation. It's a whole different issue and debate, and one I doubt you are familiar with.
Click to expand...

What you seem to be saying, essentially, is that if evolution explains all variations found among species in nature, it's bad science. This standard is quite new to me, would you elaborate, please? I could understand if your point was that evolution would explain fluorine-metabolizing, mountain-dwelling lobsters with the same facility that it explains insectivores of a different lineage in Australia than we find in Africa, but with the information you've provided so far, I have to say you've lost me.
 
randman said:
What if the ancestor to say all plants and animals had more types of genes than all the plants and animals do today?
Click to expand...
What if it did?

I don't think we're going to stumble upon a living example of that last common ancestor to test its DNA, but if we did and it turned out to have 50 billion genes, what difference would that make?

I'm looking at the March 10 issue of Nature magazine which was delivered yesterday, and it contains an article which argues that 500 deleted gene sequences in the human genome which still appear in the genomes of chimps and other mammals may be responsible for many of the phenotypic changes between humans and chimps. My wife says the doesn't mind my lack of penile spines, by the way...

I don't expect this article is going to result in a flood of letters to the editors of Nature next week moaning "Oh no, the Creationists were right all along. Does anybody want to buy my PhD? Looks like I won't be needing it..."

I mean, what's your point? And why can't you just make it without all this dancing around?
 
randman said:
It doesn't, eh? care to prove that?

On the "actual facts" but of course they do. All facts are in accordance with evolutionary theory by definition.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There are facts that wouldn't be in accordance with the theory of evolution. You could make a long list of possible facts that would stand the theory on its ear. It's just that no such facts have been established. Which is why reasonable people provisionally accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation we currently have for speciation.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
There is no similarity in cutting in to an ostrich bone and cutting in to a dinosaur bone that indicates the dinosaurs are less than 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...

Your own quote agrees with me, not you. I don't have it handy but she published a paper comparing ostrich red blood cells after cutting into an ostrich with the dinosaurs and said they were similar. There are also reports of a remark about ostrich bones when they first cut the dino-bones open.

What else do you want? You cut open the dinosaur bone and find red blood cells and you cut open the ostrich bone and the same. I realize that in one instance the ostrich bone may have been fresh but I was primarily referring to comments made to Jack Horner when she first made this discovery, comments that sounded like finding older ostrich bones in a similar condition of having some parts preserved.

And the 10,000 year thing was reported as well as the upper limit for organiz molecules to survive. Some have tried to stretch that out. Go wild if you want and say, 100,000 years. That's a far cry from 65 million years.
 
Mister Agenda:

Evidence that the angular (homologous with the mammalian ectotympanic) and the articular and prearticular (homologous with the mammalian malleus) bones retained attachment to the lower jaw in a basal monotreme indicates that the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5711/910.abstract

You owe me an apology as it is you that was wrong. You also shouldn't be so quick to claim critics don't understand evolution. I see nothing in your post on evolution, for example, except one comment which was wrong.
 
bokonon said:
What if it did?

I don't think we're going to stumble upon a living example of that last common ancestor to test its DNA, but if we did and it turned out to have 50 billion genes, what difference would that make?

I'm looking at the March 10 issue of Nature magazine which was delivered yesterday, and it contains an article which argues that 500 deleted gene sequences in the human genome which still appear in the genomes of chimps and other mammals may be responsible for many of the phenotypic changes between humans and chimps. My wife says the doesn't mind my lack of penile spines, by the way...

I don't expect this article is going to result in a flood of letters to the editors of Nature next week moaning "Oh no, the Creationists were right all along. Does anybody want to buy my PhD? Looks like I won't be needing it..."

I mean, what's your point? And why can't you just make it without all this dancing around?
Click to expand...

I have made the point. If you don't get it, not sure you ever will. Think about the process NeoDarwinism envisions; mutation plus natural selection, etc,...
 
What you seem to be saying, essentially, is that if evolution explains all variations found among species in nature, it's bad science.
Click to expand...

Nope. Did not say that. I guess you don't want to even try to understand the point.

Hint: it's about data.
 
randman said:
You cut open the dinosaur bone and find red blood cells and you cut open the ostrich bone and the same.

