• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How does found dinosaur tissue effect evolution and creationism?

Papersock

Papersock

Lucid Dreamer
I'm talking about the tissue found in the femur bone of a T-rex that still has some of it's elasticity and pigmentation.
I haven't given it much thought, really. I think it's pretty cool. But apparently it has caused quite a stir among some creationists hoping to disprove evolution.

So what does this mean for evolution and creationism?

It seems to me that the only thing this brings into question is how things are fossilized or preserved.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
it wasn't tissue per say... it was some collagen protiens and a few cells that still had their shape. The whole thing was treated heavily with acid to remove the rock matrix and thus returned some of the flexibility to the structure.

The most important part of the find is that it shows the three dimensional structure and its strong ties to birds. Its more evidence that birds are just modern dinosaurs.

Regardless it doesn't do any harm to evolution. Evolution is a process that is, has been and will be continued to be observed.

wa:do
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Papersock said:
How do you mean?
Click to expand...

It's not possible to disprove evolution. There's no experiment or observation (or set of such) that could show that evolution is false. The situation is similar for creationism. What evidence can you provide to show that evolution is indeed absolutely false? As soon as you present such evidence, creationism finds a way around it. The same is true for evolution. Round and round we go.....
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Sure you could, but it would take some spectacular evidence.

Find an animal that isn't somehow related to anything else on Earth. Something that doesn't have DNA markers that place it in the phylogeny of living things. (Tree of life)

Do that and you have a serious piece of evidence against evolution.

wa:do
 
camanintx

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Dunemeister said:
It's not possible to disprove evolution. There's no experiment or observation (or set of such) that could show that evolution is false. The situation is similar for creationism. What evidence can you provide to show that evolution is indeed absolutely false? As soon as you present such evidence, creationism finds a way around it. The same is true for evolution. Round and round we go.....
Click to expand...

It would actually be very easy to disprove evolution, if it just wasn't such a good theory.

Disproving the theory of evolution
 
Papersock

Papersock

Lucid Dreamer
I think obviously it doesn't disprove evolution. In fact, it seems to be more evidence for evolution.
But does it mean that the fossil can't be 70 million years old, because something that old must fully fossilize?
 
Sola'lor

Sola'lor

LDSUJC
Papersock said:
I'm talking about the tissue found in the femur bone of a T-rex that still has some of it's elasticity and pigmentation.
I haven't given it much thought, really. I think it's pretty cool. But apparently it has caused quite a stir among some creationists hoping to disprove evolution.

So what does this mean for evolution and creationism?

It seems to me that the only thing this brings into question is how things are fossilized or preserved.
Click to expand...

This really happened?! :eek:

AWESOME!
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Papersock said:
I'm talking about the tissue found in the femur bone of a T-rex that still has some of it's elasticity and pigmentation.
I haven't given it much thought, really. I think it's pretty cool. But apparently it has caused quite a stir among some creationists hoping to disprove evolution.

So what does this mean for evolution and creationism?

It seems to me that the only thing this brings into question is how things are fossilized or preserved.
Click to expand...

It does nothing to change evolution, (a science), or creationism (a hoax).
 
Alex_G

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
Evolution is already proven. The fact that animals evolve is irrefutable. The best theory for the process of evolution is natural selection, which itself has heaps of evident to back it up.
Creaionism? No evidence at all. It annoys me slightly when creationism and evolution are put on a par with each other.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
How long does fossilation keep blood cells?
Click to expand...

ok, once again. It didn't keep the blood cells... it kept the structure of the blood cells. The blood cells were mineralized just like the 'soft tissue' was. (not to mention that they were long ruptured due to decay)

The important part of this find was that you could see the structure of the cells... this was a first for paleontology.

Again most of the flexibility was only regained by heavy treatment in chemical (acid) baths. It isn't like they found a meaty bone, they found a rock that still had trace amounts of organic materials.
Seeing as organic materials = carbon and iron, that shouldn't come as such an intense surprise.

And yes, as camanitx pointed out this find does more to change our view of how organic minerals are replaced by inorganic minerals during fossilization. Organic minerals are more resilient than previously thought.

wa:do
 
Papersock

Papersock

Lucid Dreamer
Thanks Painted Wolf. Your posts are very informative.
Do you know of any sites that explain what you are saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top