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?
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
...
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes.
Please present an example for analysis.
In the book Forbidden archeology Michael Cremo documents hundreds of different out of place artifacts that have been rejected and written off without proper study. Also look at the story of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her career was ruined just for telling the truth based on the scientific methods she was trained to use.
Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian.
According to Ernest C. Conrad Author of (Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks)
According to Ernest C. Conrad Author of (Tripping Over a Trilobite: Who is also cited in (talk origins) A Study of the Meister Tracks)According to evolutionary chronology, man did not appear on the scene until a half billion years after trilobites became extinct. If these prints prove to be valid, historical geology has another serious problem to solve.
I did not contact the other "fairly academic institution," U.C.L.A, because I could see, by studying the creationist photograph of the alleged "bootprint," that it resembled a print only superficially, much as the "Man in the Mountain" in New Hampshire superficially resembles a human face.
Notice that all this was extrapolated by looking at a photograph and not even wanting to go further by looking at the actual physical footprints. He like Glen Kuban arbitrarily decided that it was only a circumstance of superficial appearance. And now this is cited as the official opinion. Matter closed!! I thought you were supposed to study measure and test the actual physical evidence before coming to a conclusion.
THEMAYAN wrote:
You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
You are aware that all those folks died before the formulation of the ToE, ain'tcha?
What does that have to do with anything? These were great scientist who believed in God and that he created everything and these men made great contributions to science. Many scientist today still go to church and believe that God created everything. In fact there are even some who are even theistic evolutionist. Your ToE response is a moot point. You have no evidence that they would have believed any different today. And may I add that this debate between telic origin and naturism was going on many centuries before Darwin. We can trace this debate going back to ancient Greeks.
Many of Darwin's ideas including natural selection were not his original ideas. These men were fully aware of the argument even in there time. Furthermore Darwin nor anybody else was able to provide empirical evidence for this theory and if you don't understand what empirical evidence means, then I suggest you look it up. I think it makes more sense to believe that the modern observation of a fine tuned universe would only furthermore validate their beliefs.
THEMAYAN wrote:
We have also found 2 million year anatomically correct human foot prints.
Please present documentation for analysis.
The 3.6 million year old Laetoli prints. They are indistinguishable from modern humans and do not show the arboreal features of australopithecine. But again since man living 3.6 million years ago would destroy the theory, then of course they have to belong to a Lucy like creature.
THEMAYAN wrote:
The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours.
Hopefully you'll present documentation as requested, and we can put these folks on the good path.
OK......
New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]). *Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys"
Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313):
"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
Most evolutionists, including Johanson, insist that the footprints that Mary Leaky uncovered in "3 million year old" strata in Latoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from those of modern man.
I am told that no australopithecine we know anything about could have made the Laetoli footprints, because even australopithecines which are much younger than the Laetoli footprints have clear apelike features. The only possible upright walker, A. afarensis, is known to have had a chimp foot with an opposable toe. One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure." (Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1977, p. 77)
THEMAYAN wrote:
We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
Please present documentation for analysis.
If I have to cite everything for you then is seems you haven't done your own homework. Soft tissue in dinos is now pretty common knowledge.
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
Mary Higby Schweitzer,1,2,3* Zhiyong Suo,4 Recep Avci,4 John M. Asara,5,6 Mark A. Allen,7 Fernando Teran Arce,4,8 John R. Horner3
T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
March 24, 2005
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.
All I see is a bunch of assertions with absolutely no supporting data.
Well you do now. And its one shot of Patron not Petron. You cant even seem to get that right. On this, please take my word for it. After all I am THEMAYAN.
_________________
151 Ways to Die (modified)
1 shot Bacardi 151 Rum
1 shot Evan Williams Sourmash
1 shot White Lightnin'
1 shot Petron Silver Tequila
First off, this was directed at Pax (You have already failed at addressing how it happened, and I don't like to continually hear repeated claims that don't address the question).
Secondly, readers please note that THEMAYAN makes an assertion that the forms just appear without any how being noted like has been requested twice now.
