this appears to be quite an interesting development.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../dinosaur_to_dc
Hi Matt,
Sorry I cut across this topic... I saw this too and posted it separately (I edited it and now there are two of them).
I am directing all posts here...
[Admin: I killed the second one.
]
All I can add to it is a couple of other links but I think this is a significant advance in this knowledge. I have added a link from National Geographic and Physorg which adds a certain credence to he story.
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...0/wx10303241932
Shades of Jurassic Park, I never thought this could be possible!
The tissue is still flexible after 70 Million years??? It tickles the fancy of the Geologist in me.
Cheers
Sorry I cut across this topic... I saw this too and posted it separately (I edited it and now there are two of them).
I am directing all posts here...
[Admin: I killed the second one.
]All I can add to it is a couple of other links but I think this is a significant advance in this knowledge. I have added a link from National Geographic and Physorg which adds a certain credence to he story.
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...0/wx10303241932
Shades of Jurassic Park, I never thought this could be possible!
The tissue is still flexible after 70 Million years??? It tickles the fancy of the Geologist in me.
Cheers
I can't wait to see what they get out of it.
Frankly I wouldn't have beleived it if it was posted somewhere else, of a few days later.
though I wonder if there are plans to carbon date any of it.
theoretically the carbon dating shouldn't show anything but I think it would be an interesting test of the theory.
though thinking about it I guess it makes sense, if the bone on the outside formed a shell quick enough it could preserve the stuff on the inside.
what does this do to our theories about the formation of fossils?
Frankly I wouldn't have beleived it if it was posted somewhere else, of a few days later.
though I wonder if there are plans to carbon date any of it.
theoretically the carbon dating shouldn't show anything but I think it would be an interesting test of the theory.
though thinking about it I guess it makes sense, if the bone on the outside formed a shell quick enough it could preserve the stuff on the inside.
what does this do to our theories about the formation of fossils?
If it's soft tissue, how can it actually be a fossil? I thought fossil were created when minerals seeped into the bones/tissues, etc. turning them into rock. (Please correct me if I'm wrong it that.)
MattWeston, you are right that is a fossil but we are now apparently able to defossilize fossils! When you think about it, it would kind of be the same as maybe frostbite, if a persons tissue is frozen it remains intact even after the ice crystals have left the cell. The tissue is damaged, but not to the point of "disolving". I know these are different processes, but its the same basic idea. As far as turning them into rock, I understand how you would be confused. We have been told that fossils are rocks. And you can't "disolve" a rock into spongy tissue, so a fossil must really be like a frozen sponge. Needless to say, this is an amazing find and one that will change alot of perspectives. Of course, as much as I would like to become optimistic and say that we could maybe make a "Jurassic Park". I equally know that it would be a long shot at best, and next to impossible with our current technology. Of course, this is unless we find a whole genetic sample!
Of course, that last part is optimistic. I believe it would be great if we managed to learn something new from these fossils. Sadly, while I would love to believe that we would make a Jurassic Park if we could, I am aware of the highly religious people out there who would say it was aginst god or something. That is not meant as a putdown, but I believe that if we managed to do something like this, we would learn alot more. Maybe some of these creatures would be immune to aids/cancer? This is way ahead of the topic but is certianly an AWESOME find and one that I will continue to read up on! 
well I'd be shocked if they find any readible dna in the sample.
considereing we have a complete pickled Thylacine and we can't get enough intact dna to even secquence it let alont clone it.
but to MW, I'm thinking that this forces us to rethink the way fossils are formed.
it appears that while the bony material on the outside was replaced with minerals in the fossiliztion process, at the same time it seems that the marrow of the bone was somehowsealed inside before it could totally decay. it's seems that the process begins on the outside and works its way in,but then after it gets to a certain point, the minerals can no longer seep in to replace the insides, nor can anything else get in.
it's the ultimate ziplock bag.
considereing we have a complete pickled Thylacine and we can't get enough intact dna to even secquence it let alont clone it.
but to MW, I'm thinking that this forces us to rethink the way fossils are formed.
it appears that while the bony material on the outside was replaced with minerals in the fossiliztion process, at the same time it seems that the marrow of the bone was somehowsealed inside before it could totally decay. it's seems that the process begins on the outside and works its way in,but then after it gets to a certain point, the minerals can no longer seep in to replace the insides, nor can anything else get in.
it's the ultimate ziplock bag.
Perhaps that is why the bone broke on removal. Maybe it was the victem of an incomplete process.
Hi All,
MattWeston Posted on Mar 25 2005, 04:53 PM
Dead right... (no pun intended). This is not technically a fossil. It is preserved tissue. When I was at Uni this was definitely NOT on the list of fossilization techniques. This is brand new. Of all the things that could happen this is one of the most wonderful things that could possibly occur. Apparently those veins still contain cells and can apparently be expressed as fluids and contain intact cell walls.
Matt Posted on Mar 25 2005, 05:45 PM
Dead right... (no pun intended). This is not technically a fossil. It is preserved tissue. When I was at Uni this was definitely NOT on the list of fossilization techniques. This is brand new. Of all the things that could happen this is one of the most wonderful things that could possibly occur. Apparently those veins still contain cells and can apparently be expressed as fluids and contain intact cell walls.
Matt Posted on Mar 25 2005, 05:45 PM
well I'd be shocked if they find any readable DNA in the sample
Matt is technically right when he says that a DNA sample for sequencing is unlikely but I still think with so much that has happened here we could live in hope that some DNA will have survived too. I don t think it is impossible. The "pickled Thylacine" can still be sequenced and technically we could reanimate it provided we had a way to "repair" individual gene sequences (one on one). In Jurassic Park they "repaired" the sequences and replaced missing sequences with frog code, in theory it is possible but unlike sequencing (reverse process, smashing it to bits and working it out from the overlapping sequences find the entire molecule) we can't take individual molecules and stitch them back together again. Humpty Dumpty. There are no completely intact samples in "Tiger". We might perhaps use a "gene machine" and hand make them to order.
Lets play with this... If the organic samples contained a large number of gene fragments it would be possible to work out from first principles how the DNA was largely constructed. Almost every living thing contain a subset of gene sequences we hold in common with most other species. For instance humans have about a 50% overlap of the genetic sequences of a carrot and 99.5% of the genetic sequences of a chimp. I would guess that T-Rex has about 90% to 95% common sequences of the household chicken. So start with a chicken's genome and work on the thousand or so genes that are different by building them by hand (still formidable and requires a "couple" of ground breaking research papers, and a decade or two). Lots of hard work but you just hand that to a post grad and say "do it". Use the lash if necessary. Bingo - Jurassic Park!
As to fundamentalism interfering with this process maybe a couple of the "smart" guys could go on sabbatical to a country where such processes are not forbidden by the Witchfinder General.... Australia for instance Naturally he could carry a cryo thermos pack of "seamen" for inseminating Cows (or at least that 's what the Customs Declaration would read). We could exhibit the specimen at the Dubbo Plains Zoo and the loony right wing religious folk do not need to attend! Hmmm... maybe as an added attraction... we could have a feeding session each day where we throw religious zealots to T-Rex so they can die for their faith as they used to in the "good" old days. 
If they really want these "enrichment experiences" with "Rex" they will need to pay extra. 
I suppose that is in bad taste... it might not necessarily be good for "Rex" either. Not their natural diet. Perhaps they can use that loony Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Guy) to be it's handler. What an attraction that would make come feeding time. With a bit of luck "Rex" might even eat him and that would be really great publicity. 
Cheers
MattWeston Posted on Mar 25 2005, 04:53 PM
QUOTE
If it's soft tissue, how can it actually be a fossil?
Dead right... (no pun intended). This is not technically a fossil. It is preserved tissue. When I was at Uni this was definitely NOT on the list of fossilization techniques. This is brand new. Of all the things that could happen this is one of the most wonderful things that could possibly occur. Apparently those veins still contain cells and can apparently be expressed as fluids and contain intact cell walls.
Matt Posted on Mar 25 2005, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it's soft tissue, how can it actually be a fossil? |
Dead right... (no pun intended). This is not technically a fossil. It is preserved tissue. When I was at Uni this was definitely NOT on the list of fossilization techniques. This is brand new. Of all the things that could happen this is one of the most wonderful things that could possibly occur. Apparently those veins still contain cells and can apparently be expressed as fluids and contain intact cell walls.
Matt Posted on Mar 25 2005, 05:45 PM
well I'd be shocked if they find any readable DNA in the sample
Matt is technically right when he says that a DNA sample for sequencing is unlikely but I still think with so much that has happened here we could live in hope that some DNA will have survived too. I don t think it is impossible. The "pickled Thylacine" can still be sequenced and technically we could reanimate it provided we had a way to "repair" individual gene sequences (one on one). In Jurassic Park they "repaired" the sequences and replaced missing sequences with frog code, in theory it is possible but unlike sequencing (reverse process, smashing it to bits and working it out from the overlapping sequences find the entire molecule) we can't take individual molecules and stitch them back together again. Humpty Dumpty. There are no completely intact samples in "Tiger". We might perhaps use a "gene machine" and hand make them to order.
Lets play with this... If the organic samples contained a large number of gene fragments it would be possible to work out from first principles how the DNA was largely constructed. Almost every living thing contain a subset of gene sequences we hold in common with most other species. For instance humans have about a 50% overlap of the genetic sequences of a carrot and 99.5% of the genetic sequences of a chimp. I would guess that T-Rex has about 90% to 95% common sequences of the household chicken. So start with a chicken's genome and work on the thousand or so genes that are different by building them by hand (still formidable and requires a "couple" of ground breaking research papers, and a decade or two). Lots of hard work but you just hand that to a post grad and say "do it". Use the lash if necessary. Bingo - Jurassic Park!
As to fundamentalism interfering with this process maybe a couple of the "smart" guys could go on sabbatical to a country where such processes are not forbidden by the Witchfinder General.... Australia for instance
Naturally he could carry a cryo thermos pack of "seamen" for inseminating Cows (or at least that 's what the Customs Declaration would read). We could exhibit the specimen at the Dubbo Plains Zoo and the loony right wing religious folk do not need to attend! Hmmm... maybe as an added attraction... we could have a feeding session each day where we throw religious zealots to T-Rex so they can die for their faith as they used to in the "good" old days. If they really want these "enrichment experiences" with "Rex" they will need to pay extra. I suppose that is in bad taste... it might not necessarily be good for "Rex" either. Not their natural diet. Perhaps they can use that loony Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Guy) to be it's handler. What an attraction that would make come feeding time. With a bit of luck "Rex" might even eat him and that would be really great publicity. Cheers
I am not sure I would feed them to a T-Rex myself, I would hate to give it gas! Simply put, as I said before, I don't think we have the technology to do something like that yet. But I do believe that in the future we would be able to manage a task of this magnitude. As with the religious fanatics, I respect them, but I do wish they were not as near sighted as they can be sometimes. But "growing" a new species and raising it would certianly bring more interest into the biology/zoology fields. What is sort of scary however, is if one of these creatures were to mate with a...fish? OMG! It's a giant flesh eating, bullet-resistant, fire retardent, super-fast/strong/intelligent creature from the black lagoon! Nooooooooo! Of course there is not much of a chance for something like this to occur. However, if we manage to bring back a species like this, imagine what people would do to them? No more need for junkyard guard dogs, just buy a pack of raptors or a pet tyranasour. Of course if we treat these animals anything like we do dogs, we will quickly have alot of new species on our hands. But this would be better left in the realm of science fiction for the next few years. But one must ask themselves if this really could happen, all we need is a little luck and some funding.
Hi Zorlont3,
Zorlont3 Posted on Mar 25 2005, 10:28 PM
Just think of the street cred you would have with one of them on a leash..... Go walkies "Rex"!... In the "excitement" you might get stood on. 
Do you remember....
"What do you call a blind dinosaur?"
- a 'do-you-think-he-saur-us'
"What do you call a blind dinosaur's dog?"
- 'do-you-think-he-saur-us rex'
PS: Here is another interesting link...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/138278..._rex/index.html
Bit more detail here.
Zorlont3 Posted on Mar 25 2005, 10:28 PM
QUOTE
However, if we manage to bring back a species like this, imagine what people would do to them? No more need for junkyard guard dogs, just buy a pack of raptors or a pet tyranasour.
Just think of the street cred you would have with one of them on a leash.....
Go walkies "Rex"!... In the "excitement" you might get stood on. Do you remember....
"What do you call a blind dinosaur?"
- a 'do-you-think-he-saur-us'
"What do you call a blind dinosaur's dog?"
- 'do-you-think-he-saur-us rex'
PS: Here is another interesting link...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/138278..._rex/index.html
Bit more detail here.
I'm so busy wondering if we could do this that I'm not stopping to wonder if we should.
ok, I've wondered. I think we should!
ok, I've wondered. I think we should!
id sure do it, of course, with somewhat larger safegaurds than what a famous movie did, but hey, id like to see something big, scary, and hungry
Hi haste,
haste Posted on Mar 26 2005, 10:40 AM
Wot... a bigger dog collar?
haste Posted on Mar 26 2005, 10:40 AM
QUOTE
d sure do it, of course, with somewhat larger safegaurds than what a famous movie did, but hey, id like to see something big, scary, and hungry
Wot... a bigger dog collar?
QUOTE (haste+Mar 26 2005, 10:40 AM)
id sure do it, of course, with somewhat larger safegaurds than what a famous movie did, but hey, id like to see something big, scary, and hungry
sounds like my mother in law.
sounds like my mother in law.
id hate to go off topic, but what safegaurds do you employ with your mother in law
nah, (back to T-rex safegaurds) prolly something like installing grenandes in thier skulls while thier still baby rex's or something
you cant say your not curious what it would be like to look a T-Rex straight in the eye
nah, (back to T-rex safegaurds) prolly something like installing grenandes in thier skulls while thier still baby rex's or something
you cant say your not curious what it would be like to look a T-Rex straight in the eye
the reason your all so suprised about it being so flexible after "millions" of years is that its not that old..........evolution on a huge scale never happened and that tissue is probably only 3 - 5 thousand years old if that...........
wrong thread.
