"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[TheJackelantern]

Where in the definition does it mention environment?

How many of the links have you visited to which deals with that subject?? No where did I say anything about dealing with the words definition.. Let me put it to you like this.. A well adapted creature will experience less feedback and pressure in an environment and could likely evolve much slower. Stasis is not a problem for TOE..

He didn't find the femur on a slope. He found it a mile away and 200 feet below the strata of the other pieces

.

Actually not according to the info I have looked at:

Wiki:

Johanson's eye: an arm bone fragment lying on the slope. Near it lay a fragment from the back of a small skull. They noticed part of a femur (thigh bone) a few feet (around 1 m) away. As they looked further, they found more and more bones on the slope, including vertebrae, part of a pelvis, ribs, and pieces of jaw

Also stated here:

http://dc299.4shared.com/doc/4XFi_UtO/preview.html



I think you are mistaking 1 meter for 1 mile.. It was all on the slope in the gully.. Can you post your source where it states the femur was found 1 mile away vs 1 meter? And as I search Creationist sites, I get all sorts of claims that range from 12 meters to 60-70 meters...Some claiming it was the knee, others the femur.. Now isn't that something interesting?

And here is a good paper on Lucy:

http://efossils.org/sites/efossils.org/ ... Lucy_0.pdf

Yes I agree, Lucy was chimp like.

Chimp like, but bipedal..

When did I say the Lucy was unable to walk upright? Yes Chimps can walk upright but its not their natural gate.

Accept this one is.. The pelvis is a vertical load bearing pelvis..Far different from a chimps. Please actually read and understand why we know Lucy was bipedal.. The source material explains this, including the PDF I gave you.. I didn't mention these things for giggles :/

They are natural knuckle walkers

Not this one. Though she could likely do both as we can..

Fred Spoors did cat scans of the inner ear of these creatures and found they did not have the equilibrium of humans who are true bipeds but had the equilibrium of great apes.

Umm sorry but you can not make such a determination via cat scan.. Please tell me you didn't seriously believe that :/ ..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_canals.html

And you seemed to quote mine that science work to suggest it meant Lucy's wasn't bipedal. Hence the canals alone do not determine this..

NovaPBS iN SEARCH OF HUMAN ORIGINS episode1 The Story Of Lucy tells the story of how Owen Lovejoy sawing the hip bone of Lucy into many pieces because he thought it looked to much like a chimp hip bone.

Conspiracy theory alert!. learn something about bone fusion under pressure.. And then learn that the fusion would have been anatomically incorrect and impossible even for a chimp.. It's kind of funny because you are basically claiming that they are so clever in their conspiracy / hoax that they tell you about it!...There are several problems with this claim btw,

1.) Take a look at the PDF.. Take a very good look at the PDF that discusses the pelvis..

2.) Turning a chimps pelvis turn into a vertical load bearing pelvis by breaking it up and making pieces fit isn't actually possible and have it be even remotely anatomically correct.

3.) It was quote mined out of context by creationists..Of course this is not a surprise!

http://northstatescience.wordpress.com/ ... n-a-fraud/

In Search of Human Origins episode just demonstrates how little they read the primary literature regarding human origins. Lovejoy described the Lucy pelvis reconstruction in detail in an American Journal of Physical Anthropology issue in 1979 and at a professional meeting that same year (a full 15 years before creationists would pull a few comments out of a public television show and spin a conspiracy around it). No one in the paleoanthropology community (or the greater public at large) was kept in the dark about the reconstruction – it was certainly common knowledge for anyone with any interest in the subject.

Second, reconstructing fossil fragments is a standard practice among those of us who study ancient bones. Bones fragment, get pushed together, become fossilized in place and must be pieced together to restore their original orientation (by the way, this is the same technique used by forensic anthropologists to reconstruct an individual’s identity – creationists don’t seem to have a problem with bone fragments being “reconstructed� to identify a murder victim). Further, creationists misrepresent what Lovejoy actually did. He did not “reshape the bone…in a vain attempt to make her more human�. He (and every other anatomist who looked at the fossils) realized the bone had been fossilized in an “anatomically impossible position� (emphasis added).(even for a chimp- yes I added this in) The documentary noted this, Lovejoy described this at professional meetings and in professional publications, and others have noted it. The only people who seem to ignore this fact are the creationists who are more interested in weaving a Darwinist conspiracy theory than understanding the nature of paleontological research. Lovejoy simply cut the broken parts out and re-fit them into the position they occupied at the time Lucy was alive.