This is not just an assertion. This based on the observable evidence. The fact that animals appear abruptly in the fossil record and then go through long periods of stasis with little change was also cited by Gould and Eldredge and this why they proposed punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately PE only raises more questions than answers, but what else can you do when the evidence doesn't fit the theory? Why would you put the burden on pax or myself? If the emperor wears no clothes then the emperor wears no clothes. It's not our obligation to dress him. As I said before concerning the the exact details, the answer is nobody knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we just don't know yet instead of trying to spoon feed people a bunch of BS based on metaphysical naturalism.
In the book Forbidden archeology Michael Cremo documents hundreds of different out of place artifacts that have been rejected and written off without proper study. Also look at the story of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her career was ruined just for telling the truth based on the scientific methods she was trained to use.
Fail to comply... That was like reading a fake testimony and the video was like watching an infomercial.. You must really think people are stupid here... And what comes out as your sample? Oh the giant conspiracy theory!
Notice that all this was extrapolated by looking at a photograph and not even wanting to go further by looking at the actual physical footprints. He like Glen Kuban arbitrarily decided that it was only a circumstance of superficial appearance. And now this is cited as the official opinion. Matter closed!! I thought you were supposed to study measure and test the actual physical evidence before coming to a conclusion.
There is no evidence it's even a foot print. You can see that the opposite plate fills the gap.. This reminds me to the creationists claiming dinosaur paintings in a cave nonsense.. Sorry Glen Kuban's is the official opinion? Since when? He look, we have fossilized hearts from giants! :
Please tell us how they determined this was a foot print..
What does that have to do with anything? These were great scientist who believed in God and that he created everything and these men made great contributions to science. Many scientist today still go to church and believe that God created everything. In fact there are even some who are even theistic evolutionist. Your ToE response is a moot point. You have no evidence that they would have believed any different today. And may I add that this debate between telic origin and naturism was going on many centuries before Darwin. We can trace this debate going back to ancient Greeks.
Scientists tend to like more information... Are you saying they would all ignore it like you and cling to a loose conspiracy theory?
Furthermore Darwin nor anybody else was able to provide empirical evidence for this theory and if you don't understand what empirical evidence means, then I suggest you look it up.
Snakes once having legs, Atavism, twitching lizards are a perfect example of natural selection, lizards growing longer legs, city birds developing shorter wings, dogs, whale evolution, and even a human with a reptile heart are prefect examples disproving your case:
You might want to learn what Atavism is or why human have tailbones.. And of course you revert back to ignoring all the evidence, and any evidence that shows you wrong is suddenly a conspiracy, oh that's disputable, or not evidence at all.. Kind of like your ignorance of atoms and chemistry to where you can't seem to understand that all live is made of non-life..
And btw, here are some other possibilities of how life began without the need of a highly complex magic man in the sky to which creationists can not seem to address in terms of complexity and how cognitive systems formed..:
And yes TheMayan, you are not able to honestly address how did conscious entities come be, or how cognitive systems came to be.. Please explain to us how complexity of life requires a conscious being that can't exist either without being slave to require the same mechanisms, causes, and principles?... You avoid this like the PLAGUE!!! Nor have you provided any evidence of the need for intelligent design..
But lets play along here and assume for argument sake that evolution is all wrong and everything just popped into existence all at once.. What then? You have any evidence of intelligence existing? NOPE! In fact you will need to explain how intelligence can exist at all and how without needing to be bound to the same things you are claiming to be a conspiracy... I don't believe for one second that you grasp at all as to why your argument is a total self-refutation that literally in itself proves evolutionary principles and mechanisms.. Maybe you can explain to us how consciousness can exist without cause.
I think it makes more sense to believe that the modern observation of a fine tuned universe would only furthermore validate their beliefs.
