Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

real life wrote:

Apparently, soft tissue has been found in several more instances.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm

"We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think," says Schweitzer. "Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place."

It doesn't change the age of the fossil, just a question of the process itself.

P

Well, naturally we wouldn't want to let any facts challenge accepted theory.

Poppycock. A number of theories are being reevaluated in light of Schweitzer's discoveries. That is what real science is about, it is how and why it works. Incidentally, Schweitzer did not claim to have found "dinosaur blood vesels", but rather to have discovered evidence of something not inconsistent with a type of vascular tissue today peculiar to ovulating birds, and something not inconsistent with hemeglobin-bearing cells. Here's an article discussing that, as well as shedding a bit more light on the find itself, the methodology of Schweitzer's research, and its relationship to and confirmation of earlier work.

Blood From A stone (Note: 6 page .pdf)

A teaser:

Quote:

... A pathologist attending her talk pointed out that the sample contained something that looked like red bloodcells. Callis returned the sample to Schweitzer, who peered at it through her microscope with amixture of heart-stopping wonder and complete disbelief. Horner was summoned; he askedSchweitzer if she thought she really had foundpreserved dinosaur blood cells. "No," she told him.

"Fine," he said. "Then prove that they're not." ...

Interesting that this incident you promote as a 'teaser' actually is from 15 years ago when the researcher was a grad student.

Schweitzer was examining a different sample, unrelated to the recent ones under discussion that have been identified as containing soft tissue.

Two brontosaurs on an ark -- must have been a really large ark. Noah would have to keep them on either side or we'd have had an ancient Poseidon Adventure.

One wonders what size you assume juvenile brontosaurs to have been. What about all the large species--all juveniles? That goes for all the ungulates, all the carnivores? And say, how did he deal with the rather understandable antipathy that grazing species would be likely to show for carnivores? If there were no evolutionary forces in action, what about the different varieties of buffaloes, of elephants, of rhinocerii? Two of each, remember--and in an awfully small vessel by any account. So all the birds just flew around for forty days, with nothing to eat? And all acquatic species just rose with the rising water (else they'd have been crushed by water pressure), and survived without any food for forty days?

Sayh, that reminds me--how did he feed all those critters? One think about such a silly story is the complete lack of imagination shown. Children, very small children, might fall for such claptrap . . .

real life wrote:

Interesting that this incident you promote as a 'teaser' actually is from 15 years ago when the researcher was a grad student.

Schweitzer was examining a different sample, unrelated to the recent ones under discussion that have been identified as containing soft tissue.

real life,

What is your interpretation of the soft tissue?

Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present

I think it makes it very difficult to suppose that these bones are 60-80 million years old.

Lightwizard wrote:

Two brontosaurs on an ark -- must have been a really large ark. Noah would have to keep them on either side or we'd have had an ancient Poseidon Adventure.

Why do you assume that they had to be full grown?

For many practical reasons (space, food, managability, cleanup, breeding ), it would have been possible and reasonable to have younger, immature representatives of the larger species on board.

Noah's Flood
One of the evolutionists' arguments against the Bible is that they do not see where the water for the world wide flood in Genesis could have come from. At first, this seems like a valid argument, but I believe the Bible has an answer. This is of course only a theory, based on what the Bible says, but that is not a valid reason to reject it until other evidence is found. In Genesis 1:6, God divided the waters into two groups, those above the firmament, and those below the firmament, the firmament being the heavens. My interpretation of this, and that of Henry Morris, is that there was some water on the earth, but also a great deal in vapor form in the upper layer of the atmosphere, much more than is in the atmosphere today. This would have had a large greenhouse effect on the earth the flood, creating a warm, mild climate. The rest of the water would have been mostly stored in springs and rivers under the earth, but with some streams and such on the surface providing water for the people, plants, and animals. At the time of the flood, Genesis 7 says that the floodgates of the deep, which implies to me the underground waters, and the windows of heaven, which implies the clouds of water vapor, were opened up, releasing the water and flooding the earth. The next question the evolutionists would ask, is where did that water go? I believe it is still here, in our oceans and lakes. I believe the weight of all that water forced up mountains and down valleys, creating all the formations we see today. I also find it interesting that Genesis 7:19 says "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered" and then in Genesis 8:5 says "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." Notice the change from hills to mountains. That's not really a strong enough difference to prove my theory, but it is interesting.

10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. (10:12-13)
In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.