If Lovejoy had fraudulently done so, it would have been the end of his career. Just like the other hoaxster caught by the science community. Yes, Creationists rely on the whole scientific community being one giant conspiracy.. It's actually pathetic that we have to sit here and debunk Creationist dishonesty, quote mining, ignorance, and pseudoscience. :/

But let us quote one of your own from the same source link from above:

article by Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Journal of Creation. What Murdock does, remarkably, is present a fairly accurate presentation of hominid locomotor capability based on fossil evidence. Moreover, he quite bluntly lambastes his fellow creationists for not reporting the fossil evidence honestly. Here are a few snippets from his article that are relevant to the discussion at hand:

Reading the popular literature (non technical papers), one would get the impression that there has only been one australopithecine pelvis found: the one belonging to A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’).Students sometimes get the notion that from this pelvis alone that australopithecine locomotion has been determined. The truth is there are several pelves belonging to australopithecines, some partial, some complete, and the evidence for australopithecine bipedality was establishedlong before the skeleton of Lucy was even discovered…

When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1) only. As such, some repair had to be done to this surface (see postscript)….

I have seen a few creationists claim that it was this restoration that gave Lucy her upright posture. It does not appear as if these people have studied the skeleton in any detail (even if only through the writings of others). For if they did, they would see that it is not just the pelvis of Lucy that makes her bipedal, but her entire skeleton. Curvature of the spine (lumbar lordosis), length and angulation of the femur and tibia/fibula, and the hand and foot skeleton all indicate bipedal locomotion…

Did Lovejoy’s restoration give Lucy a bipedal pelvis? No, she already had one. In fact, even if this damaged part of the pelvis had not been found, we could still determine Lucy’s posture and gait from the rest of her pelvis (and skeleton)…

OUCH! Curious, do you ever bother doing any fact checking before copy pasting creationist talking points that have been refuted countless of times?... And we are still waiting for you to discuss the formation of cognitive systems, and sensory systems.

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO THEJACKELANTER.

I think you are mistaking 1 meter for 1 mile.. It was all on the slope in the gully.. Can you post your source where it states the femur was found 1 mile away vs 1 meter? And as I search Creationist sites, I get all sorts of claims that range from 12 meters to 60-70 meters...Some claiming it was the knee, others the femur.. Now isn\'t that something interesting?

Let me show how you are wrong.

TALK ORIGINS
Claim CC003:

The knee of the "Lucy" fossil (the most complete Australopithecus afarensis fossil) was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton, so it cannot be used as evidence that Lucy walked upright. That evolutionists have never admitted this fact in print shows their dishonesty.

Source:
Willis, Tom. 1987. "'Lucy' goes to college," Bible-Science Newsletter (Oct.), 1-3.
Morris, John D. 1989. Was 'Lucy' an ape-man? Back to Genesis 11b (Nov.). http://web.archive.org/web/200410110632 ... g-011b.htm

Response:
1. The claim is false. The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee. A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim. 

2. Far from indicating evolutionist dishonesty, this claim shows how creationists fail to check their claims (Lippard 1999).

I find the above article in talk origins to be misleading in itself. As you can read for yourself, they accuse creationist of failing to check their claims, yet admit that the knee was indeed found 2-3 kilometers away. Whether or not these were two separate findings were separated by a year is a moot point and does not really help thier case. Talk origins in fact admits that Lucy did not have an intact knee, but the problem is, that the same knee found earlier was used to try to indicate that Lucy was bipedal.


Now Johnanson claims that he was quoted out of context at University of Missouri at Kansas City even though he now claims that he doesn't remember what he said, but nonetheless he tries to clarify. Fair enough. He is absolutely entitled to clarify. Now lets see what he actually does says below……….

In a letter to Jim Lippard from Donald Johansen
Mr. Jim Lippard
Department of Philosophy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Donald JohansonIn 1974, In November 1973, during my first major expedition to Hadar, I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap) at a locality numbered A.L. 128/129. All detailed anatomical analyses and biomechanical considerations of this joint indicate that the hominid possessing it, Australopithecus afarensis, was fully capable of upright bipedal posture and gait.
In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.