Incorrect.. It makes more sense that reality itself tunes itself.. Your argument is like suggesting you magic pixie fairy doesn't need reality to exist, or any sort of cause. The magic consciousness that doesn't need a cognitive system, sensory system, or an open complex adaptive system with feedback in order to even have the conscious level of a flipping flea.. To say the universe is fine tuned? Sure, it tunes itself. Reality doesn't need you or any conscious being to exist..Nor does the emergence of complexity require you, or any conscious being to be possible...You are in fact an emergent property of it, and not the other way around.
The 3.6 million year old Laetoli prints. They are indistinguishable from modern humans and do not show the arboreal features of australopithecine. But again since man living 3.6 million years ago would destroy the theory, then of course they have to belong to a Lucy like creature.
Let's look into this.. This has to do with bipedal walking.. You do not find modern human skulls dating to this period or found in these layers. Of course you ignore that little problem. But lets look shall we? :
Wiki:
Before the discovery of the footprints found at Laetoli there was much debate as to what developed first in the evolutionary time line: a larger brain or bipedalism. The finding by Mary Leakey and her team of these footprints therefore settled the issue proving that the hominids found at Laetoli were fully bipedal before the evolution of the modern human brain, and were even bipedal close to a million years before the earliest stone tools.[4] The prints are classified as belonging to Australopithecus afarensis.
In 1997, while examining more boxes of bones from Sterkfontein, Clarke found, over the space of about two weeks, another 8 leg and foot bones from the same individual. Because one of the bone fragments had a clean break that looked as though it could have been caused by miners blasting, Clarke suspected that more bones from the same individual might still be inside the cave. He asked two of the Sterkfontein preparators to search for a matching piece of bone in the exposed breccia surfaces of the cave. Amazingly, they found it, after two days of searching by the light of hand-held lamps. Further excavations found some more bones, and exposed the left side of a complete skull. The state of preservation and positioning of the bones already found indicated that a significant amount of the rest of the skeleton is probably still inside the rock, waiting to be extracted. (Clarke 1998)
Stw 573 hand By a year later, the bones of an almost complete arm and hand had been exposed, though not yet excavated from the rock. Clarke is very confident that more of the skeleton, including the pelvis and spine, remain inside the rock and can be retrieved. The skeleton was originally thought to be between 3.0 and 3.5 million years old. Partridge et al. (2003) claimed an age of 4 million years, which if correct would make Stw 573 one of the oldest known australopithecine fossils, and easily the oldest from South Africa. Walker et al. (2006) have determined an age of 2.2 million years.
The hand bones of Stw 573 seem to be like those of modern humans in being relatively unspecialized, having a short palm and fingers compared to modern apes. They lack the long, strong fingers used by chimps and gorillas for knucklewalking, and the elongation of the hand found in the highly arboreal gibbons and orang-utans. However the phalange (finger) bones which are visible from the side are curved like those of the Australopithecus afarensis skeleton Lucy, indicating they were probably used in climbing.
Additionally, Clarke considers that the feet of Stw 573 are a very good match for the 3.7 million year old footprint trails discovered at Laetoli by Mary Leakey's team.
Clarke points out (1998) that not only has this fossil yielded the most complete australopithecine skull yet found, it has been found in association with the most complete set of foot and leg bones known so far
The earliest footprints showing evidence of modern human foot anatomy and gait have been unearthed in Kenya.
The 1.5-million-year-old footprints display signs of a pronounced arch and short, aligned toes, in contrast to older footprints.
The size and spacing of the Kenyan markings - attributed to Homo erectus - reflect the height, weight, and walking style of modern humans.
The findings have been published in the journal Science.
The footprints are not the oldest belonging to a member of the human lineage. That title belongs to the 3.7 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis prints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, in 1978.
And These references:
Clarke R.J. and Tobias P.V. (1995): Sterkfontein member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid. Science, 269:521-4.
Clarke R.J. (1998): First ever discovery of a well-preserved skull and associated skeleton of Australopithecus. South African Journal of Science, 94:460-4.
Clarke R.J. (1999): Discovery of the complete arm and hand of the 3.3 million-year-old Australopithecus skeleton from Sterkfontein. South African Journal of Science, 95:477-80.
