Dinosaur flesh

[Loredoctor]

This is interesting:

www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

A Baptist friend and myself just got into an argument about this article. I find it amusing that Christians are rallying to this, stating that 'the theory of evolution is wrong' and that 'the earth cannont be millions of years old'. Well, according to the findings, Creationism is wrong. And here's my logic:

They excavated the bones from beneath the ground. The paleontologists reason that, due to the position of the bones under the earth (strata, etc) that the fossil is at least 65 millions years of age. The christians comes along and claim that because the state of the bones are so good, and that the flesh inside is fresh (intact capillaries, blood cells, and pliable matter), the bones cannot be 65 millions years old - it must be sooner. And that's my problem. Sooner.

Judging by the state of the bones, there is no way that the dinosaur can have died more than a few months ago. So is the Earth only a year old? According to Creationists, the Earth is only a few thousand years old. If dinosaurs existed thousands of years ago then the bone would not be fresh. Of course, it can be argued that the dinosaur died recently. But that's the catch: it died recently AND got buried under earth that was compacted to make it appear it was 65 million years old.

My main point is that we have to either accept that both Creationism and Evolution (65millions years + old) are wrong or that the bones were simply preserved through some unique process. If the latter is the case, then we are back to square one: either creationism or evolution.

[Fist and Faith]

You've put your finger right on the problem that comes along when people try to use such things to prove or disprove religious beliefs. No matter what physical evidence is presented, those who want to believe that particular form of Creationism ("According to Creationists" is not the best way to say it), will continue to believe it. Yes, some say that God made it look like things are millions and billions of years old, to see if we could still have faith that they are not. And no matter what evidence is found, some will never believe that form of Creationism. They will always have faith that we will discover new evidence that will disprove it.

[Lord Mhoram]

My opinion is that the bones were indeed preserved by a unique process. I myself am a Catholic Christian, but I believe in evolution and have no faith at all in creationism. Now, don't get me started on literal interpreations of the Bible and translations...

[Fist and Faith]

Hey, LM, what do you think about literal interpretations of the Bible and translations?

[Lord Mhoram]

I think that people that think they can read the Bible without considering the historical and cultural background in which all of the Bible was written are ignorant.

I feel the same way about people that interpret things like the Creation story (oh wait, there are two Creation stories! both must be true!), the Flood story, and various Old Testament laws (think: wife must be subservient to husband) literally. Further, everything in the Bible is not relevant to our lives today - people say that homsexuality is condemned in the Bible. Okay, yeah...but the Bible also says you will be killed for eating certain kinds of meat and that slavery is perfectly okay. Those are examples of putting passages in historical context.

Also, people forget that the Bible wasn't written in English. I'm taking a course on the New Testament right now, and we looked at the same passage in four different translations. All four of them were slightly different, yet had drastically different meanings! That says you have to be very careful, because people are fallible, and people aren't always objective while translating.

Sorry to go so off-topic...

[Fist and Faith]

Further, everything in the Bible is not relevant to our lives today - people say that homsexuality is condemned in the Bible. Okay, yeah...but the Bible also says you will be killed for eating certain kinds of meat and that slavery is perfectly okay. Those are examples of putting passages in historical context.

Well, since you brought up West Wing. In my favorite scene, President Bartlet is speaking to a room full of nationally-known DJ's, when he notices Dr. Jenna Jacobs, who is known for using the Bible to condemn homosexuality. Here's the last part of it:

President Josiah Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse! I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

Sorry to go so off-topic...

Well, I couldn't resist baiting you after you said not to.

[TRC]

Dinosaurs never existed.

[Dragonlily]

What dinosaur were you in a past life?

[dennisrwood]

my problem with evolution is that there is no proof that it exists or existed. and we as Catholics don't take the creation myth verbatim. and Jesus replaced the old Law.

[Lord Mhoram]

dennis,

and we as Catholics don't take the creation myth verbatim. and Jesus replaced the old Law.

