B
buffalo
Guest
Did you check out the Mark Armitage video on the dino soft tissue? Any comments?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I said, I defer to the real experts. I suspect that ancient dino soft tissue could exist if preserved in the right environment. But then again, I am no expert so I cannot say for sure.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
No. Survival is not always relevant. Having many children and dying young is better in terms of natural selection than living a long time and having fewer children.
Simply put, natural selection can be approximated by counting the number of grandchildren an organism has: effectively the number of fertile offspring.
You can die young and still have many grandchildren. Those grandchildren carry copies of your genes, together with your personal mutations, into the future gene pool of the population.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
The known half life of DNA is between 500 and 1000 years.
R
rossum
Guest
That was deliberate falsification by the ICR RATE project. They specifically picked older inclusions in the new lava and dated the old inclusions. It is characteristic of YEC “science” that it has to either lie or to ignore data to “prove” its point.
Ask yourself, “Why did scientist spend money on expensive dating methods when they already knew the date of the rocks?”
In this case, referring to the AiG article I suspect you got the reference from, Drs Snelling and Austin are very likely fixing the results to make science look bad. AiG explicitly states that it will ignore any and all scientific data that contradicts its interpretation of the Bible. It cannot be trusted as a reliable scientific source.
In short, AiG lies to you.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
DNA is not like unstable atoms that decay at a fixed rate. The rate at which it degrades is dependent on its environment. Since we don’t know for sure the environment of ancient DNA throughout its history, we cannot set any firm limit on how old DNA can possibly be.
R
rossum
Guest
Please provide your evidence that is is impossible for the collagen fragments that were found to have survived for 65 million years inside an intact thigh bone.
You are assuming that such fragments could not survive that long, but you do not have any supporting evidence to back up your assumption.
You are also going completely the wrong way about trying to refute evolution. We already have modern living dinosaurs: birds. Finding a living T. rex would no more be a problem for evolution than finding living Coelacanths was, and Coelacanths were once thought to have gone extinct about 65 million years ago as well.
If you want to cause a problem for evolution, then you need to find a much older T. rex, from about 300 million years ago or earlier.
It is a symptom of the YEC misunderstanding of evolution that they think that a modern T. rex would be a problem. It wouldn’t be, any more than sharks, Coelacanths or the Wollemi pine. An earlier T. rex would be a problem, but YECs do not seem to realise this.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Which is irrelevant to the dinosaur soft tissue. No DNA was found. Instead fragments of a tough protein, collagen, were found. Those fragments gave a partial amino acid sequence for T. rex collagen. It was that partial amino acid sequence that was matched to amino acid sequences for collagen in modern species.
What you need is not the DNA half-life, but the collagen half life. Collagen is a lot tougher than DNA and so will have a longer half-life, especially when preserved inside an intact bone. Everyone agrees that this specimen was in a very good state of preservation.
rossum
A
anon65111186
Guest
Is the Pope Catholic?
R
rossum
Guest
A
anon65111186
Guest
I’m not quite sure what you mean by organic chemistry and the tower of Babel.
Let us build us an explanation of these bones and DNA we have, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a theory, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth?
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances.
Scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples, like that the earth is round or the sun is the center of the universe.
How do you suppose evolution just creates facts?
A
anon65111186
Guest
Exactly, but some on this forum would rather have no theory for the data we have than a theory which they conclude comes from plotting atheists, which in turn comes from the devil and his angels.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Good question. Absolute dating, relative dating, radiometric dating, thermoluminescence dating, uranium–thorium dating,
Radiometric dating can measure up to 48.6 billion years.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
They honestly think they are furthering the cause of Christianity. Far from it. I think people like behe and like minded thinkers are doing potential harm to the cuase of education, science and Christianity.,
A
anon65111186
Guest
The very fact that this thread is in the top 10 of longest threads on Catholic Answers Forums underscores the importance of being informed on this important and controversial topic.
Catholics taking the side aginst evolution altogether, if you really want to make a difference about how the evolution debate goes, you have to inform yourself instead of just making flat denials that is simply isn’t true. It isn’t very convincing and you have to explain how you arrived at your position, so the other person can follow your reasoning. This is lacking in this thread in my view.
To be very honest, it has helped me to rethink some misconceptions I had, but also opened my eyes to the amount of ignorance there is about science and what evolution actually is.
You are not going to be able to intelligently or reasonably engage with atheists and non-catholic evolution supporters in the world if you engage the way you engage on these forums, especially those who simply do not wish to be bothered with all this talk about evolution, because their mind is already made up about the sum of the theory, even when the Church’s mind isn’t.
Those who deny evolution also seem to have another characteristic which is bothering to me, that they seem to have to elevate themselves above the Church and it’s teaching and methods of interpreting the Bible, in order to prove themselves right. This is neither humble nor the spirit of the Church, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.
Adversarial debate can be useful for finding the truth, just as Plato engaged with people to midwife truth into the conversation. Please don’t close your minds to the truth, wherever it is found.
I have come to the conclusion that evolution is not 100% certain, but at the least possible for all species and probable even for many species, God willing (not my willing God’s will) even including man, considering modern and current science.
Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to the truth of this matter.
Catholics taking the side aginst evolution altogether, if you really want to make a difference about how the evolution debate goes, you have to inform yourself instead of just making flat denials that is simply isn’t true. It isn’t very convincing and you have to explain how you arrived at your position, so the other person can follow your reasoning. This is lacking in this thread in my view.
To be very honest, it has helped me to rethink some misconceptions I had, but also opened my eyes to the amount of ignorance there is about science and what evolution actually is.
You are not going to be able to intelligently or reasonably engage with atheists and non-catholic evolution supporters in the world if you engage the way you engage on these forums, especially those who simply do not wish to be bothered with all this talk about evolution, because their mind is already made up about the sum of the theory, even when the Church’s mind isn’t.
Those who deny evolution also seem to have another characteristic which is bothering to me, that they seem to have to elevate themselves above the Church and it’s teaching and methods of interpreting the Bible, in order to prove themselves right. This is neither humble nor the spirit of the Church, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.
Adversarial debate can be useful for finding the truth, just as Plato engaged with people to midwife truth into the conversation. Please don’t close your minds to the truth, wherever it is found.
I have come to the conclusion that evolution is not 100% certain, but at the least possible for all species and probable even for many species, God willing (not my willing God’s will) even including man, considering modern and current science.
Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to the truth of this matter.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Yes. This bothers me also. Despite the Church standing in favor of evolution on more than one occasion and at the same time allowing the faithful to believe in a literal interpretation if they so choose, this group has decided to dam us all as having been deceived by the devil, and even the Pope cannot resist the temptation to be deceived… The utter size of this conspiracy theory makes their claims hard to swallow. Its an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Far from convincing the world of this grand atheist scheme to rob us of our faith, all they have really done is implicate themselves as having a lack of understanding in Church teaching concerning the relationship between science and faith. I couldn’t agree more with your words.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Evolution works at a biochemical level of the genome for some, at a species (whatever that reality is) level for others and for others it has to do with getting lucky with the opposite sex. For others, life is far simpler and more complex at the same time.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is most interesting that anyone against Darwinism is lying. Perhaps it is the other way around. After all, an evolutionary formed brain is not a reliable truth detector and not honest.
B
buffalo
Guest
You really think it can last 65 million years?
B
buffalo
Guest
You are now resorting to misdirection. You well know the implications for a dino dated 28000 BP found in a rock that was claimed to be millions of years old. Keep trying though. This will all catch up to you.
- Status