As you can see, he interpreted the knee to be fully capable of bipedal movement as well as believing that the proximal tibia of subsequent finding was close enough to indicate they were from the same creature, however the fact remains the same that even he admits that they were separated by 2-1/2 kilometers which is a little over a mile away and not a meter as you claim, and again full bipedal movements is disputed in the literature as I have already cited. Also keep in mind Johansens extrapolation was made long before Fred Spoors did scans of the inner ear of these creatures and determined that they had the equilibrium of non human great apes, not the equilibrium of modern humans who are fully bipedal.


1. You have also ignored that fact that owen Lovejoy had to saw the hip bone in order to make it fit a more human appearance.

Conspiracy theory alert!. learn something about bone fusion under pressure.. And then learn that the fusion would have been anatomically incorrect and impossible even for a chimp.

False. The citation already given clearly says that the hipbone resembled a chimpanzees, and that was in fact the problem. The only reason for Lovejoy to think the appearance to a chimp hip bone was superficial was because it didn't fit the picture they were looking for.

In fact now I challenge you to cite peer review article that the fusion would have been anatomically incorrect and impossible even for a chimp. Now your turn. And please be specific. Don't send anymore chaos theory videos. Cite relevant data according to this specific statment you made.

[Shermana]

Just a quick note, writing off observations of potential fraud like adding parts of unrelated species to another's skeleton (like may have been the case with the fins of the Rhodocetus, which is why the current drawings of the skeleton now remove the fins) as "Conspiracy Theory" is basically

a) Ignoring the fact that there is in fact such thing as fossil fraud, and that it is quite extensive and has even fooled numerous professional Paleontologists.

b) Thinking that this fossil fraud only applies to place outside of America, as if American scientists are immune to such a thing but foreign scientists aren't.

It is one thing to make claims of such, it is another to have evidence BACKING such claims.

[Thatguy]

Just a quick note, writing off observations of potential fraud like adding parts of unrelated species to another's skeleton (like may have been the case with the fins of the Rhodocetus, which is why the current drawings of the skeleton now remove the fins) as "Conspiracy Theory" is basically

a) Ignoring the fact that there is in fact such thing as fossil fraud, and that it is quite extensive and has even fooled numerous professional Paleontologists.

b) Thinking that this fossil fraud only applies to place outside of America, as if American scientists are immune to such a thing but foreign scientists aren't.

It is one thing to make claims of such, it is another to have evidence BACKING such claims.

Any fossil find could, theoretically, be a fraud. But it's one thing to claim it's a fraud and another having evidence backing that it's a fraud. It's also possible that fossils naturally have superimposed parts of different animals. It is possible that what some interpret as one type of feature is really something else. Which is why science has so many built in systems to analyze, re-check, and confirm findings. But when making accusations of fraud, there better be some good evidence. Otherwise, if one tries to dismiss all fossils that disagree with one's conclusions, one has all the indications of being a conspiracy theorist.

[Shermana]

I would say that using a bone that's found over a mile away and attaching it may just in fact be the same kind of fraud involved with most of the other known frauds. It has certainly happened before at least.

[TheJackelantern]

Let me show how you are wrong.

Do you know the difference between a knee and femur? And did you actually read Talkorigin's discussion on this? I suspect you hadn't bothered..

In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins [url]knee-joint FAQ file[/url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html] (Lippard 1997).

You have to love the dishonesty in Creationists arguments even after being told by one of their own of their dishonesty. So now it's not only the entire scientific community that is in on it, it's also anyone of their own too! Good talk!

I find the above article in talk origins to be misleading in itself. As you can read for yourself, they accuse creationist of failing to check their claims, yet admit that the knee was indeed found 2-3 kilometers away. Whether or not these were two separate findings were separated by a year is a moot point and does not really help thier case. Talk origins in fact admits that Lucy did not have an intact knee, but the problem is, that the same knee found earlier was used to try to indicate that Lucy was bipedal.

Misleading? Umm no it's not..Might help you to actually know something about the subject.

