Evolution disproved?

[Kung Fu Panda]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Does this disprove Darwin's theory of evolutionism? One can only agree that soft tissue can only last up to about 4500 years, let alone 67-70 million years, as suggested by most theorists.
If so, how is it possible that we evolved from the velociraptor to what we are today? Surely we couldn't evolve at a rate so rapid, hence how is it that evolutionism is true?
Furthermore, if dinosaurs were around just 4500 years ago, how did they all disappear? An Ice Age? Noah's Flood?

I found this a very interesting discovery -- for me it has almost disproved evolution.... :)

What are your opinions?

[runemaster]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Does this disprove Darwin's theory of evolutionism? One can only agree that soft tissue can only last up to about 4500 years, let alone 67-70 million years, as suggested by most theorists.
If so, how is it possible that we evolved from the velociraptor to what we are today? Surely we couldn't evolve at a rate so rapid, hence how is it that evolutionism is true?
Furthermore, if dinosaurs were around just 4500 years ago, how did they all disappear? An Ice Age? Noah's Flood?

I found this a very interesting discovery -- for me it has almost disproved evolution.... :)

What are your opinions?

that christians will use any excuse to disprove everything except their own insane ideas and theorys


all this is, says that the way they think fossils are preserved is changed. It doesnt disprove anything.

Which makes me hate the christians that say dinosaurs dont exist, when theres fossils of it.




If protein sequences can be identified, they can be compared to those of living animals. This might allow a better understanding of how different groups of animals are related.


if anything this may later help PROVE evolution by better analyzing animals now and then.

[expo]

that christians will use any excuse to disprove everything except their own insane ideas and theorys


all this is, says that the way they think fossils are preserved is changed. It doesnt disprove anything.

Which makes me hate the christians that say dinosaurs dont exist, when theres fossils of it.


if anything this may later help PROVE evolution by better analyzing animals now and then.

Science is classified as a religion. Just saying. Funny how you say Christians have insane ideas and theories when science does as well. What makes sense to one person doesn't necessarily make sense to another. And everyone loves to see themselves right and anyone who disagrees wrong, including science and you.

I'm not sure if you know this, but Christian scientists said a long time ago that it will take science a while to prove that god is real. Oh noez, I said Christian scientists.

[Kung Fu Panda]

that christians will use any excuse to disprove everything except their own insane ideas and theorys


all this is, says that the way they think fossils are preserved is changed. It doesnt disprove anything.

Which makes me hate the christians that say dinosaurs dont exist, when theres fossils of it.

if anything this may later help PROVE evolution by better analyzing animals now and then.

No one said dinosaurs didn't exist?? Simply discussing whether this disproves the theory of evolution.... It is a bit crazy for us to evolve over 4500 years, don't you think?

[Razorgore077]

One can only agree that soft tissue can only last up to about 4500 years

Well I don't agree, tissue doesn't last that long! especially when you have used it... :eek:

[Kung Fu Panda]

Well I don't agree, tissue doesn't last that long! especially when you have used it... :eek:

That's the debate bro! How did that tissue survive "70 million years"? Was it a fluke, or is it impossible??

[Terrorblade]

Evolution hasn't been proven yet it's only a theory.

[Kung Fu Panda]

So is it fair to say that the theory has been pretty much smashed due to this discovery? The theory is dinosaurs were around 70 million years ago, yet their soft tissue is still floating around? Sounds pretty fishy to me :P

[kjanko]

We evolved from the Pandas.

[Kung Fu Panda]

We evolved from the Pandas.

I know right O_o

[runemaster]

Science is classified as a religion.

Nope.

Science is the application of technology to solve a problem.

So is it fair to say that the theory has been pretty much smashed due to this discovery? The theory is dinosaurs were around 70 million years ago, yet their soft tissue is still floating around? Sounds pretty fishy to me :P

Its inside the bone if you read the article. Makes sense to me. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with evolution anyway, they cracked open dinosaur bone, soaked it in acid and found tissue.

