Evolution Based On Lies?

[Turtle]

I am totally neutral on this subject here, and I want to learn a bit from every side. I was just wondering what evolutionists think of the t-rex with the soft tissue that may contain cells and blood vessels. This I didn't get off wikipedia:) , I got it from Discover magazine (though it may still be a fraud, since it was discovered by a creationist). If it is true though, would it be an easy hurdle for evolution to jump over?

 

i'll take you at your word about neutrality, but it's not very convincing. soft tissue DNA typing from a t-rex is no hurdle to evolution whatsoever. either a sample has DNA or it doesn't. do keep in mind said soft tissue is dessicated.

 

creationism is a load of crap based on misogynous writings from ages ago. get over it. good grief! :doh:

[Dobin]

According to a source at The Age (cant post the link due to my lack of posts),

the dinosaur tissue seems to support the bird-dinosaur link more then defy it. Scientists have claimed the tissue to be nearly identical to that of the ostrich.

As for how it survived those millions of years, that all depends on what situations it was in when it died. That source doesn't mention anything about what enviroment they found the tissue in, so i can only speculate. It is possible though for these things to be preserved extremely well if the animal is covered by some sort of material, be it ice, or at the bottom of a swamp. I'm sure there are some conditions somewhere where the process of decomposition is greatly encumbered, and it is by chance that a dinosaur died at one.

[Winkelix]

Turtle, thanks for the info. it might be cool if they had some DNA, just to clone a t-rex:) . though it may not be very safe, you could find out a lot more about how they lived, which I believe would really help science.

[InfiniteNow]

I am totally neutral on this subject here, and I want to learn a bit from every side. I was just wondering what evolutionists think of the t-rex with the soft tissue that may contain cells and blood vessels. This I didn't get off wikipedia:) , I got it from Discover magazine (though it may still be a fraud, since it was discovered by a creationist). If it is true though, would it be an easy hurdle for evolution to jump over?

 

Hi Winkelix,

 

Your quote above is somewhat confusing to me. My opinion is that evidence tends to be a hurdle for creationism. Evolution not only is supported by evidence, but the theory itself is a direct result of evidence. :doh: So, really the idea that some soft tissue may contain cells and blood vessels has no impact whatsoever on evolution.

 

As for cloning dinos, I'd rather they cloned human parts and fixed diabetes and spinal cord injuries myself. However, what I can only describe as the "creationist types" state that this is an outrage against the sanctity of human life and all that jazz. It's so confusing. If God is so powerful, didn't he set in motion the steps which led that first scientist to learn how to clone humans? I don't know. At least evolution is consistent. With creationist dogma, it changes with each different person you ask... and even they change their stories depending on the day.

 

Sorry... a little rant there about how it would be better to focus on cloning for medical reasons than to clone an animal that went almost completely extinct 65 million years ago. Then again, having a few T-Rexes running around would be pretty cool, and may assist us with the over population problem. :D

 

 

[Tormod]

the dinosaur tissue seems to support the bird-dinosaur link more then defy it. Scientists have claimed the tissue to be nearly identical to that of the ostrich.

 

That's interesting - make sure you post a link when you pass 10 posts!

[freeztar]

Turtle, thanks for the info. it might be cool if they had some DNA, just to clone a t-rex:) . though it may not be very safe, you could find out a lot more about how they lived, which I believe would really help science.

 

I highly recommend the Michael Crichton novel "Jurassic Park". If you've seen the movie, disregard it. If you haven't seen it, disregard it. The book is a great read and delves into a subject you seem to have an interest in. :clock:

[Moontanman]

You are rabbiting on about something you know little about.

What about the new creationist museum with dinosaurs on Noha's ark?

What sort of a hoax do you think that is?

 

If I believed in an omnipotent, all knowing, god I would be more in awe if I knew he started everything with a big bang a long time ago.

"At first there was nothing and then it exploded"-terry prattchett

Or

Perhaps

"At first there was something and then it exploded." In an instant all the chemicals that make you and I were made.

I find that awesome.

An omnipotent god doesn't need to be tied down to man's silly idea of "time" or some scribblings in a "holy" book.

 

I have often said that creationism is mans attempt to put god in a box small enough for men to handle. To really discount all the hoaxes that have been used to further evolution you would have to first understand why they have been done. The hoaxes used to further evolution were usually done to make someone famous. This makes the hoax doubly damaging to evolution theory. It casts doubt on both the scientists and the science. Hoaxes used to further creationism are used to discount science because the truth doesn't work. Since the truth isn't important to these hoaxers and personal fame isn't what they seek it's easier for creationists to forgive the hoax since it intent was good. Science on the other hand isn't in the forgive if the intent was good business, so scientific hoaxes are more damaging to science.

 

Michael

[Dobin]

I dont wanna turn this into a flameing war.. but since when doesn't the truth work? And are you saying creationism isnt truth? And also, how can you generalize that all hoaxes regarding creationism are in good faith? The people behind the Creationism museum are getting paid a salary of 1million dollars.

[Moontanman]

I dont wanna turn this into a flameing war.. but since when doesn't the truth work? And are you saying creationism isnt truth? And also, how can you generalize that all hoaxes regarding creationism are in good faith? The people behind the Creationism museum are getting paid a salary of 1million dollars.

 

I am saying creationism isn't science, wheither it's the truth cannot be proved since it's based on the supernatural. I didn't say all hoaxes in creationism are in good faith. I would have to say none are in good faith since they are lies. I say they are just tolerated more due to the attitude of creationism. The salary of these people is simply sad.

[CraigD]

Then again, having a few T-Rexes running around would be pretty cool, and may assist us with the over population problem. :clock:

Something about cloned dinosaurs does strike a chord in the popular imagination – the Jurasic Park novel and movies being perhaps the most recent high-water mark of dino-mania.