Partridge T.C., Granger D.E., Caffee M.W., and Clarke R.J. (2003): Lower Pliocene hominid remains from Sterkfontein. Science, 300:607-12.
Oliwenstein L. (1995): New foot steps into walking debate. Science, 269:476-7. (Commentary on Clarke and Tobias 1995)
Walker, J., Cliff, R.A., Latham, A.G. (2006): U-Pb Isotopic Age of the StW 573 Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Science, 314:1592-4.
Links
Fossil find could rewrite human history, from BBC News, December 1998
African ape-man's hand unearthed, from BBC News, December 1999
The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours.
Depends on what features you are talking about. Is a transitional form now suddenly not supposed to have similar features? My goodness, make up your mind! You are literally all over the place here..
New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]). *Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys"
Really? That proves just about nothing...I do believe we come from "Ape like"..We are apart of the great apes you know. Was lucy supposed to have modern human hands? Seems you don't know how this works.. :/ But here is the skeleton:
Btw, I am curious how they made that observation giving they seemed to be missing from this photo of all the bones found. :/
And lets get some other sources, you know, not the testimonial infomercial kind or some blog conspiracy theory kind:
Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313):
"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis).
That's pretty deceptive...Nor does it establish it or Lucy as being incapable of being bipedal.
Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)
So are humans.. I did a lot of that as a child. Have you even ever played on the Monkeybars as a kid? Again, nothing here to see folks.. Nor does a trait in a transitional form need to be specific to bipedality.. Hell we call all crawl even..
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
I fail to see where his computer analysis shows this.. It has been reported that Dr. Oxnard found the "sophisticated computer analysis" quote quite amusing. It was just a multivariate analysis, something that is taught to every Psychology student. Dr. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a small number of bones, most of them fragmentary. Nevertheless, he did conclude that australopithecines probably were bipedal (walked upright), unlike modern apes.
Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus.
Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner".
Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that "Australopithecus afarensis ... demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking" is dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other "Australopithicine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk upright."
Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "may have been knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, and A. afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before Lucy had been studied).
Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been largely abandoned. In what is obviously a fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.
Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality. Gish's conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else:
Most evolutionists, including Johanson, insist that the footprints that Mary Leaky uncovered in "3 million year old" strata in Latoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from those of modern man.
LOL.. see foot print images above. And LOL to the rest of that nonsense.. Talk about posting trash! :/
We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
No they didn't.. Nothing was soft until the hydrated it.
If I have to cite everything for you then is seems you haven't done your own homework. Soft tissue in dinos is now pretty common knowledge.
After said process you continue to ignore.. Learn something about honest discourse, or learn to actually read what someone wrote and references before making a post on the subject.
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
Mary Higby Schweitzer,1,2,3* Zhiyong Suo,4 Recep Avci,4 John M. Asara,5,6 Mark A. Allen,7 Fernando Teran Arce,4,8 John R. Horner3
The researchers disproved conventional wisdom with this investigation. They showed that structural materials containing protein and polysaccharides, such as the chitin-protein complex, can endure for millions of years inside arthropod fossils.
In their study, the researchers analyzed the absorption spectra of low-energy X-rays reflected by carbon, oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the fossils. The Advanced Light Source facility was used for this job.
The study found the chitin-protein complex to be a bit degraded, through chemical processes or maybe through partial bacterial degradation. In either case, the work proved that the complex can endure for prolonged periods of time.
Awesome!.. Where is the next GAP for GOD?....
T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
March 24, 2005
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.
That's great.. just like the protein!. And lets not forget these are microscopic samples.. And there is more:
Because the prevailing scientific theory links dinosaurs and birds from an evolutionary standpoint, Schweitzer and her team compared their samples to the bones of a dead ostrich. They found the samples to be similar. When viewed with a scanning electron microscope, the dinosaur's cortical bone -- the dense part of the bone -- was almost indistinguishable from the ostrich's.