You can do the same to any skeleton. you got vessels, marrow, ect.


the only thing it may, MAY POSSIBLY prove is that our idea of preservation of the dead may be lacking in a couple areas.

kinda the same way egyptian mummies are preserved and keep their tissue, its saying that just because its dead for thousands of years doesnt mean it decays over time the way we thought.

[expo]

Nope.

Science is the application of technology to solve a problem.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Sorry, but science is a religion.

[Kung Fu Panda]

So now we debate whether science is a religion or not... Hmmm, I like it ;)

[expo]

So now we debate whether science is a religion or not... Hmmm, I like it ;)

runemaster is trying to say a dictionary is wrong.

[Kung Fu Panda]

runemaster is trying to say a dictionary is wrong.

Lawl! :) Hey, apparently 97% of all "facts" are, in fact, incorrect.. The dictionary might have slipped up a little ;)

[dfighter]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Does this disprove Darwin's theory of evolutionism? One can only agree that soft tissue can only last up to about 4500 years, let alone 67-70 million years, as suggested by most theorists.
If so, how is it possible that we evolved from the velociraptor to what we are today? Surely we couldn't evolve at a rate so rapid, hence how is it that evolutionism is true?
Furthermore, if dinosaurs were around just 4500 years ago, how did they all disappear? An Ice Age? Noah's Flood?

I found this a very interesting discovery -- for me it has almost disproved evolution.... :)

What are your opinions?
You are nuts.
To blow the first giant hole into your "theory" mammals did not evolve from dinosaurs (they already existed with the dinosaurs concurrently).
Secondly all that article says is that somehow that tissue was preserved. Learn to read maybe?

A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.
This text says that it was taken from a 70million year old fossil. Meaning they carbon dated the artifact.

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.
This part of the text means they have no idea how the fuck it was preserved, but it will be useful.


EDIT:
Why are people who can't read allowed to use the Internet and even post?! o.O

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Sorry, but science is a religion.
Do we really need another science vs. religion debate?
IS it still hard to grasp that science is based on experiments and observations? Religion is based on some old book, or old hearsay.

Nope.
Science is the application of technology to solve a problem.

Actually it's the other way around. Technology is applied science. So I hear it's bed time for you. Go sleep now. gn.

[Jackpoz]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/000176036/profiles_EvolutionBulbasaur_1215_988661_media.jpeg

[Terko]

Jackpoz, I like you. Wanna know why I like you? Because you tell it like it is. And THAT is why I like you.

[expo]

Do we really need another science vs. religion debate?
IS it still hard to grasp that science is based on experiments and observations? Religion is based on some old book, or old hearsay.

Science is a religion, thus making it science vs other religions.

[Kung Fu Panda]

You are nuts. [...] Technology is applied science. So I hear it's bed time for you. Go sleep now. gn.

Alright, cool. Very good argument, honestly :) However, it appears you don't understand exactly how the carbon dating system works. Perhaps you should check it out -- you'll see, if you understand, that it is a pretty rough system.
What they do is they say "it takes 5730 years for half of a radiocarbon sample to decay"... How do they know that? Well, they look at the rate of decay over five or ten years in a contained environment. Then they see how long it'll take however much to decay. Who says it'll stay constant?

Now, if they don't even understand how it was preserved this long, is it not fair to say that it may have only been preserved for +- 4000 years? After all, it is quite stupid or rather unlikely that some protein will last 70 million years.

The fact of the matter is, we can't prove that it's been around 70 million years, and common sense suggests it would never last that long... In fact, science suggests so too, we're just covering that up...

difghter, I enjoy how you tell everyone to read, perhaps you should learn to think for yourself, rather than just accept what's given to you. ;)

SUMMARY: Carbon dating is give or take, it's pretty ineffective. It is fair to assume that soft tissue couldn't really last 70 million years. We haven't proven that fossils of dinosaurs are definitely around 70 million years old, we just assume so.
HENCE I ask again, could this be the beginning of the disproof of Darwin's theory of evolution?

[expo]

Evolution is the best joke ever devised.

[Kung Fu Panda]

Evolution is the best joke ever devised.

Lawl.