Back to the Jurasic park syndrome, Frankly I don't think controlling a t rex is going to be any harder than controling some of the larger predators we have in zoos now.
Back to the Jurasic park syndrome, Frankly I don't think controlling a t rex is going to be any harder than controling some of the larger predators we have in zoos now.
from Scientific American:
QUOTE (Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T. rex Fossil+)
Studying the bones in the lab, the team treated part of the femur with a solution designed to dissolve its mineral components. The substance left behind was a stretchy material that showed blood vessels, bone-building cells known as osteocytes and other organic features when observed under a microscope.
Which is quite a rare find. It appears that the density of the thigh bone (femur) protected part of the original bone's calcium and organic scafolding from the water that causes tissue loss, decay, and fossilization. The more rock-like the outer femur became, the greater the protection. afforded the delicious (to bacteria) proteins.
Which is quite a rare find. It appears that the density of the thigh bone (femur) protected part of the original bone's calcium and organic scafolding from the water that causes tissue loss, decay, and fossilization. The more rock-like the outer femur became, the greater the protection. afforded the delicious (to bacteria) proteins.
QUOTE (thor+Mar 27 2005, 06:39 PM)
evolution on a huge scale never happened and that tissue is probably only 3 - 5 thousand years old if that
Since organic tissue was recovered, this claim is on particularly shaky ground, and only survives if
Genesis 6:13-22
Sizes of the Dinosaurs
More Problems with the Ark
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
Examining Creationist Claim CD010: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Claim CD004: Cosmic rays and free neutrinos ... might affect ... radiometric dating methods ...
More analysis of misconceptions in radiometric dating
Since organic tissue was recovered, this claim is on particularly shaky ground, and only survives if
- The book of Genesis is wrong. Nothing in the text of Genesis lets us know when the Earth was created with "In the begining" of Genesis 1:1 being distinct from the time of "Let there be light" in 1:3, but the date of the flood can be firmly worked out. Noah then loads up the ark, with it's three decks which is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, with at least two of every animal. -- I put it to you that if dinosaurs were as recent as 3 thousand years old, then there is no way that the ark could be loaded, therefore you are claiming the bible is wrong.
- Radiometric dating of everything is wrong, desipite millions of observations, correlations, and confirmation via historical records.
- All of Nuclear physics is wrong, which is the only way all of that radiometric dating could be wrong
- All biologists, nuclear physicists, geologists, archelogists and others have been involved in a vast global conspiracy, organized before Charles Darwin to push a totally consistant lie to the public, for no apparant gain or political or religious reason.
Genesis 6:13-22
Sizes of the Dinosaurs
More Problems with the Ark
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
Examining Creationist Claim CD010: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Claim CD004: Cosmic rays and free neutrinos ... might affect ... radiometric dating methods ...
More analysis of misconceptions in radiometric dating
Hi Haste and Thor,
haste Posted: Mar 27 2005, 11:37 AM
Typical "over reaction"! Why do you guys always want to blow stuff up? That bitey end is probably really close to his victim isn't it?... so blowing him up is a real waste of property and my "best friend" (inferred from "Dog is a mans best friend... ergo... "Rex" is bigger and stronger than a dog so "Rex" is mans "better" friend. . Cogito et ego sum) "Rex" is far more valuable than that. Perhaps a "neural switch" that immobilizes him at least only his "higher functions". Have him thinking "Eat dinner... eat dinner... eat di...... hello... who am I?... what is the meaning of life?... is there a good show on TV tonight"? See... completely "defused".
thor Posted on Mar 27 2005, 06:39 PM
Typical "over reaction"! Why do you guys always want to blow stuff up? That bitey end is probably really close to his victim isn't it?... so blowing him up is a real waste of property and my "best friend" (inferred from "Dog is a mans best friend... ergo... "Rex" is bigger and stronger than a dog so "Rex" is mans "better" friend. . Cogito et ego sum) "Rex" is far more valuable than that. Perhaps a "neural switch" that immobilizes him at least only his "higher functions". Have him thinking "Eat dinner... eat dinner... eat di...... hello... who am I?... what is the meaning of life?... is there a good show on TV tonight"? See... completely "defused".
thor Posted on Mar 27 2005, 06:39 PM
the reason your all so suprised about it being so flexible after "millions" of years is that its not that old..........evolution on a huge scale never happened and that tissue is probably only 3 - 5 thousand years old if that...........
He He He... he is right you know... God put that dinosaur tissue there "last night" to prove his existence. Clearly your lack of belief was the impetus to God to finally prove his existence. The alternative was unthinkable to him... of being ignored... and his ego forced him to do this act contravening his natural order (just once) so you will all love him as you once did. Being God is no fun without an entourage of admirers. After all there really is no other reason for you all so next step is an outburst of anger, and that will teach you.... teach you all to Hell!
Cheers
As opposed to leaving it extinct.
haste Posted: Mar 27 2005, 11:37 AM
QUOTE
prolly something like installing grenades in their skulls while thier still baby rex's or something
Typical "over reaction"! Why do you guys always want to blow stuff up? That bitey end is probably really close to his victim isn't it?... so blowing him up is a real waste of property and my "best friend" (inferred from "Dog is a mans best friend... ergo... "Rex" is bigger and stronger than a dog so "Rex" is mans "better" friend. . Cogito et ego sum) "Rex" is far more valuable than that. Perhaps a "neural switch" that immobilizes him at least only his "higher functions". Have him thinking "Eat dinner... eat dinner... eat di...... hello... who am I?... what is the meaning of life?... is there a good show on TV tonight"?
See... completely "defused".thor Posted on Mar 27 2005, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| prolly something like installing grenades in their skulls while thier still baby rex's or something |
Typical "over reaction"! Why do you guys always want to blow stuff up? That bitey end is probably really close to his victim isn't it?... so blowing him up is a real waste of property and my "best friend" (inferred from "Dog is a mans best friend... ergo... "Rex" is bigger and stronger than a dog so "Rex" is mans "better" friend. . Cogito et ego sum) "Rex" is far more valuable than that. Perhaps a "neural switch" that immobilizes him at least only his "higher functions". Have him thinking "Eat dinner... eat dinner... eat di...... hello... who am I?... what is the meaning of life?... is there a good show on TV tonight"?
See... completely "defused".thor Posted on Mar 27 2005, 06:39 PM
the reason your all so suprised about it being so flexible after "millions" of years is that its not that old..........evolution on a huge scale never happened and that tissue is probably only 3 - 5 thousand years old if that...........
He He He... he is right you know... God put that dinosaur tissue there "last night" to prove his existence.
Clearly your lack of belief was the impetus to God to finally prove his existence. The alternative was unthinkable to him... of being ignored... and his ego forced him to do this act contravening his natural order (just once) so you will all love him as you once did. Being God is no fun without an entourage of admirers. After all there really is no other reason for you all so next step is an outburst of anger, and that will teach you.... teach you all to Hell! Cheers
the dinosaurs weren't on the Ark silly, That's why they're extinct!
they were busy smoking cigarettes behind the barn with the unicorns and the dragons when Noah was calling all the animals to the boat.
thank goodness the Crabs and the body lice came aboard or they'd be extinct too.
they were busy smoking cigarettes behind the barn with the unicorns and the dragons when Noah was calling all the animals to the boat.
thank goodness the Crabs and the body lice came aboard or they'd be extinct too.
undefined [FONT=Courier][COLOR=blue][SIZE=7]to Matt Weston, you are correct Sir! A bone whose calcium and other minerals have been replaced by minerals in water are fossils, but ancient footprints are fossils, ancient burrows are fossils, ancient dung heaps are fossils. Dr. Horner has hypothisized that this T rex thigh bone, the largest in the body of this bipedal carnivor, may have mineralized on the outside and the more it became like rock, the more it protected the inside of the bone and kept bacteria and oxygen from destroying the innermost soft tissue. That's his take. It sounds reasonable to me that a rock jacket could seal and protect the inside. Dr. Horner is even encouraging other scientists to core or bore into their thighbone collections and see if any soft tissue still exists.. Had they not had to break the femur to transport it by whirrleybird they would not have discovered the soft tissue any more that any other past scientist that worked really hard not to damage the bones they had discovered. Maybe we will find soft tissue that is already in collections from several other dinosaurs. I would guess they would have to be from the really large ones not the ones the size of a chicken. or smaller It is likely they will be able to get some protein from this soft tissue. It is unlikely that they will be able to get fragile DNA.
But if they could get DNA, what parent egg cell would you use to clone the T rex? Ostrich? Alligator? Somethingelse?
Secondly, if we could clone one, would you be in favor or against cloing a T. rex? Would you let the clone live to full size or kill it while still young and dissect it?
It is likely they will be able to get some protein from this soft tissue. It is unlikely that they will be able to get fragile DNA.But if they could get DNA, what parent egg cell would you use to clone the T rex? Ostrich? Alligator? Somethingelse?
Secondly, if we could clone one, would you be in favor or against cloing a T. rex? Would you let the clone live to full size or kill it while still young and dissect it?
rpenner [and all who throw around scriptures...],
Why Why Why does everyone have to keep dragging the Bible/God into this?
I'm very interested this in T-REX soft tissue. It is a fantastic discovery in my opinion. The idea of resurrecting an extinct species is amazing. It does not really matter if creatures were created or evolved. The fact that we could use intelligience to bring back a species that died in the past, whether millions of years or just a few thousand is amazing.
You guys are right up there when it comes to science, which is why I visit. But don't try to use the Bible. It is so often mis-quoted. Why did you take gen 1:3 out of context? Anyone who quotes scripture this way is out to mislead readers.
Gen 1:1 is simply a statement that God created everything.
If you had read Gen 1:2 (which i'm sure you did) then the context would be set and Gen 1:3 would be easily understandable.
Gen 1:2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the water deep...
It's very easy : The light was not abled to shine through the atmosphere. Later the atmosphere cleared up and there came to be light...
How quickly would you RIP ME TO BITS If I did the same with science?
Please stick to science, where you have earned MUCH respect.
QUOTE
Nothing in the text of Genesis lets us know when the Earth was created with "In the begining" of Genesis 1:1 being distinct from the time of "Let there be light" in 1:3
Why Why Why does everyone have to keep dragging the Bible/God into this?I'm very interested this in T-REX soft tissue. It is a fantastic discovery in my opinion. The idea of resurrecting an extinct species is amazing. It does not really matter if creatures were created or evolved. The fact that we could use intelligience to bring back a species that died in the past, whether millions of years or just a few thousand is amazing.
You guys are right up there when it comes to science, which is why I visit. But don't try to use the Bible. It is so often mis-quoted. Why did you take gen 1:3 out of context? Anyone who quotes scripture this way is out to mislead readers.
Gen 1:1 is simply a statement that God created everything.
If you had read Gen 1:2 (which i'm sure you did) then the context would be set and Gen 1:3 would be easily understandable.
Gen 1:2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the water deep...
It's very easy : The light was not abled to shine through the atmosphere. Later the atmosphere cleared up and there came to be light...
How quickly would you RIP ME TO BITS If I did the same with science?
Please stick to science, where you have earned MUCH respect.
Too good elf
if you would just read my interests (by clicking on my name) you would know that i really like things that go boom, BOOM, i dont think its an overreaction at all
to everyone else
i have seen (through personal observation) that anytime someting cool comes up (somethign fun, like something that goes boom, or even the hint of cloning) religion always gets dragged in to the conversation, while not as intellectually stimulating when i have to defend every one of my opinions, it is good to see that some people do care about what they believe
if you would just read my interests (by clicking on my name) you would know that i really like things that go boom, BOOM, i dont think its an overreaction at all
to everyone else
i have seen (through personal observation) that anytime someting cool comes up (somethign fun, like something that goes boom, or even the hint of cloning) religion always gets dragged in to the conversation, while not as intellectually stimulating when i have to defend every one of my opinions, it is good to see that some people do care about what they believe
To make a long story short, a forum is a place made for the statement of various peoples point of view. People will argue until we cease to exist, it is in our nature and is what makes us continue to improve our already vast library of information.
But as for T-Rex, I read that they had spotted what appeared to be blood cells? They were clear round cells and that is about all that they said about it. I am sure they are just speculating but that would be very interesting would it not? If there were somehow blood cells that were still in tact could there be a significantly larger chance of finding in tact DNA?
As far as a suitable parent cell goes for cloning a specimen:
[QUOTE] But if they could get DNA, what parent egg cell would you use to clone the T rex? Ostrich? Alligator? Somethingelse?
Can they not just use a stim cell and remove its DNA? I do not know how the cloning process works, but, Can you not take the DNA from a "stem cell" and simply insert the new DNA to have it beging to create copies of a T-Rex stem cell? After all, I am quite sure that their process of "growing" is fundamentally the same as ours? But as far as a suitable match, I would think an ostrich cell would be best suited.
But as for T-Rex, I read that they had spotted what appeared to be blood cells? They were clear round cells and that is about all that they said about it. I am sure they are just speculating but that would be very interesting would it not? If there were somehow blood cells that were still in tact could there be a significantly larger chance of finding in tact DNA?
As far as a suitable parent cell goes for cloning a specimen:
[QUOTE] But if they could get DNA, what parent egg cell would you use to clone the T rex? Ostrich? Alligator? Somethingelse?
Can they not just use a stim cell and remove its DNA? I do not know how the cloning process works, but, Can you not take the DNA from a "stem cell" and simply insert the new DNA to have it beging to create copies of a T-Rex stem cell? After all, I am quite sure that their process of "growing" is fundamentally the same as ours? But as far as a suitable match, I would think an ostrich cell would be best suited.
QUOTE (Zorlont3+Mar 28 2005, 04:49 PM)
Can you not take the DNA from a "stem cell" and simply insert the new DNA to have it beging to create copies of a T-Rex stem cell?
You certainly cannot without a full complement of T-Rex DNA.
Because of the "elastic" properties of the soft tissue and because of immunological testing, we know that a hardy protein like collagen survived, but DNA is more fragile. Recovering even part of the T-rex genome would be a separate major accomplishment.
--- edit
Insyght has missed the point. The bulk of my post was to point out that Thor's claim of a recent origin of dinosaur fossils would contradict both scientific observations over the last 150 years, but also the only source someone making such a claim would likely accept, the plain text of Genesis 6:13-22. The interpretation of Geneis 1:1-3 of there being an unspecified time between "In the beginning" and "Let there be light" is an old argument used by the "Old-Earth Creationists" which are distinct from the "Young-Earth Creationists" which are distinct from the "Biblical Flat Earthers" -- none of which are recognized as being neutral positions based of scientific fact.
Failing to recognize that I was replying to Thor's unstated assumptions results in a less-Insyghtful post.
You certainly cannot without a full complement of T-Rex DNA.
Because of the "elastic" properties of the soft tissue and because of immunological testing, we know that a hardy protein like collagen survived, but DNA is more fragile. Recovering even part of the T-rex genome would be a separate major accomplishment.
--- edit
Insyght has missed the point. The bulk of my post was to point out that Thor's claim of a recent origin of dinosaur fossils would contradict both scientific observations over the last 150 years, but also the only source someone making such a claim would likely accept, the plain text of Genesis 6:13-22. The interpretation of Geneis 1:1-3 of there being an unspecified time between "In the beginning" and "Let there be light" is an old argument used by the "Old-Earth Creationists" which are distinct from the "Young-Earth Creationists" which are distinct from the "Biblical Flat Earthers" -- none of which are recognized as being neutral positions based of scientific fact.
Failing to recognize that I was replying to Thor's unstated assumptions results in a less-Insyghtful post.
so, about the T-rex bones (futilily [did i spell that right] trying to change the subject)
do you think the tissue would still be good to eat? preserving meat over millions of years sounds intriging [im not a walking dictionary, i cant spell], if not, we could just blow it up, if it cant serve any purpose other than to say, mmmm, yummy, i think fireworks would be interesting to see
do you think the tissue would still be good to eat? preserving meat over millions of years sounds intriging [im not a walking dictionary, i cant spell], if not, we could just blow it up, if it cant serve any purpose other than to say, mmmm, yummy, i think fireworks would be interesting to see
the russians ate Mammoth meat that was over 10,000 years old, but I doubt that the trex would be that tasty or fresh.
just a hunch,
as for cloning, normally they take a egg cell suck out the nucleus and then insert a nuclues from another cell into the egg cell, and give it a tiny spark, one out of 100 may start to divide, normally though the failure rate is incredible, However I beleive that they are pretty good at cloning frogs, I haven't heard anything about cloning birds though, but over all, cloning a dinosaur should be easier than cloning a mammal. though like I've said before, I'd be amazed if they found any intact DNA in the bones, let alone any they could actually get to clone. the good news is that if they do find DNA, we're really good at copying DNA and making lots from a little.
I'm eagerly awaiting others to start looking in their bones, would an MRI be able to spot any soft tissue in a fossil? how about a Pet Scan?
anyone? anyone? bueler?
just a hunch,
as for cloning, normally they take a egg cell suck out the nucleus and then insert a nuclues from another cell into the egg cell, and give it a tiny spark, one out of 100 may start to divide, normally though the failure rate is incredible, However I beleive that they are pretty good at cloning frogs, I haven't heard anything about cloning birds though, but over all, cloning a dinosaur should be easier than cloning a mammal. though like I've said before, I'd be amazed if they found any intact DNA in the bones, let alone any they could actually get to clone. the good news is that if they do find DNA, we're really good at copying DNA and making lots from a little.
I'm eagerly awaiting others to start looking in their bones, would an MRI be able to spot any soft tissue in a fossil? how about a Pet Scan?
anyone? anyone? bueler?
Hi Guys,
Seriously... who says we need to make 'full sized" T-Rex's. Lets make them "pygmy" T-Rex's. Say 3 to 5 foot high. This is a small modification on some branch of the genetic tree. I imagine a rather small branch... he he he. Then you can use Ostrich Eggs. I really don't know why you are all so worried. He he he.
This would then be "managable". Did you catch that cute french zoologist "chick" (cable - Discovery Channel or Animal Kingdom Channel) who studies the Komodo Dragons in the Islands off Sumatra who hand feeds the "lizards". They all think she is "swell" and she cuddles them and she lets them lick her. These "monitor lizards" are up to 12 feet long and can single handedly bring down a fully grown water buffalo and quite capable of eating people. Their bite is extremely toxic (because of the germs) but this young girl seems almost at home with them. She sits among a "pack" of them as if they were puppies.
This brings me to the true story of my wife's Uncle who lived in Darwin (admittedly a bit of a fruitcake but a real character). He had two full sized saltwater crocodiles as pets in his backyard and each day he walked the both of them on leashes down to the beach in Darwin Harbour "for a swim". Afterwards they would all stroll home. All the neighbourhood dogs were always "inconspicuous" while this event was taking place. This is not BS. He was never bitten (at least not by a Croc).
Cheers
Seriously... who says we need to make 'full sized" T-Rex's. Lets make them "pygmy" T-Rex's. Say 3 to 5 foot high. This is a small modification on some branch of the genetic tree. I imagine a rather small branch... he he he. Then you can use Ostrich Eggs. I really don't know why you are all so worried. He he he.
This would then be "managable". Did you catch that cute french zoologist "chick" (cable - Discovery Channel or Animal Kingdom Channel) who studies the Komodo Dragons in the Islands off Sumatra who hand feeds the "lizards". They all think she is "swell" and she cuddles them and she lets them lick her. These "monitor lizards" are up to 12 feet long and can single handedly bring down a fully grown water buffalo and quite capable of eating people. Their bite is extremely toxic (because of the germs) but this young girl seems almost at home with them. She sits among a "pack" of them as if they were puppies.
This brings me to the true story of my wife's Uncle who lived in Darwin (admittedly a bit of a fruitcake but a real character). He had two full sized saltwater crocodiles as pets in his backyard and each day he walked the both of them on leashes down to the beach in Darwin Harbour "for a swim". Afterwards they would all stroll home. All the neighbourhood dogs were always "inconspicuous" while this event was taking place. This is not BS.
He was never bitten (at least not by a Croc).Cheers
whats the fun in a 3 foot t rex?? i wanna see something BIG, something i might get to make go boom
rpenner,
Yes, I did miss the previous post. My bad. Still my point, though maybe not insightful is this:
When people use scripture to defend science, they put under scrutiny their understanding of scripture. This makes the point under discussion no longer science, but about your understanding of scripture verses someone elses understanding of scripture. I don't see this as very smart either. Q: What on earth is a "Biblical flat earther"?.
Much better in my opinion to address the possiblity of dinosours being only 4000+ years ago with scientific evidence.
The 4000+ year old dinosour idea is interesting [not considered that before] and would remove a large problem area for creationists. It's easy for Creationists [My self included] to say that dating is wrong and everything is much younger than it is. That would remove Evolution's viability and make Creation almost the only alternative. Absolute proof of Creation though, would infact invalidate Faith as the scripture is permiated with the concept of Faith... which you would not need if you had absolute proof. [If that makes any sense?]
About this flesh, was it fleshy inside the bone already, or was it solid, but made fleshing again using some process? If some process was used, what was it and could it affect the tissue sample somehow? And yes, what about Pet scans, any idea if they could be used instead?
haste,
haha, yeah, wonder what that beasty would taste like? Might be advisable to blow it up first before trying to eat it. That would likely be tough meat!
Yes, I did miss the previous post. My bad. Still my point, though maybe not insightful is this:
When people use scripture to defend science, they put under scrutiny their understanding of scripture. This makes the point under discussion no longer science, but about your understanding of scripture verses someone elses understanding of scripture. I don't see this as very smart either. Q: What on earth is a "Biblical flat earther"?.
Much better in my opinion to address the possiblity of dinosours being only 4000+ years ago with scientific evidence.
The 4000+ year old dinosour idea is interesting [not considered that before] and would remove a large problem area for creationists. It's easy for Creationists [My self included] to say that dating is wrong and everything is much younger than it is. That would remove Evolution's viability and make Creation almost the only alternative. Absolute proof of Creation though, would infact invalidate Faith as the scripture is permiated with the concept of Faith... which you would not need if you had absolute proof. [If that makes any sense?]
About this flesh, was it fleshy inside the bone already, or was it solid, but made fleshing again using some process? If some process was used, what was it and could it affect the tissue sample somehow? And yes, what about Pet scans, any idea if they could be used instead?
haste,
haha, yeah, wonder what that beasty would taste like? Might be advisable to blow it up first before trying to eat it. That would likely be tough meat!
it was my understanding that the fleshy parts were inside the rock that made up the fossil.
as for young dino's, we find actual bones and remains of many animals that are long since extinct, we find mammoths trapped in the ice in siberia, who's flesh is still edible, we fine bones of sabre toothed tigers in the labrea tar pits (along with mammoths as well) but we never find dino bones, and we never find mammoth fossils. we have written history going back at least 4,000 years, no mammoths, no pictures, no info on them, same with dinos, so we can be pretty sure that a) Dinos are older than Mammoths, and
Mammoths vanished over 4,000 years ago.
there's lot's of other things we can use to point to the earth being very old, and very few things that might point to it being very young. I think it would be very difficult to make a young earth theory fit all observations without resorting to the Cause God said so argument. Not that a creationist would be against using that one.
as for young dino's, we find actual bones and remains of many animals that are long since extinct, we find mammoths trapped in the ice in siberia, who's flesh is still edible, we fine bones of sabre toothed tigers in the labrea tar pits (along with mammoths as well) but we never find dino bones, and we never find mammoth fossils. we have written history going back at least 4,000 years, no mammoths, no pictures, no info on them, same with dinos, so we can be pretty sure that a) Dinos are older than Mammoths, and
Mammoths vanished over 4,000 years ago. there's lot's of other things we can use to point to the earth being very old, and very few things that might point to it being very young. I think it would be very difficult to make a young earth theory fit all observations without resorting to the Cause God said so argument. Not that a creationist would be against using that one.
Two questions:
1) What is the chance this was a hoax? Someone snuck some type of tissue in there while main guy had his head turned? (No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Just asking the question.)
2) What does this do to the course of Paleintology (sp?) as a whole?
1) What is the chance this was a hoax? Someone snuck some type of tissue in there while main guy had his head turned? (No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Just asking the question.)
2) What does this do to the course of Paleintology (sp?) as a whole?
Just a question-
If we were able to bring back T-Rex using the DNA, would we all have to start spending tax dollars to protect it as an "endangered species", or would it get a new label like "post-extinct species"?
If we were able to bring back T-Rex using the DNA, would we all have to start spending tax dollars to protect it as an "endangered species", or would it get a new label like "post-extinct species"?
1) I suppose it's not impossible that it's a hoax, but I'd be suprised to find out that it was. I'm going to say the chances are fairly slim, though if the story broke a week or so later I would have pegged it as a joke.
2) it gives us a new tool to learn more about Dinosaurs and how they lived. I'm not sure what data they can gleam from this little bit of fleshy material, but it should increase our knowledge base.
3) unless we release them into the wild, they wouldn't be considered endangered. though I'm sure Peta will throw a fit no matter what we do to them. I'm sure bringing a animal back from extinction is somehow cruel.
2) it gives us a new tool to learn more about Dinosaurs and how they lived. I'm not sure what data they can gleam from this little bit of fleshy material, but it should increase our knowledge base.
3) unless we release them into the wild, they wouldn't be considered endangered. though I'm sure Peta will throw a fit no matter what we do to them. I'm sure bringing a animal back from extinction is somehow cruel.
QUOTE
I'm sure bringing a animal back from extinction is somehow cruel.
As opposed to leaving it extinct.
QUOTE (MattWeston+Mar 29 2005, 01:10 PM)
Just a question-
If we were able to bring back T-Rex using the DNA, would we all have to start spending tax dollars to protect it as an "endangered species", or would it get a new label like "post-extinct species"?
Interesting/amusing question.
But before anyone takes off and goes crazy about cloning dinosaurs, some information should be presented. I learned this by listening to an interview with Jack Horner, the famous palientologist. He's the guy that found the bone in question. He was also the primary consultant for the movie "Jurassic Park".
Anyway, he said that it is possible, but not definite, that there will be some fragmentary DNA found within what so far appear to be well-preserved blood cells and osteocytes (bone cells) in the tissue sample. Even if there are DNA fragments preserved in the cells, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a "whole" DNA strand found. Let alone a full set of chromosomes.
Without a full set of chromosomes, theoretically it might be possible to substitute a DNA strand from another animal (such as a frog, as used in "Jurassic Park"), simply because most animals have a significant amount of DNA in common. However, it would have to be only this DNA that is missing, and we would have to be able to identify what needs replacing. That's quite a tall order in and of itself.
However, even if we could surmount these obstacles and assemble a full DNA strand, that does not inherently enable cloning. Right now, cloning is accomplished by replacing the DNA in an existing embryonic cell. We would need to have a fully functioning, living, embryonic cell from some animal. And this cell would need to be similar enough to a real dinosaur embryo cell that it could sustain the DNA and grow into a dinosaur.
In any event. It's not likely. We just don't have the information, or technology.
If we were able to bring back T-Rex using the DNA, would we all have to start spending tax dollars to protect it as an "endangered species", or would it get a new label like "post-extinct species"?
Interesting/amusing question.
But before anyone takes off and goes crazy about cloning dinosaurs, some information should be presented. I learned this by listening to an interview with Jack Horner, the famous palientologist. He's the guy that found the bone in question. He was also the primary consultant for the movie "Jurassic Park".
Anyway, he said that it is possible, but not definite, that there will be some fragmentary DNA found within what so far appear to be well-preserved blood cells and osteocytes (bone cells) in the tissue sample. Even if there are DNA fragments preserved in the cells, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a "whole" DNA strand found. Let alone a full set of chromosomes.
Without a full set of chromosomes, theoretically it might be possible to substitute a DNA strand from another animal (such as a frog, as used in "Jurassic Park"), simply because most animals have a significant amount of DNA in common. However, it would have to be only this DNA that is missing, and we would have to be able to identify what needs replacing. That's quite a tall order in and of itself.
However, even if we could surmount these obstacles and assemble a full DNA strand, that does not inherently enable cloning. Right now, cloning is accomplished by replacing the DNA in an existing embryonic cell. We would need to have a fully functioning, living, embryonic cell from some animal. And this cell would need to be similar enough to a real dinosaur embryo cell that it could sustain the DNA and grow into a dinosaur.
In any event. It's not likely. We just don't have the information, or technology.
Agreed. It is currenly difficult to clone common species with abundant DNA samples. It would be just that more difficult to clone something whose DNA is rare and or fragmented.
On the line of cruelty to animals, if we could make a T-Rex from this sample, would it be cruel not to have a sample to create one of the opposite sex? It would be a big let down to be the only one of my species resurrected, and find out there are no girls left.
On the line of cruelty to animals, if we could make a T-Rex from this sample, would it be cruel not to have a sample to create one of the opposite sex? It would be a big let down to be the only one of my species resurrected, and find out there are no girls left.
QUOTE (Insyght+Mar 29 2005, 04:01 PM)
What on earth is a "Biblical flat earther"?.
Documenting the Existence of "The International Flat Earth Society"
Likewise there are Snake-handling cults which are based on the New Testament quote that Jesus' follwers may "take up any poisonous thing".
Likewise there are Snake-handling cults which are based on the New Testament quote that Jesus' follwers may "take up any poisonous thing".
The 4000+ year old dinosour idea is interesting [not considered that before] and would remove a large problem area for creationists. It's easy for Creationists [My self included] to say that dating is wrong and everything is much younger than it is. That would remove Evolution's viability and make Creation almost the only alternative. Absolute proof of Creation though, would infact invalidate Faith as the scripture is permiated with the concept of Faith... which you would not need if you had absolute proof. [If that makes any sense?]
But I pointed out that if thor's belief in historical dinosaurs was based on the literal truth of Genesis, then the fact the Genesis records Noah of exactly executing God's instructions, thus dinosaur's must have been on the ark of a definte size, a physical impossibility according to best creationist calculations (linked to in other post). But if the dinosaurs were allowed to go extinct in the flood, then the factual basis of Genesis is contradicted.
So it can only eat one leg off at a time? We have bad enough stories about pit bulls, can you imagine a pet T-rex.
I don't think that would work. Remember that even though female humans have two X's, they're not identical. They get one from each parent. I don't know what would happen if you tried to use identical ones. Probably you'd end up with a retarded or stillborn dinosaur, or maybe it would not develop at all.
Documenting the Existence of "The International Flat Earth Society"
QUOTE
.... one can support virtually any statement imaginable from Scripture. .... the reference to the "four corners of the earth," and by the parable of Jesus being shown "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a mountain -- clearly impossible for a sphere, but reasonable for a flat surface.
Likewise there are Snake-handling cults which are based on the New Testament quote that Jesus' follwers may "take up any poisonous thing".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| .... one can support virtually any statement imaginable from Scripture. .... the reference to the "four corners of the earth," and by the parable of Jesus being shown "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a mountain -- clearly impossible for a sphere, but reasonable for a flat surface. |
Likewise there are Snake-handling cults which are based on the New Testament quote that Jesus' follwers may "take up any poisonous thing".
The 4000+ year old dinosour idea is interesting [not considered that before] and would remove a large problem area for creationists. It's easy for Creationists [My self included] to say that dating is wrong and everything is much younger than it is. That would remove Evolution's viability and make Creation almost the only alternative. Absolute proof of Creation though, would infact invalidate Faith as the scripture is permiated with the concept of Faith... which you would not need if you had absolute proof. [If that makes any sense?]
But I pointed out that if thor's belief in historical dinosaurs was based on the literal truth of Genesis, then the fact the Genesis records Noah of exactly executing God's instructions, thus dinosaur's must have been on the ark of a definte size, a physical impossibility according to best creationist calculations (linked to in other post). But if the dinosaurs were allowed to go extinct in the flood, then the factual basis of Genesis is contradicted.
QUOTE (Insyght+Mar 29 2005, 04:01 PM)
About this flesh, was it fleshy inside the bone already, or was it solid, but made fleshing again using some process? If some process was used, what was it and could it affect the tissue sample somehow? And yes, what about Pet scans, any idea if they could be used instead?
The Scientific American page I linked to in my previous quote clearly indicated the sample was chemically treated (acids???) to remove mineral content.
The Scientific American page I linked to in my previous quote clearly indicated the sample was chemically treated (acids???) to remove mineral content.
Off topic, but it ties into the extinction deal....The northern white rhino is all but extinct, it is apparently a subspecies of the white rhino in africa....but even the african white rhino only numbers around 11,000. The northern white rhino has a dozen or less animals in the wild, and very few throughout the world in zoos. This is mostly due to poaching and a civil war in the nativ country...can't think of its name and if I could I don't think I could spell it.
I am very interested in this, and as for a 3 foot Rex....woooot!
I know my mom wouldn't let me have a 20 foot lizard in the house, but maybe a smaller one. Not to mention, smaller animals always look cuter, and you could actually walk it without it walking you.
Realistically, this story will take a long time to develop if it does develop into anything that the major news channels will actually do a special on, but I do hope for that day!
I am very interested in this, and as for a 3 foot Rex....woooot!
I know my mom wouldn't let me have a 20 foot lizard in the house, but maybe a smaller one. Not to mention, smaller animals always look cuter, and you could actually walk it without it walking you.
Realistically, this story will take a long time to develop if it does develop into anything that the major news channels will actually do a special on, but I do hope for that day!
so we clone two rex's, a male and female, i think thats acceptable, and more to make go boom when we get bored watching them eat cows
QUOTE
I know my mom wouldn't let me have a 20 foot lizard in the house, but maybe a smaller one.
So it can only eat one leg off at a time?