These aren't the only discoveries to have come from these particular fragments of T. rex bone. In a later paper, Schweitzer and her co-authors announced that they had found medullary bone [source: Schweitzer, 6/3/2005]. Medullary bone is a type of bone female birds use to store calcium for making eggshells. Birds have this bone only when producing eggs -- so the T. rex was apparently female, pregnant and in some ways like a bird.
And well, where does the protein bit come in? Well, here:
The medullary bone was visible to the naked eye, but a later discovery from the sample wasn't. In 2007, Schweitzer and six co-authors announced that analysis of the sample had revealed presence of collagen, a protein that's a major component of bones and soft tissue. The team used a mass spectrometer, a device that analyzes the mass of atoms and particles with magnetic fields, to confirm the protein's presence [source: Schweitzer, 1997].
And we have this!:
By 2008, the team was isolating amino acid sequences from the sample and comparing them to living organisms. What they found in the T. rex bone was similar to today's chickens. The researchers, this time led by Chris L. Organ, used the same techniques on a mastodon fossil and found it similar to today's elephants [source: Organ].
And this:
After isolating some of the fragmented amino acid chains, the team compared them to the amino acids of living animals. They found three chains that were similar to those found in chickens and two that were comparable to newts and frogs [source: Johnson].
There is one critic however...:
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.
The fact that animals appear abruptly in the fossil record and then go through long periods of stasis with little change was also cited by Gould and Eldredge and this why they proposed punctuated equilibrium.
Please provide a peer reviewed paper.. Far as I we can tell, stasis is a rare thing.. You are also quote mining punctuated equilibrium out of context since it mostly deals with an unchanging environment over long periods of time.. And you seem to be trying to apply this to all life. In that case bird shouldn't be evolving shorter wings in cities. Oops!.. And of course you reside on the fact that marine fossilization means little change of getting a complete fossil record, and of course ignoring the pre-cambrian transitional fossils with loose denial arguments..
Unfortunately PE only raises more questions than answers, but what else can you do when the evidence doesn't fit the theory?
Incorrect.. All the evidence fits the theory.. All you are doing is trying to play a GAPS argument in a very poor attempt to suggest it doesn't.. Mostly with very poor sources that appeal to ignorance and provide no real data.. Seriously, animals need legs and be a certain size to be animals or living? Really?..
Why would you put the burden on pax or myself? If the emperor wears no clothes then the emperor wears no clothes. It's not our obligation to dress him. As I said before concerning the the exact details, the answer is nobody knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we just don't know yet instead of trying to spoon feed people a bunch of BS based on metaphysical naturalism.
This is just pleading, and swearing is against the rules. Btw, naturalism is the only possible answer giving metaphysics or any sort of conscious entity can not possibly exist without cause. Sorry son but cognitive systems, and sensory systems, or anything reliant on them are the worst examples you can try to provide us as something necessary for the existence of anything of lesser complexity... That little problem you quite frankly need to ignore..
Really? That proves just about nothing...I do believe we come from "Ape like"..We are apart of the great apes you know. Was lucy supposed to have modern human hands? Seems you don't know how this works.. :/ But here is the skeleton:
What you need to ask your self is how Johansen was able to deduce that Lucy was bipedal and an ancestor of man from these same scant fragments, and remember he made this assertion long before subsequent fossils were discovered. He also admits that he found the femur 1 mile away and that pieces that didn't fit had to be sawed and strewn back together.
Lucy is a specimen that represents Australopithecus afarensis and since the first discovery, subsequent fossils have been found since the original 1974 finding. Anthropologist commonly refer to Australopithecus afarensis as Lucy as in example below......and also remember when I spoke of the Laetoli tracks I said a Lucy like creature.
Will Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York:
“Although he agrees that A. afarensis had some arching, it may have lacked the most important arching on the inside of the foot. Lucy's fingers and toes also were more curved than those of living humans and her shoulder was more apelike—traits useful for tree-climbing.�
again this is based on subsequent findings.
Lucy was not ancestral to man.
Stephen Tomkins (1998). The Origins of Humankind. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521466768.
No they didn't.. Nothing was soft until the hydrated it.