[nexusoblivion]

ok that bloody nat-geo thing didn't say a bloody thing about proving nor disproving evolution, it merely stated a break through in the analysis of fossils, saying its proves or disproves any thing is ludicrously out of context. Yes at some point it may be a feasible tool in proving or disproving evolution but atm its just a break through so be in awe of that, not some make believe crap you have to attach to it.

as for duration and storage of organic material, theres a lot of variables that need to be considered, most notably in this case is whether or not the organic material was air locked. if it was or became air locked at a certain point that means the chemical reaction with what ever air happened to be around it was excessively limited, and the fact that they say it was under a lot of rock means that it was potentially air locked...... air locked = excessively slow or no tissue degeneration over long periods of time. theres also other things to take into consideration like temperature at the dig site.....cold also = slowed tissue degeneration....

on top of that you have to consider that the scientists saying the duration is limited to such and such years might of been wrong :^/ thats why its science and not religion because it can admit to being wrong here and there.......as far as science goes humans are still children finding their way in the world and it will be aeon's before we have all the answers if we survive that long..... at least science tries to find the answers instead of pretending to already have them.... as for hating Christians..... :^/ hate the religion not the person, not all Christians are morons, just like not all atheists are daft bastards.....

ps sorry for the bout of absence :P

[dfighter]

Alright, cool. Very good argument, honestly :) However, it appears you don't understand exactly how the carbon dating system works. Perhaps you should check it out -- you'll see, if you understand, that it is a pretty rough system.
What they do is they say "it takes 5730 years for half of a radiocarbon sample to decay"... How do they know that? Well, they look at the rate of decay over five or ten years in a contained environment. Then they see how long it'll take however much to decay. Who says it'll stay constant?

Now, if they don't even understand how it was preserved this long, is it not fair to say that it may have only been preserved for +- 4000 years? After all, it is quite stupid or rather unlikely that some protein will last 70 million years.

The fact of the matter is, we can't prove that it's been around 70 million years, and common sense suggests it would never last that long... In fact, science suggests so too, we're just covering that up...

difghter, I enjoy how you tell everyone to read, perhaps you should learn to think for yourself, rather than just accept what's given to you. ;)

SUMMARY: Carbon dating is give or take, it's pretty ineffective. It is fair to assume that soft tissue couldn't really last 70 million years. We haven't proven that fossils of dinosaurs are definitely around 70 million years old, we just assume so.
HENCE I ask again, could this be the beginning of the disproof of Darwin's theory of evolution?
The exact point was that they don't know, how it survived. Yet you keep arguing about what common sense suggests. I'd say that invalidates all your points. The funny thing is that you can't argue with things like "who is to say it'll stay constant". You either have some proof or not. If you prove that carbon dating is wrong and you prove that it's only x years old we can discuss this topic again. Until then you are just a bad troll trying to look scientific.

[Kung Fu Panda]

The exact point was that they don't know, how it survived. Yet you keep arguing about what common sense suggests. I'd say that invalidates all your points. The funny thing is that you can't argue with things like "who is to say it'll stay constant". You either have some proof or not. If you prove that carbon dating is wrong and you prove that it's only x years old we can discuss this topic again. Until then you are just a bad troll trying to look scientific.
How am I a troll, I only have 50 posts? :/
I am a spritely new member of a rather shitty community :)

[nexusoblivion]

a rather shitty community :^/ well then..... you must be a good contributer to the quality, I find it bloody hilarious that the post you choose to reply to is the one calling you a troll and not one that actually shows some intellectual merit......

[Krew]

The assumption of knowing what you're talking about is ludicrous.

This sentence I just typed is a paradox because I think I know what I'm talking about but I more than likely don't which also makes this sentence false. So on, so forth...

[-Cursed-]

Science is classified as a religion. Just saying. Funny how you say Christians have insane ideas and theories when science does as well. What makes sense to one person doesn't necessarily make sense to another. And everyone loves to see themselves right and anyone who disagrees wrong, including science and you.

I'm not sure if you know this, but Christian scientists said a long time ago that it will take science a while to prove that god is real. Oh noez, I said Christian scientists.

The ultimate paradox? Oh wait, Military Intelligence. :eek: