Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[Kikero]

vern humphrey:

And when it DOES fit, will that open your mind to science?

The Catholic Church does not reject evolution – which is not an “ideloogy.” Evolution is what happened, the THEORY of Evolution is our best current explanation of HOW it happened.

The existance of life forms in the past that are very different from life forms we have today, and the existance of present life forms which did not exist in the distant past is evolution.

I am not opposed to the concept of “horizontal evolution” that is, one species adapting to it’s envioronment through physical change yet remaining the same species. It is clear enough that happens. The fact that life forms in the past are very different from life forms today is not evolution in the sense you are using it. As if to say the creatures of today are direct products of those “different” creatures of the distant past. The earth has killed off over 99 percent of every creature to have ever existed and we still don’t know of all those that exist now.

Just because species were wiped out through one cataclysm or other or sweeping earthchanges and different species are recognized today does not preclude that existing species came from those extinct. Your theory sounds extremely “unscientific.”

 

[Kikero]

Here is a question for you… If evolutionary change through “natural selection” is to promote the viability and survivability of a species why is it humans don’t have fur, claws, more pronounced canines, and only tend to use about 10% of our brains? How exactly, is losing these characteristics throughout our species beneficial to overall survival in the harsh and dangerous world?

How is it we developed a brain we don’t appearantly need or use to its fullest?

Ok that’s like three or four questions but you get the point…I think.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kikero:

I am not opposed to the concept of “horizontal evolution” that is, one species adapting to it’s envioronment through physical change yet remaining the same species. It is clear enough that happens. The fact that life forms in the past are very different from life forms today is not evolution in the sense you are using it. As if to say the creatures of today are direct products of those “different” creatures of the distant past. The earth has killed off over 99 percent of every creature to have ever existed and we still don’t know of all those that exist now.

Just because species were wiped out through one cataclysm or other or sweeping earthchanges and different species are recognized today does not preclude that existing species came from those extinct. Your theory sounds extremely “unscientific.”

I’m not sure I understand you. I was talking about ensoulment, which is not a matter of science – it’s a matter of religion.

Now, when you say “Just because species were wiped out through one cataclysm or other or sweeping earthchanges and different species are recognized today does not preclude that existing species came from those extinct.” I have to agree.

In fact not only is the descent of present species from extinct species not precluded, it seems more and more likely that’s exactly what happened.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kikero:

Here is a question for you… If evolutionary change through “natural selection” is to promote the viability and survivability of a species why is it humans don’t have fur, claws, more pronounced canines, and only tend to use about 10% of our brains? How exactly, is losing these characteristics throughout our species beneficial to overall survival in the harsh and dangerous world?

How is it we developed a brain we don’t appearantly need or use to its fullest?

Ok that’s like three or four questions but you get the point…I think.

First of all, you make a mistake at the outset when you state the presumption that “evolutionary change through “natural selection” is to promote the viability and survivability of a species.”

If your assumption were true, evolution would occur BEFORE any environmental pressures. In fact, it’s the other way around, with evolution occuring in response to environmental pressures. Animals don’t evolve so they can survive, they survive because they evolve.

So to address your questions, look at snakes. Why don’t they have legs? Why don’t lions have venemous fangs? Why can’t hippos fly?

The answer is simple: humans can survive in their present configuration. They don’t have heavy fur, claws or fangs because they can survive very well without them – just as they can survive without gills, poison, wings, and many other things other creatures have.

As for our brain capacity – we use what we need.

We have extra capacity in many other organs – the average human never used more than a fraction of his heart and lung capacity, either (if we did, we’d all be Olympic athletes). We have excess kidney capacity (we have two, can live on one.)

Excess capacity is normal in almost all creatures – and is a survival asset.

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friends

Sorry this is a very long thread to read every post, so if there is a post that already answers this question then I apologise in advance.

the question…Now they have the soft tissue, what, if anything, are they going to DO with it?

Thanks for any replies in advance

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[vern_humphrey]

springbreeze:

Dear friends

Sorry this is a very long thread to read every post, so if there is a post that already answers this question then I apologise in advance.

the question…Now they have the soft tissue, what, if anything, are they going to DO with it?

Thanks for any replies in advance

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

The first step is simply to study it – analyze its chemical and structural makeup. It may NOT be soft tissue at all – and then again, it just might. So the first step is to confirm what it is.

Next, if it IS soft tissue, two things will most likely be done – the first is a claddistic study (comparing it to living tissue to determine similarities and differences) and second to attempt to extract DNA.

If DNA can be extracted, it will go a long way to answering many questions – for example, are birds the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, or not?

 

[CreosMary]

I must apologise I have come in a little late on the coal issue.

How do evolutionists explain preserved whole tree trunks amongst coal reserves as has been found in the La Trobe valley coal works here in Melbourne?

After reading past posts, It seems that science is a relgieon for some and all science comes with presumptions.
God Bless

 

[Philip_P]

Creosmary, I don’t mean to come across as rude or dismissive, but I wonder if you entirely understand how science works. It explicitly does not claim definitive answers - it works off data and observations, an attempt to explain those observations, and then testing that explanation (or hypothesis). When there is new data that challenges a previous explanation, scientists go back and modify their orginal hypothesis. So, for instance, this find of soft tissue challenges what we thought about the preservation of tissue, and will undoubtedly result in changes to some theories and hypotheses.

What I don’t entirely understand is why you are so fixed on “disproving” evolution/science. The Bible is God’s revelation for our salvation, but it’s not a science book, or even necessarily a history book. If I want to know about life during the Roman Empire, the New Testament is probably not my best source. Why should it be, that wasn’t why it was written. There’s really no good reason to insist upon a literalist interpretation of Genesis, especially when doing so blinds us to the incredible wonders of God’s creation science has discovered.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

I must apologise I have come in a little late on the coal issue.

How do evolutionists explain preserved whole tree trunks amongst coal reserves as has been found in the La Trobe valley coal works here in Melbourne?

After reading past posts, It seems that science is a relgieon for some and all science comes with presumptions.
God Bless

I can’t believe you asked that!!

Science generally holds that coal (and petroleum) are products of biomass. A coal-field is a former forest. It is natural that we should find tree trunks in the coal.

What’s YOUR explanation?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[springbreeze]

vern humphrey:

The first step is simply to study it – analyze its chemical and structural makeup. It may NOT be soft tissue at all – and then again, it just might. So the first step is to confirm what it is.

Next, if it IS soft tissue, two things will most likely be done – the first is a claddistic study (comparing it to living tissue to determine similarities and differences) and second to attempt to extract DNA.

If DNA can be extracted, it will go a long way to answering many questions – for example, are birds the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, or not?

Dear friend

Thank you very much vern for answering my question.

I can see how it will go along way to answering many questions. I don’t know the first thing about DNA so don’t look to close at my ignorance . I was wondering if all life has the same blocks of DNA and has through mutation produced varying DNA and therefore produced different species. Would this possible early DNA give an idea of how life evolved?

Is that a possibility and will finding one of the earliest forms of life such as a Dinosaur DNA be able to possibly answer that question?

Sorry to ask you yet another question but any reply would be very interesting to me

Thank you in advance

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[vern_humphrey]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

Thank you very much vern for answering my question.

I can see how it will go along way to answering many questions. I don’t know the first thing about DNA so don’t look to close at my ignorance . I was wondering if all life has the same blocks of DNA and has through mutation produced varying DNA and therefore produced different species. Would this possible early DNA give an idea of how life evolved?

Is that a possibility and will finding one of the earliest forms of life such as a Dinosaur DNA be able to possibly answer that question?

Sorry to ask you yet another question but any reply would be very interesting to me

Thank you in advance

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Well, let me not talk down to you, but from what you said, perhaps a bit of explanation is in order. The DNA (Dioxy Ribonucleic Acid) molecule is in the form of a double helix, like a spiral stairway. The treads of the stairway link the sides together. In reproduction the parents each supply one side of the “stairway” which makes for variation between individuals – this explains why children have characteristics of both parents.

The “steps” come in four types, called A, T, C, and G. A section of the “stairway” makes up a gene, which is the carrier of inherited characteristics.

Now, by “reading” the DNA, we can compare DNA from one souce with DNA from another source. In crimes, it is used to identify people – since each person’s DNA is unique. In paternity tests and similar matters, the similarity between two samples of DNA can determine if one person is related to another.

In other matters, DNA from different species can be compared – for example, DNA studies of Human and Chimp DNA show we share about 99% of our genes with Chimps, and are therefore closely related.

In the case of dinosaurs, if DNA can be extracted, it will be possible to compare it with DNA from living species today and see how closely it matches.

In the original article, it was pointed out that no one has looked inside fossilized dinosaur bones for soft tissue – because no one thought there could be any such tissue. If it turns out that such tissue is available in many fossils, then we can build up a better picture of both dinosaur evolution and the relation of dinosaurs to present living species.

 

[Trelow]

Maybe it was a giant’s bone.

RAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWRRRRRR!!!

 

[springbreeze]

vern humphrey:

Well, let me not talk down to you, but from what you said, perhaps a bit of explanation is in order. The DNA (Dioxy Ribonucleic Acid) molecule is in the form of a double helix, like a spiral stairway. The treads of the stairway link the sides together. In reproduction the parents each supply one side of the “stairway” which makes for variation between individuals – this explains why children have characteristics of both parents.

The “steps” come in four types, called A, T, C, and G. A section of the “stairway” makes up a gene, which is the carrier of inherited characteristics.

Now, by “reading” the DNA, we can compare DNA from one souce with DNA from another source. In crimes, it is used to identify people – since each person’s DNA is unique. In paternity tests and similar matters, the similarity between two samples of DNA can determine if one person is related to another.

In other matters, DNA from different species can be compared – for example, DNA studies of Human and Chimp DNA show we share about 99% of our genes with Chimps, and are therefore closely related.

In the case of dinosaurs, if DNA can be extracted, it will be possible to compare it with DNA from living species today and see how closely it matches.

In the original article, it was pointed out that no one has looked inside fossilized dinosaur bones for soft tissue – because no one thought there could be any such tissue. If it turns out that such tissue is available in many fossils, then we can build up a better picture of both dinosaur evolution and the relation of dinosaurs to present living species.

Dear friend

You are not talking down to me, I really didn’t know anything about DNA but I do now thanks to you!

Looking at your last paragraph that is fairly impressive, this means that previous evolution tables and families of species can be varied from looking at and studying DNA found in dinosaurs and fossils etc. That’s fairly exciting!!!

I love nature and have taught myself bits and bobs about the animal kingdom and am really in love with God’s creation however He chose for it to come about and we may call that evolution.

You seem very knowledgeable, is any of this part of your profession or are you self-taught in DNA?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[vern_humphrey]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

You are not talking down to me, I really didn’t know anything about DNA but I do now thanks to you!

Looking at your last paragraph that is fairly impressive, this means that previous evolution tables and families of species can be varied from looking at and studying DNA found in dinosaurs and fossils etc. That’s fairly exciting!!!

I love nature and have taught myself bits and bobs about the animal kingdom and am really in love with God’s creation however He chose for it to come about and we may call that evolution.

You seem very knowledgeable, is any of this part of your profession or are you self-taught in DNA?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

I’m mostly self-taught (my batchelor’s degree is in History and my graduate degrees are in Education.) But I like to keep up in science and other fields as best I can.

Much of evolutionary theory is based on cladistics (looking for derived features from an ancestor). By using cladistics, we classify donkeys among the equines, along with horses and zebras, for example.

DNA gives us an indenendent means to test relationships already thought established by cladistics – and by and large, those relationships have proven out, with a few surprises.

But without dinosaur DNA we have been forced to rely purely on cladistics – now we can test our theories about the relationships between different species of dinosaurs (if we can find enough samples of soft tissue) and between dinosaurs and other species.