Soft tissue does not mean moist tissue. Thats just plain silly.
And the dino to bird hypothesis is a different subject. If you would like to speak of that then thats fine. I was asked to give citations and I did. If soft tissue in Dinos doesn't impress you then so what. It shocked the scientific community.
After isolating some of the fragmented amino acid chains, the team compared them to the amino acids of living animals. They found three chains that were similar to those found in chickens and two that were comparable to newts and frogs [source: Johnson].
Is anyone claiming that because they found frog and newt amino acids that that T Rex evolved into a salamander or frog?
Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.
The problem with this study is that they did not do any studies on specific samples recovered by Shweitzer, and no one including Shwietzer contends that contamination cannot occur. She is only maintaining that her samples are not a result of contamination and do contain soft tissue & proteins and blood cells. Even you admitted yet tried to marginalize this fact with your comment.....
No they didn't.. Nothing was soft until the hydrated it.
Please provide a peer reviewed paper.. Far as I we can tell, stasis is a rare thing.. You are also quote mining punctuated equilibrium out of context since it mostly deals with an unchanging environment over long periods of time.. And you seem to be trying to apply this to all life. In that case bird shouldn't be evolving shorter wings in cities. Oops!.. And of course you reside on the fact that marine fossilization means little change of getting a complete fossil record, and of course ignoring the pre-cambrian transitional fossils with loose denial arguments..
Your a trip man. Stasis means unchanging period. You did not provide any example of pre cambrian phyla and you only cited phyla that appeared after the radiation event occurred & If you had bothered doing your homework for yourself you would have known that even these examples are disputed in the literature. You have provided no examples of wings getting shorter but if they did that is due to a loss of genetic information not a gain. Its called devolution.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
(1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
(2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'
Models in paleobiology, 1972 - somosbacteriasyvirus.com
Im tired of doing your homework for you. Most people already understand these terms and hypothesis. If you don't, then you have no business trying to debate the issue.
What you need to ask your self is how Johansen was able to deduce that Lucy was bipedal and an ancestor of man from these same scant fragments, and remember he made this assertion long before subsequent fossils were discovered. He also admits that he found the femur 1 mile away and that pieces that didn't fit had to be sawed and strewn back together.
Please provide evidence of your claim... BTW.. we only really need to look at the pelvis to give us the biggest clues as to whether or not it was possible for lucy to be bipedal as the ball-socket and the ligament marks will be your biggest clues. You can also look at the type of ball-joint on the femur to determine how much freedom of movement there was. Another thing you failed to mention was that this Skeleton was found on a slope.. So finding the femur 1 mile down slope isn't impossible.. and now I would like you to prove to us the highlighted part of your argument, and then show us how you determined Lucy was unable to walk upright..Even chimps can do this, and Lucy would have looked a lot like a chimp..
Other source:
However, a recently discovered fossil specimen known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis from Chad, dating to approximately 7 Ma, shows a more inferiorly positioned foramen magnum consistent with bipedalism, rather than a more dorsal placement seen in modern quadrupeds.27,28 There is no post-cranial material associated with Sahelanthropus, but if proven to be bipedal, Sahelanthropus may substantiate the hypothesis that the evolution of habitually bipedal hominins was initiated by climate trends beginning in the late Miocene (i.e., a geologic epoch that dates between 23 and 5.3 Ma).
spoke of the Laetoli tracks I said a Lucy like creature.
You mean a Great Ape like Creature...Something we should expect to see. And do not the foot prints show no sign of having used the hands for locomotion.. The foot prints are no-where near a problem for TOE..And the biggest argument creationists made was to try and hijack them and claim they showed no difference between modern man and the Ape man that made them because they need to try and show that man had always existed throughout to try and say the earth is only 6000 years old.
again this is based on subsequent findings.
Again not relevant for determining bipedal.. The arching ect is not an issue for TOE.. Again are you expecting Lucy to look exactly like a modern human? I fail to see your point here.
Lucy was not ancestral to man.
Stephen Tomkins (1998). The Origins of Humankind. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521466768.