And the 10,000 year thing was reported as well as the upper limit for organiz molecules to survive. Some have tried to stretch that out. Go wild if you want and say, 100,000 years. That's a far cry from 65 million years.
Click to expand...
So we have a puzzle, with many possible solutions.

Maybe what appears to be a fossilized dinosaur bone is really something else.

Maybe what appears to be red blood cells in the dinosaur bone is really something else.

Maybe organic molecules can survive for 65 million years, given the right conditions.

Maybe dinosaurs were alive more recently than 65 million years ago.

etc...

Science will proceed, as it always does, weighing evidence and proposing testable hypotheses, which will be sifted by additional observations furnishing additional evidence, and so on.

As someone familiar with some of the evidence which argues that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, I'm reluctant to embrace a more recent extinction, but if that's where the evidence leads, believe me I'll follow. At this point, that's only one (and one of the weakest, IMO) hypothesis among many.
 
randman said:
Your own quote agrees with me, not you.
Click to expand...
Huh? Of course, my quotes agree with you. I've only quoted you.
randman said:
I don't have it handy but she published a paper comparing ostrich red blood cells after cutting into an ostrich with the dinosaurs and said they were similar. There are also reports of a remark about ostrich bones when they first cut the dino-bones open.
Click to expand...
Right. That's what they said. Now how is that any kind of support for our entire view of reality being wrong????
randman said:
And the 10,000 year thing was reported as well as the upper limit for organiz molecules to survive. Some have tried to stretch that out. Go wild if you want and say, 100,000 years. That's a far cry from 65 million years.
Click to expand...
Well, then cite what you've misunderstood and we'll explain it to you because you've clearly misunderstood it (or you read something that was just plain wrong).
 
randman said:
I have made the point. If you don't get it, not sure you ever will. Think about the process NeoDarwinism envisions; mutation plus natural selection, etc,...
Click to expand...
So that's your point? That I should think about something?

Not very impressive...
 
Cavemonster said:
Source?
Click to expand...

No doubt he's referring to the T. Rex fossil that had soft parts. Mary Schweitzer was the scientist who discovered some springy stuff in a fossil that preserved some details of vascular structure and some hemoglobin fragments. It's an interesting discovery that hasn't been fully analyzed (or, as far as I know) replicated yet.

It's the sort of thing that would have been sat on for years while it was thoroughly investigated before publication if Schweitzer hadn't (admittedly) been desperate for funding.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, but premature to draw conclusions from it.
 
randman said:
Hint: it's about data.
Click to expand...

2256332.jpg
 
randman said:
I spent pages trying to get some evos here to just take a clear position on what NeoDarwinism predicts and thought they finally did. Then, when I showed them the facts disagreeing with that, they pretend it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

If you thought Cavemonster saying what you had been trying to get us to say meant anyone here actually agrees with what you think neoDarwinism says...well, given all the obfuscation on your end, I'm not really surprised you've confused yourself.
 
Mister Agenda said:
No doubt he's referring to the T. Rex fossil that had soft parts. Mary Schweitzer was the scientist who discovered some springy stuff in a fossil that preserved some details of vascular structure and some hemoglobin fragments. It's an interesting discovery that hasn't been fully analyzed (or, as far as I know) replicated yet.

It's the sort of thing that would have been sat on for years while it was thoroughly investigated before publication if Schweitzer hadn't (admittedly) been desperate for funding.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, but premature to draw conclusions from it.
Click to expand...

It's been replicated. You haven't kept up, and that was a nasty smear you made of her suggesting it was only about funding. It's not the sort of thing to have sat for years although it was in the early 90s she uncovered the first one that looked like it had red blood cells.
 
randman said:
No, I completely agree that it should not lead to a specific result. There should not be a duplication in the pattern but there is, over and over again. That is not a sign of random genetic variation.
Click to expand...

It is a sign of natural selection, though, which is not random. Random genetic variation means that two lineages can never converge to a point where they are genetically identical, natural selection means that two lineages can certainly come to a point where they are morphologically very similar.
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
If you thought Cavemonster saying what you had been trying to get us to say meant anyone here actually agrees with what you think neoDarwinism says...well, given all the obfuscation on your end, I'm not really surprised you've confused yourself.
Click to expand...

Not confused, and when are you going to apologize? You were wrong on the mammalian ear, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom