Yesterday's T. Rex is today's chicken..

[angminas]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: angminas
I don't mind if they say it may tie them together. I mind if they teach kids this proves chickens came from dinosaurs. It doesn't do anything of the sort.

Where do you think birds evolved from? Have you reviewed the fossil evidence yourself to come to your conclusion?

What does it matter what I think about where birds evolved from? I'm talking about proof of a specific statement. My opinions on a nearly unrelated subject have nothing to do with whether this information is proof or not. This shows what it shows, and anything added to that is imagination. Sometimes imagination and results coincide as predicted, but very often they do not.

That's what I mean by talking about proof. I don't have the time or inclination to spend dozens of hours a week researching the evolution debate so I can claim I know it better than anyone who might question my views (though I do spend some time with it, and I do learn some about it by spending time with the subjects I do find important and interesting). But I know enough about the subject to know that this article isn't a smoking gun, missing link, slam dunk, or any other silly self-serving dismissal. I know enough to know that, not only do I not understand the subject thoroughly from a scientific view, but neither does anyone else. Not that this stops vast numbers of people from claiming otherwise.

The really important part of my point, though, is about teaching our children. Adults can decide that A is B if they want to avoid searching for the truth, but they do not have the right to make that foolish decision for other people and thereby teach them to use their minds not as tools, but as weapons. Half-truths are mental handguns- deadly, easily available, simple to use, and extremely inaccurate. Just as we do not allow handguns in schools, neither should we allow our public servants to teach our children that gigantic leaps of logic with insufficient underpinning constitute proof, regardless of whether we can come up with a better alternative to said leaps. Just because we don't know or understand something doesn't mean we have the right to hide our ignorance by cobbling something together and teaching it to our children as science.

I have done a decent amount of study on the subject, though not extensive or technically advanced by any means. I invite, welcome, and search out new and relevant information on the subject. I write comparatively long posts when I find it appropriate, but I read and listen far more than I write and talk. But why do you call me saying this is inconclusive a conclusion? My statement is not closed, it's open. To say this proves something that is far beyond the laboratory results- now that would be a conclusion.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: angminas

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: angminas
I don't mind if they say it may tie them together. I mind if they teach kids this proves chickens came from dinosaurs. It doesn't do anything of the sort.

Where do you think birds evolved from? Have you reviewed the fossil evidence yourself to come to your conclusion?

What does it matter what I think about where birds evolved from? I'm talking about proof of a specific statement. My opinions on a nearly unrelated subject have nothing to do with whether this information is proof or not. This shows what it shows, and anything added to that is imagination. Sometimes imagination and results coincide as predicted, but very often they do not.

That's what I mean by talking about proof. I don't have the time or inclination to spend dozens of hours a week researching the evolution debate so I can claim I know it better than anyone who might question my views (though I do spend some time with it, and I do learn some about it by spending time with the subjects I do find important and interesting). But I know enough about the subject to know that this article isn't a smoking gun, missing link, slam dunk, or any other silly self-serving dismissal. I know enough to know that, not only do I not understand the subject thoroughly from a scientific view, but neither does anyone else. Not that this stops vast numbers of people from claiming otherwise.

The really important part of my point, though, is about teaching our children. Adults can decide that A is B if they want to avoid searching for the truth, but they do not have the right to make that foolish decision for other people and thereby teach them to use their minds not as tools, but as weapons. Half-truths are mental handguns- deadly, easily available, simple to use, and extremely inaccurate. Just as we do not allow handguns in schools, neither should we allow our public servants to teach our children that gigantic leaps of logic with insufficient underpinning constitute proof, regardless of whether we can come up with a better alternative to said leaps. Just because we don't know or understand something doesn't mean we have the right to hide our ignorance by cobbling something together and teaching it to our children as science.

I have done a decent amount of study on the subject, though not extensive or technically advanced by any means. I invite, welcome, and search out new and relevant information on the subject. I write comparatively long posts when I find it appropriate, but I read and listen far more than I write and talk. But why do you call me saying this is inconclusive a conclusion? My statement is not closed, it's open. To say this proves something that is far beyond the laboratory results- now that would be a conclusion.

I have the feeling you've spent more time making that post than researching evolution. You seem smart enough, so take the time to read something like this Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[angminas]

First sentence could hardly be more wrong, in a number of different ways. If you respect intelligence, logic, science, and truth, it's completely beyond me why you would say something like that.

But I'll read the article, sure. I think I've read some of it before.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: everman
And this is why you never turn your back on a chicken.

..I wonder it T-rex darted about and bobbed it's head like a chicken??

 

[MrPickins]

The article is more about the detection of preserved proteins in fossils than anything.

Besides, I thought it was almost consensus among paleontologists that birds were descended from bipedal dinosaurs.

 

[IGBT]

..mabe T-rex crowed every morning like a rooster.

 

[Trevelyan]

In case anyone is interested, there is a response from Creation scientists on this subject:

"Perhaps one of the most exciting recent discoveries for creationists has been the report of soft tissue found in a dinosaur fossil. In 2005, a study in the prestigious journal Science documented the presence of unfossilized tissue from a T. rex. Since these dinosaurs are supposed to have been extinct for at least 65 million years, finding soft tissue was quite a surprise for evolutionists."

"Conventional wisdom held that proteins and DNA could not survive for millions of years. Indeed, an upper limit to the preservation of a stable protein such as collagen was presumed to be about 2.7 million years at 0°C, 180,000 years at 10°C, and only 15,000 years at 20°C. Thus, there was much skepticism that what Schweitzer found was really dinosaur soft tissue when it was initially reported. Secular scientists were hesitant to believe that such tissue and proteins could persist for more than 65 million years."

"The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows."

Dr. David A. DeWitt
Professor of Biology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
In case anyone is interested, there is a response from Creation scientists on this subject:

"Perhaps one of the most exciting recent discoveries for creationists has been the report of soft tissue found in a dinosaur fossil. In 2005, a study in the prestigious journal Science documented the presence of unfossilized tissue from a T. rex. Since these dinosaurs are supposed to have been extinct for at least 65 million years, finding soft tissue was quite a surprise for evolutionists."

"Conventional wisdom held that proteins and DNA could not survive for millions of years. Indeed, an upper limit to the preservation of a stable protein such as collagen was presumed to be about 2.7 million years at 0°C, 180,000 years at 10°C, and only 15,000 years at 20°C. Thus, there was much skepticism that what Schweitzer found was really dinosaur soft tissue when it was initially reported. Secular scientists were hesitant to believe that such tissue and proteins could persist for more than 65 million years."

"The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows."

Dr. David A. DeWitt
Professor of Biology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken

..mabe they were having KFC that day and contaminated the sample??