 

The idea that predatory dinosaur would be especially dangerous – more, say, than lions and tigers – is mostly due, I think, to movies like Godzilla, Gorgo, and to some extent Jurasic Park. In reality, the predatory dinosaurs, such as T. rex, were mostly light-boned, somewhat fragile animals, rather like bog-headed, toothy ostriches. Though large – at about 7000 kg, a bit more massive than an modern Asian elephant, a bit smaller than a big African one – a T-rex’s vital organs are not especially well protected. A single bullet from a high-powered “elephant gun”, such as .577 caliber, or many smaller bullets, such as the ever-popular 7.62x39 mm or 5.56x45 mm, would almost certainly be as effective on T. rex as on elephant. I imagine A charging T.Rex wouldn’t be too hard to hit, compared, say, to a charging tiger, or a pride of hungry lions at night.

 

Less dramatically but more significantly, I wonder how well dinosaurs would survive in the modern world. The majority of them are thought to have been egg-layers, and might have a bad time in our ecosystem, which is chocked full of sneaky little egg eaters. Between them and our extinction-causing, gun-toting species, I suspect keeping dinosaurs these days would be a difficult exercise in conservation.

[Turtle]

Turtle, thanks for the info. it might be cool if they had some DNA, just to clone a t-rex:) . though it may not be very safe, you could find out a lot more about how they lived, which I believe would really help science.

 

:cup: lots o' problems with that one, not the slightest of which is that only fragments of DNA have been recovered from 'ancient' creatures which is insufficient to clone the entire creature. then there's the matter of choosing a mother to carry the egg.

 

nonetheless, even these fragments add to our understanding of evolution. science is always ammendable. >> Thylacoleo - The Story of the Naracoorte Caves: Section One

 

:clock:

[freeztar]

Between them and our extinction-causing, gun-toting species, I suspect keeping dinosaurs these days would be a difficult exercise in conservation.

 

This is not too different from our race to conserve real (ie happening now) biodiversity.

 

The whales at the Atlanta Aquarium died btw. :clock:

[Winkelix]

 

The idea that predatory dinosaur would be especially dangerous – more, say, than lions and tigers – is mostly due, I think, to movies like Godzilla, Gorgo, and to some extent Jurasic Park. In reality, the predatory dinosaurs, such as T. rex, were mostly light-boned, somewhat fragile animals, rather like bog-headed, toothy ostriches. Though large – at about 7000 kg, a bit more massive than an modern Asian elephant, a bit smaller than a big African one – a T-rex’s vital organs are not especially well protected. A single bullet from a high-powered “elephant gun”, such as .577 caliber, or many smaller bullets, such as the ever-popular 7.62x39 mm or 5.56x45 mm, would almost certainly be as effective on T. rex as on elephant. I imagine A charging T.Rex wouldn’t be too hard to hit, compared, say, to a charging tiger, or a pride of hungry lions at night.

 

Less dramatically but more significantly, I wonder how well dinosaurs would survive in the modern world. The majority of them are thought to have been egg-layers, and might have a bad time in our ecosystem, which is chocked full of sneaky little egg eaters. Between them and our extinction-causing, gun-toting species, I suspect keeping dinosaurs these days would be a difficult exercise in conservation.

 

 

T-rex's hatch when they are small little creatures, and I suspect you could keep one in a controlled environment, and study how it lives, until, of course, it grows too large to handle. There are still many fences to climb to clone one though. As Turtle stated, the DNA is to fragmanted to clone the entire animal, and you would need to have an animal carry the egg. And of couse how do we keep them (what climate, what food, what habitat)? But, it would take the fiction out of sc-fi movies and books on dinos:) .

[maikeru]

Winkelix, I think it's very important to keep in mind and to fully understand what evolution is, and then one can consider the merits of it. I posted this in another thread in the Biology forum:

 

Natural selection acts on the variation found in populations to create new lineages, and sometimes lineages are given the opportunity or chance to diverge and undergo further change, modification, and selection, and these selected modifications are retained. Forces of divergence and unification duel with each other. Neither are supreme, but both are necessary. Evolution is about survivors. This is evolution in a nutshell.

 

Evolution is surprisingly simple at its core.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I can't wait to see dinosaurs on the Colbert Report threatdown.

 

Before or after bears, I wonder?

 

:cocktail:

 

This is a thread I would like to tag "no."

 

TFS

[charles brough]

Winkel has accumulated a interesting list of controversial issues dealing with Evolution. I am interested to know why he thinks that science should be expected to be free of mistakes and fraud. If I were to spend decades researching the whole history of banking and came up with a 1200 page tome listing all the fraud and mistakes, would that mean we would have cause to do away with banking? Or with the church, for that matter---or is it free of fraud and mistakes?

 

The only reason Winkel knows about them is because they have been addressed and corrected. Also, it would appear that sometimes Winkel's judgment is clouded by his determination to be better than science. He has the impression that sediment collects evenly one inch every 5,000 years.

Am I mistaken or is generally assumed it accumulates very unevenly that much in that amount of time in that instance? If all or even most, or even a few, carcases survived 5,000 years, I am afraid the whole Earth would soon be crowded with rotting carcases!

 

What I think has happenes is that Winkel has fallen victum to the Right Wing press and is getting a lot of literature from them loaded with the Arkansas Museum sort of stuff. Even the John Birch society still functions.

 

This right-wing fanatically Christian stuff can be like poison. Look at what it is going on in the world because we are being run by one such Administration.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[Fatstep]

More interesting to me is why NG was so quick to publish the article without any real research regarding the information within it & the scientist(s) giving the information.

 

If that makes sense.