 

[CreosMary]

Philip P:

Creosmary, I don’t mean to come across as rude or dismissive, but I wonder if you entirely understand how science works. It explicitly does not claim definitive answers - it works off data and observations, an attempt to explain those observations, and then testing that explanation (or hypothesis). When there is new data that challenges a previous explanation, scientists go back and modify their orginal hypothesis. So, for instance, this find of soft tissue challenges what we thought about the preservation of tissue, and will undoubtedly result in changes to some theories and hypotheses.

What I don’t entirely understand is why you are so fixed on “disproving” evolution/science. The Bible is God’s revelation for our salvation, but it’s not a science book, or even necessarily a history book. If I want to know about life during the Roman Empire, the New Testament is probably not my best source. Why should it be, that wasn’t why it was written. There’s really no good reason to insist upon a literalist interpretation of Genesis, especially when doing so blinds us to the incredible wonders of God’s creation science has discovered.

Dear Philip,
I dont see evolution as good science, it is based on a myriad of assumptions, and has no basis in logic. It ultimatly is about trying to create a world without God, If God did not Create, then we can do what we want, whenever to whomever as we are all accidents. Thiestic evolution is for those who cant grasp the awesome power of God. As you may have seen in past posts this thinking also leads to the denial of all miracles and things of a supernatural nature.
God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

CreosMary:

Dear Philip,
I dont see evolution as good science, it is based on a myriad of assumptions, and has no basis in logic. It ultimatly is about trying to create a world without God, If God did not Create, then we can do what we want, whenever to whomever as we are all accidents. Thiestic evolution is for those who cant grasp the awesome power of God. As you may have seen in past posts this thinking also leads to the denial of all miracles and things of a supernatural nature.
God Bless

Mary, dear, your understanding of evolution is flawed.

Evolution is not about trying to create a world without God. It is about understanding how God has done His work – just like aerodynamics, electronics, and many other branches of science.

Evolution does not lead to denial of miracles – the position of the Church in investigating reported miracles is very close to science. The Church ALWAYS first looks for a non-miraculous explanation.

 

[Philip_P]

Interesting excerpt from Evolution & God’s Humility, by John F. Haught in 1/28/00 Commonweal:

A theology obsessed with order and design is, I believe, ill-prepared for evolution. And as long as we think of God only in terms of a narrowly human notion of “design,” the “atheism” of many evolutionists will seem appropriate enough. For, what if “God” is not just an originator of order, but also the disquieting wellspring of novelty? And, moreover, what if the cosmos is not just an “order” but a still-unfinished labor of creation? Suppose we look very carefully at the undeniable evidence we have today that the universe is still coming into being. And suppose also that “God” is less concerned with imposing a plan or design on this process than with providing a “vision” for the universe that allows it to participate in its own creation. If we make these conceptual adjustments, as I believe both contemporary science and a consistent theology actually require that we do, the idea of God becomes not only compatible with evolution, but it also logically anticipates something like the kind of life world that Darwinian biology sets before us.

Full article at:
commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=470

 

[CreosMary]

Philip P:

Interesting excerpt from Evolution & God’s Humility, by John F. Haught in 1/28/00 Commonweal:

A theology obsessed with order and design is, I believe, ill-prepared for evolution. And as long as we think of God only in terms of a narrowly human notion of “design,” the “atheism” of many evolutionists will seem appropriate enough. For, what if “God” is not just an originator of order, but also the disquieting wellspring of novelty? And, moreover, what if the cosmos is not just an “order” but a still-unfinished labor of creation? Suppose we look very carefully at the undeniable evidence we have today that the universe is still coming into being. And suppose also that “God” is less concerned with imposing a plan or design on this process than with providing a “vision” for the universe that allows it to participate in its own creation. If we make these conceptual adjustments, as I believe both contemporary science and a consistent theology actually require that we do, the idea of God becomes not only compatible with evolution, but it also logically anticipates something like the kind of life world that Darwinian biology sets before us.

Full article at:
commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=470

Sounds like a really surreptitious way of undermining God’s Creation, by placing human limitations on God’s will.
It sounds a little too self serving and quite close to paganistic Creation worship.
Thanks but no thanks Philip, God Bless
Br CreosMary