Again I fail to see how the determined this given the pelvis bone alone disproves that argument entirely. Including the jaw bone and teeth. Can you tell us how they determined this to have no relevance to the evolution of the great apes?
Soft tissue does not mean moist tissue. Thats just plain silly.
No, the tissue wasn't soft.. And to be soft means having water and other fluids.. They literally had to chemically treat it to get to become pliable..
And the dino to bird hypothesis is a different subject. If you would like to speak of that then thats fine. I was asked to give citations and I did. If soft tissue in Dinos doesn't impress you then so what. It shocked the scientific community.
So what if it shocked the scientific world.. Awesome in my point of view.. But hardly an argument for establishing "ID"...Or that TOE is magically wrong. Maybe I am missing something note worthy there in your argument?
Is anyone claiming that because they found frog and newt amino acids that that T Rex evolved into a salamander or frog?
Wow, you really don't get it do you?. This shows a much further back record of common decent..Hence, it fits what we expect to see if TOE is true.
The problem with this study is that they did not do any studies on specific samples recovered by Shweitzer, and no one including Shwietzer contends that contamination cannot occur.
There is an airplane flying over your head atm..
She is only maintaining that her samples are not a result of contamination and do contain soft tissue & proteins and blood cells. Even you admitted yet tried to marginalize this fact with your comment.....
Well, has anyone posted a paper that disproves her yet? Nope. Was it possible that pond scum contaminated it? Maybe, but that wouldn't be a problem for TOE now would it? Neither case should be shown would invalidate TOE. I posted the critic for a reason.. But most importantly I posted why finding proteins isn't a problem, but you seemed to have missed that part.. :/
JoeyKnothead wrote:
And if you could find a rabbit in the Cambrian, you'd stop the ToE in its tracks.
No, that would not be enough. We have already found many anomalies in oop art that could stop ToE in its tracks, but what neo Darwinist do is just claim that they are hoaxes.
Of course. It can't be that scientists are honestly looking at the evidence.
THEMAYAN wrote:
In the book Forbidden archeology Michael Cremo documents hundreds of different out of place artifacts that have been rejected and written off without proper study. Also look at the story of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her career was ruined just for telling the truth based on the scientific methods she was trained to use.
I'm unable to find any credentials on this Cremo fellow. Also, from the link, I see these Clovis points dating to 70,000 years, not indicative of Cremo's claims of humans living millions of years in the past.
THEMAYAN wrote:
Thats how the deal works. In fact someone actually did find trilobites on the bottom of fossilized sandals. He tried to tell anyone who would listen but the experts wrote them off before they even saw the evidence. The refutation was that they must be a hoax because everyone knows humans were not around during the Cambrian era and after all the guy was a Christian.
On the Meister track/s...
Nation Center for Science Education wrote:
I asked Reverend Boswell what scientific evidence he had and what institutions established that the bootprint was real. He answered, "It was the University of Utah and U.C.L.A. and I have forgotten the third. These two are fairly academic institutions. They are familiar with the specimens."
Following his lead, I wrote to the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah—a "fairly academic institution." I received a letter in return which said:
The "footprint" in question was collected by a man named Meister several years ago, and it was immediately jumped on by Melvin Cook, who is not a paleontologist, as evidence of human-trilobite cohabitation.
I have seen the specimen in question and it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi.
To reiterate, the trilobite is genuine, the footprint is not.
I was referred to an article by Professor William Stokes of the Department of Geological Sciences. Dr. Stokes wrote:
I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.
The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.
But, of course, the folks who are actually trained to examine these things are part of a grand conspiracy.
THEMAYAN wrote:
You know, those guys like Newton,Mendel,Pasture,Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
You are aware that all those folks died before the formulation of the ToE, ain'tcha?
What does that have to do with anything? These were great scientist who believed in God and that he created everything and these men made great contributions to science.
Does THEMAYAN deny the men mentioned 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.
THEMAYAN wrote:
Many scientist today still go to church and believe that God created everything. In fact there are even some who are even theistic evolutionist. Your ToE response is a moot point. You have no evidence that they would have believed any different today.