Now Johnanson claims that he was quoted out of context at University of Missouri at Kansas City even though he now claims that he doesn't remember what he said, but nonetheless he tries to clarify. Fair enough. He is absolutely entitled to clarify. Now lets see what he actually does says below……….

Quote mined is more like it.. A common tactic among creationists to quote mine out of context. You've yourself here several times in this discussion.

In a letter to Jim Lippard from Donald Johansen
Mr. Jim Lippard
Department of Philosophy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Donald JohansonIn 1974, In November 1973, during my first major expedition to Hadar, I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap) at a locality numbered A.L. 128/129. All detailed anatomical analyses and biomechanical considerations of this joint indicate that the hominid possessing it, Australopithecus afarensis, was fully capable of upright bipedal posture and gait.
In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.

your response:

As you can see, he interpreted the knee to be fully capable of bipedal movement as well as believing that the proximal tibia of subsequent finding was close enough to indicate they were from the same creature, however the fact remains the same that even he admits that they were separated by 2-1/2 kilometers which is a little over a mile away and not a meter as you claim, and again full bipedal movements is disputed in the literature as I have already cited. Also keep in mind Johansens extrapolation was made long before Fred Spoors did scans of the inner ear of these creatures and determined that they had the equilibrium of non human great apes, not the equilibrium of modern humans who are fully bipedal.

Yes they found a knee at the Lucy site.. It's also not impossible for such a thing to occur.. Animals by all means move bones around. And btw, there were scans done that also show many having human like canals.. Suggest you read talk origins on that issue.

1. You have also ignored that fact that owen Lovejoy had to saw the hip bone in order to make it fit a more human appearance.

You ignore that even your own creationist scientists understands what had been done and why.. Clearly you don't grasp this at all. If you are going to appeal to ignorance, I suggest learning something about the subject first.

False. The citation already given clearly says that the hipbone resembled a chimpanzees, and that was in fact the problem. The only reason for Lovejoy to think the appearance to a chimp hip bone was superficial was because it didn't fit the picture they were looking for.

And of course you ignore that you can't change a chimp pelvis bone into a human like pelvis. The source clear states it's anatomically impossible and why, as well as why it was a case of bone fusion..

In fact now I challenge you to cite peer review article that the fusion would have been anatomically incorrect and impossible even for a chimp.

I cited one of your own on that issue. How about you cite a peer review paper on exactly how the pelvis was magically transformed from a vertical load bearing pelvis to a chimp pelvis..

Now your turn. And please be specific. Don't send anymore chaos theory videos. Cite relevant data according to this specific statment you made.

This is common knowledge in paleontology .. They do this sort of thing a lot to fix bones fused.. Let's help you:

[youtube][/youtube]

You can have your conspiracy theories as they are worthless.. Let's get this straight, even the un-changed original pelvis was still a vertical human like load bearing pelvis and not a chimp pelvis.. I've asked you to seriously take a look at the PDF and the information provided and you did not bother. No, you just sat their trying to profess a conspiracy theory from a position of ignorance, or a position of intentional ignorance in an attempt to appeal to ignorance. Which is the case with you, well, I am unsure..

a) Ignoring the fact that there is in fact such thing as fossil fraud, and that it is quite extensive and has even fooled numerous professional Paleontologists.

b) Thinking that this fossil fraud only applies to place outside of America, as if American scientists are immune to such a thing but foreign scientists aren't.

Fossil frauds are easily caught, and they don't openly talk about what changes they make and why.. There is a reason why the creationist argument here is not only debunked, but a very bad claim on what was actually done to the pelvis and why.. If you knew anything at all on that subject, you wouldn't in any sort of honesty, be depositing that poor argument. And btw, it's a lie to say the frauds fooled the science community. Especially when it's the community that exposes them. Fruads don't last long.., and I suggest you prove this man an actual fraud before making such baseless claims found on creationist blogs..

[Autodidact]

Well, that's one way, probably the only way, to deal with the overwhelming evidence, not only from paleontology, but from genetics, anatomy, cladistics and every other source, that supports ToE. Just declare it all fraudulent. Don't bother supporting your claim, merely making it will be sufficient for people whose actual motivation to reject ToE is religious.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 350:

I can appreciate the gentlemen's sincerity but I would have been able to appreciate it even more if he and his colleagues had actually performed some scientific test on the evidence in question. Notice how this is missing from the response. He never claimed of doing any test as to put the question to an end. and what I find really interesting Joey is that you left out the very next paragraph. >to follow<

Just as I can 'preciate your sincerity in accepting the notions of this Cremo fellow. I'm still unable to find any credentials on him, and am reticent to accept the hypothesis of an unknown over a known.

In my mind, if mine only, this is at best a "draw", where no firm conclusions can or should be made.

One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible.

This is code word for we really dont want to get involved.

Is everything a conspiracy with you? Heck, this amateur looked at the image and I see only a superficial resemblance, especially when compared to other ancient prints.

Does THEMAYAN deny the men mentioned [Galileo and other ancients] were unaware of the ToE? My point is that you present these great men, godly as they were, as experts, while not understanding that they lived before the ToE and its mountains of evidence.

Maybe you should have read my response. I never said that they knew of neo Darwinism and even said that this debate was around even in their time.

I sure sensed an implication that since these men held to ancient thoughts they would not - could not - adjust their thinking to the evidence we have today.

There is no mountain of evidence for prokaryote to man evolution.

I'll retract my statement to "a reasonable and logical inference drawn from a mountain of data".

If you had read my earlier thread I said that there was plenty of evidence to support micro evolution & adaptation.

I don't remember you addressing such in other threads, but will try to update my thinking.

I don't even count out common ancestry among major species. What I do dispute is universal common ancestry.

How does that work?

Are you saying humans just poofed into existence fully formed, or do you accept a previous ancestor for H.s.s.?

No I don't. However, citing ancients as authorities regarding today is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

When did I do that? I wasn't the one who insinuated that they would all be neo Darwinist if they were alive today.

My insinuation is that referencing the ancients as authorities on today is goofy. I do agree you may have not implied such, but there it is. To say or imply that since the ancients thought one way, that they would still think that way today, is to consider them dogmatic non/adherents.

Joey maybe you should actually read all my responses.

I don't have time to read every post you make in these forums. I do at least read, in full, your replies to me, and typically the entirety of the first page of a link. If I misunderstand you, I 'pologize.

Especially my citations concerning soft tissue in T Rex fossils and as for you'res, when you get more data and possibly, could, should, maybe, then lets look it over critically the way it should be.

Is that not what we're doing now?

Whose "the way it should be" are we to follow?

Notice, in researching this soft tissue, I found data I felt pertinent to the discussion. That you don't find it pertinent is fine with me.

I cited mine and then you switch the goal post to a dino bird phylogeny. This seems to be the MO. You guys cant stick to one subject.

Please note, it was YOU who mentioned this soft tissue. In researching the issue (wiki came first and I'm pressed for time, and I note you don't object to what I did present), I found new data, and noted that that data implicated that this soft tissue still supports the ToE.

As to time scales, I contend such times are less important than the idea that evolution is taking place. Today, Yesterday, or a billion years ago.

You accuse me of not providing citations before I have chance to and then when I do you change the topic.

Please note, I requested this data. I can't help if you become upset that I would do so. I propose that if you are to make claims, presenting supporting documentation at such time may be prudent.

I reject the notion I'm "changing the topic". When new data arrives, the topic is liable to, and sometimes should shift. If I miss your point, I'm totally cool with you telling me so, and would 'preciate you reiterating your point.

If you want to argue a specific piece of evidence then stick to one subject at a time.

I'm fully capable of entertaining more than one topic, idea, or internet conversation at a time, and will not change my methodology just to bring one comfort.

I do not presuppose to know whether a topic is related directly and irrefutably to an OP, and will continue to debate in the manner I deem fit, to the best of my understanding of the rules of this site. I figure if a claimant makes claims, they consider those claims pertinent.

[Shermana]

Forget the T-Rex (though the T-rex findings are still notable), the Duck-billed dino from 2009 has strraight up blood vessels and cells and Collagen intact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... teins.html

[Autodidact]

Forget the T-Rex (though the T-rex findings are still notable), the Duck-billed dino from 2009 has strraight up blood vessels and cells and Collagen intact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... teins.html

So cool: The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue

What is your point?