Yes, we don't take the Creation myths verbatim. But there are other denominations that do.

my problem with evolution is that there is no proof that it exists or existed.

Well that's wrong. There is extensive evidence that proves the theory. It isn't all theoretical thinking. Are you a creationist, then? I have never actually discussed creationism with a creationist. It would be interesting.

[dennisrwood]

yes I am a creatonist. and would love to hear your proof for evolution. I tried to debate this before, but Lurch would only say that there was proof, I would ask for it and he would criticize me for asking. it got to be a bit frustrating. so hammer away at me, I'm used to it.

[Loredoctor]

my problem with evolution is that there is no proof that it exists or existed. and we as Catholics don't take the creation myth verbatim. and Jesus replaced the old Law.

Dennis - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that evolution is happening, and there is strong evidence that it has happened. Now, where is your evidence for God or the Miracles? Or Heaven? If you demand proof of evolution, where is the proof to support your faith?

[dennisrwood]

Lore: we've been through this before. you tell me there is proof of evolution. I ask for it. I get criticized. no proof is offered. so do we dance again?

[Loredoctor]

I never said 'proof'. I said supporting evidence. You can't have it both ways, Dennis; you can't demand proof of evolution and someone cover up the fact that you can't provide proof (or supporting evidence) of god. I'm not critising you; I just think it is unfair that you think you can run the theory of evolution down because you cant find evidence only to sit on your high horse and think that you are free of the same logical demands.

[Worm of Despite]

Lore: we've been through this before. you tell me there is proof of evolution. I ask for it. I get criticized. no proof is offered. so do we dance again?

Don't count me in on this debate, but I feel moved to paste an old post of mine.

And I come ultimately to my point: evolution is still JUST A THEORY!!!! It has no more basis in fact than religion. You can no more "prove" scientific theory than you can "prove" that God exists.

(duck and cover.....)

Misconception:
The single most common misconception that people have about evolution is

"It's only a theory."

Wrong!

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Confusion arises when this distinction is not recognized.

This misconception invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it. A bit of a sweeping generalization, maybe, but fairly valid as anyone who has had to deal with creationists will tell you. (Many people do have a good depth of knowledge about it, but still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.) When it comes to, say, the history of Thailand, I am certainly ignorant; I know practically nothing about it whatsoever. If I then started sounding off about it, and explaining to someone what I thought about some issue to do with Thailand, my ignorance of the subject would be instantly obvious to anyone who had actually read up on the topic. This does not make me a stupid or ignorant person, but it does expose my misconceptions and lack of basic knowledge--the same applies to many of the people who say "Evolution is only a theory."

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur--it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born--their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop--this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change; evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution--a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same--genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process--the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun--it is a description and explanation of it.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time--evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.

Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".

If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.

If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense; it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is--and always should be, like every other scientific theory--probed, tested and scrutinized. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.

[Loredoctor]

Thanks, Foul. I was looking for that post to quote here!

Dennis - there have many many studies done on isolated islands where they observe life adapt or evolve. This is strong evidence that evolution is happening.

As for the age of the Earth - well there is alot of astronomical evidence that the universe is alot older than said in the Bible.

[Lord Mhoram]

Foul,

Good post.

Loremaster,

Yeah, an example of such islands is the most famously used: the Galapagos. Used by Darwin in the 19th century and still being studied today. Really a remarkable place ecologically.

[Loredoctor]

LM,
That's right. Another example is this island off Africa. Basically, a shift in weather patterns meant that less rain was falling in the region and so the whole island's flora altered. Many of the animals had to change their eating habits in order to survive. One species of bird started biting the skin on larger animals to draw blood. Now, birds with a particular type of beak were more successful in this, and so thrived - essentially, they could pass on their 'seed'. Their young were born with the same type of beak and so they had a better chance of survival.

That's what evolution is all about. And it's happening.

[Lord Mhoram]

What island is this, exactly? It sounds like a very good, classic example of evolution.

[Loredoctor]

I'll get back to you on that.