No I don't. However, citing ancients as authorities regarding today is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.
THEMAYAN wrote:
And may I add that this debate between telic origin and naturism was going on many centuries before Darwin. We can trace this debate going back to ancient Greeks.
Before Darwin.
THEMAYAN wrote:
Many of Darwin's ideas including natural selection were not his original ideas. These men were fully aware of the argument even in there time. Furthermore Darwin nor anybody else was able to provide empirical evidence for this theory and if you don't understand what empirical evidence means, then I suggest you look it up. I think it makes more sense to believe that the modern observation of a fine tuned universe would only furthermore validate their beliefs.
I don't doubt you'd find a "fine tuned" universe to comply with evolutionary theory, given the theory essentially states that what can't survive wont. IOW, a "fine tuned" lifeform.
THEMAYAN wrote:
The 3.6 million year old Laetoli prints. They are indistinguishable from modern humans and do not show the arboreal features of australopithecine. But again since man living 3.6 million years ago would destroy the theory, then of course they have to belong to a Lucy like creature.
The Neo Darwinst simply say that they must be from australopithecine, even though their feet had arboreal features and looked nothing like ours.
...we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion.
...australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape
...The only possible upright walker, A. afarensis, is known to have had a chimp foot with an opposable toe.
None of this precludes a bipedal hominid from making these prints. I would agree that calling these the prints of an australopithicene may be in error.
THEMAYAN wrote:
We have also found dinosaurs with soft tissue and intact blood cells that are supposed to be 70 million years old.
JoeyKnothead wrote:
Please present documentation for analysis.
If I have to cite everything for you then is seems you haven't done your own homework. Soft tissue in dinos is now pretty common knowledge.
I do not presuppose what data you may find pertinent to your claims.
THEMAYAN wrote:
...
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind.
Wikipedia: Tyrannosaurus Soft Tissue wrote:
Subsequent studies in April 2008 confirmed the close connection of Tyrannosaurus rex to modern birds. Postdoctoral biology researcher Chris Organ at Harvard University announced, "With more data, they would probably be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches."
Still a case for the ToE.
THEMAYAN wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:
All I see is a bunch of assertions with absolutely no supporting data.
Well you do now.
And I 'preciate ya for it.
THEMAYAN wrote:
And its one shot of Patron not Petron.
I seem to confuse the e and a good bit. I spelled it how I say it, please do accept my 'pology.
THEMAYAN wrote:
You cant even seem to get that right.
You don't know the half of it. Ever been married?
THEMAYAN wrote:
On this, please take my word for it. After all I am THEMAYAN.
I'm so proud for ya I could bust.
(tag edit)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
You are also quote mining punctuated equilibrium out of context since it mostly deals with an unchanging environment over long periods of time.
Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare andgeologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another
Gould, Stephen Jay, & Eldredge, Niles (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered
Where in the definition does it mention environment?
Another thing you failed to mention was that this Skeleton was found on a slope.. So finding the femur 1 mile down slope isn't impossible.. and now I would like you to prove to us the highlighted part of your argument, and then show us how you determined Lucy was unable to walk upright..Even chimps can do this, and Lucy would have looked a lot like a chimp..
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.
Yes I agree, Lucy was chimp like.
When did I say the Lucy was unable to walk upright? Yes Chimps can walk upright but its not their natural gate. They are natural knuckle walkers
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.
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. He then reassembled them back to look more like a human. You can also find it here...
The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.
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.
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.
Does THEMAYAN deny the men mentioned 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. There is no mountain of evidence for prokaryote to man evolution. If you had read my earlier thread I said that there was plenty of evidence to support micro evolution & adaptation. I don't even count out common ancestry among major species. What I do dispute is universal common ancestry.
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.
Joey maybe you should actually read all my responses. 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. 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. You accuse me of not providing citations before I have chance to and then when I do you change the topic. If you want to argue a specific piece of evidence then stick to one subject at a time.