We have bad enough stories about pit bulls, can you imagine a pet T-rex.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 25 2005, 04:56 AM)
Hi Matt,
Sorry I cut across this topic... I saw this too and posted it separately (I edited it and now there are two of them).
I am directing all posts here...
[Admin: I killed the second one. ]
All I can add to it is a couple of other links but I think this is a significant advance in this knowledge. I have added a link from National Geographic and Physorg which adds a certain credence to he story.
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...0/wx10303241932
Shades of Jurassic Park, I never thought this could be possible!
The tissue is still flexible after 70 Million years??? It tickles the fancy of the Geologist in me.
Cheers
this is a test post
Sorry I cut across this topic... I saw this too and posted it separately (I edited it and now there are two of them).
I am directing all posts here...
[Admin: I killed the second one.
]All I can add to it is a couple of other links but I think this is a significant advance in this knowledge. I have added a link from National Geographic and Physorg which adds a certain credence to he story.
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...0/wx10303241932
Shades of Jurassic Park, I never thought this could be possible!
The tissue is still flexible after 70 Million years??? It tickles the fancy of the Geologist in me.
Cheers
this is a test post
if this were a real post, it would have some meaningful content.
BOOM!
i just had a question though, where does cloning a T-rex fit into a physics forum
i just had a question though, where does cloning a T-rex fit into a physics forum
"it appears that while the bony material on the outside was replaced with minerals in the fossiliztion process, at the same time it seems that the marrow of the bone was somehowsealed inside before it could totally decay. it's seems that the process begins on the outside and works its way in,but then after it gets to a certain point, the minerals can no longer seep in to replace the insides, nor can anything else get in."
From what i've been taught minerals only diffuse and "seep" or go through something when theyre is a medium for it to travel through, if these bones were in a place with extremely low amounts of water would the same process take place?
Even if fossilisation is dated or theoretically stated wrongly-dinosaurs still have to pretty darn old still, I personally dont think fossils fossilise differently-this is the FIRST time anything like this has happened and its very unlikely something like this will be found again, probably a few more times at most, i think its a one off that can be explained, without having to destroy all theory we have right now.
"Maybe some of these creatures would be immune to aids/cancer? This is way ahead of the topic but is certianly an AWESOME find and one that I will continue to read up on!"
AIDS? maybe, they say AID's originated from monkeys so i dont think dinosaurs had it, then again...as to cancer-they did get it, they can see from the bones (or should i say fossils?) that show markings of tumours.
Also any cell can become cancerous, anything that cant become cancerous wouldn't be of all lifes organic structure-which would be highly odd.
From what i've been taught minerals only diffuse and "seep" or go through something when theyre is a medium for it to travel through, if these bones were in a place with extremely low amounts of water would the same process take place?
Even if fossilisation is dated or theoretically stated wrongly-dinosaurs still have to pretty darn old still, I personally dont think fossils fossilise differently-this is the FIRST time anything like this has happened and its very unlikely something like this will be found again, probably a few more times at most, i think its a one off that can be explained, without having to destroy all theory we have right now.
"Maybe some of these creatures would be immune to aids/cancer? This is way ahead of the topic but is certianly an AWESOME find and one that I will continue to read up on!"
AIDS? maybe, they say AID's originated from monkeys so i dont think dinosaurs had it, then again...as to cancer-they did get it, they can see from the bones (or should i say fossils?) that show markings of tumours.
Also any cell can become cancerous, anything that cant become cancerous wouldn't be of all lifes organic structure-which would be highly odd.
QUOTE (haste+Mar 30 2005, 02:05 AM)
BOOM!
i just had a question though, where does cloning a T-rex fit into a physics forum
PhysOrgForum SCIENCE, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ->NEWS discussions -> STRIKING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
For the more basic brained people
the answer is in the capital lettered words
i just had a question though, where does cloning a T-rex fit into a physics forum
PhysOrgForum SCIENCE, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ->NEWS discussions -> STRIKING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
For the more basic brained people
the answer is in the capital lettered words
Hi All,
Has anyone considered that it may be that dinosaurs actually secrete something in their blood that, at least when they are dead, suppresses the development of bacteria? After all they represent a rather different lineage to the rest of the animal kingdom that no longer have any representatives today.
This would mean that further "freshly preserved" dinosaur fossils may be more likely than we think.
Cheers
PS: I think Guest_longlivelinky and haste may be playing with too much explosives and may end up like the dinosaurs themselves.
Has anyone considered that it may be that dinosaurs actually secrete something in their blood that, at least when they are dead, suppresses the development of bacteria? After all they represent a rather different lineage to the rest of the animal kingdom that no longer have any representatives today.
This would mean that further "freshly preserved" dinosaur fossils may be more likely than we think.
Cheers
PS: I think Guest_longlivelinky and haste may be playing with too much explosives and may end up like the dinosaurs themselves.
oh Paleeeez, Blowing up or eating fossils. I don't think so. Let's clone them and start ranching them and then we'll have Rexburgers. YOU could really give Burger King a run for their money--you could call your chain: Burger Rex!!! or
RexDonald's (Rex Kroc would be spinning in his grave). For you humorists: Oh BEEEHAVE!!
For you science buffs: If we had complet trex DNA which is extremely unlikely, we could enucleate a single Ostrich egg cell and place ALL the doulble chromosomes of the trex (singular: trek) in the empty egg, zap it, get it dividing. reincert it in the donor female ostrich (surrogate mom, we'll call her "Trexi") she'll add a yoke (no this is not another chicken yoke) and a shell and then we will see what hatches. the baby would be the same sex as the 70 million year old specimen and may grow to a maximum size, or like a croc, continue to grow as long as it lives and the longer it lives the larger it will become. I'd love to see it but probably not in my lifetime.
RexDonald's (Rex Kroc would be spinning in his grave). For you humorists: Oh BEEEHAVE!!
For you science buffs: If we had complet trex DNA which is extremely unlikely, we could enucleate a single Ostrich egg cell and place ALL the doulble chromosomes of the trex (singular: trek) in the empty egg, zap it, get it dividing. reincert it in the donor female ostrich (surrogate mom, we'll call her "Trexi") she'll add a yoke (no this is not another chicken yoke) and a shell and then we will see what hatches. the baby would be the same sex as the 70 million year old specimen and may grow to a maximum size, or like a croc, continue to grow as long as it lives and the longer it lives the larger it will become. I'd love to see it but probably not in my lifetime.
it the one we got is a male, we could probably make a female. assuming their gender system works the same way ours does, but if it works like it does for Gators and crocs, then it's the temperature of the egg during development that determines it's gender.
though also keep in mind, that it'd be tough on the T rex with no other t rexes to teach it how to be a t rex. so even if it we were some how able to pull this off, we still wouldn't be able to know what they were like back then. we could study them physically, but not their behavior.
though also keep in mind, that it'd be tough on the T rex with no other t rexes to teach it how to be a t rex. so even if it we were some how able to pull this off, we still wouldn't be able to know what they were like back then. we could study them physically, but not their behavior.
we could raise it with anti-love, make it not like humans, and make in hungry a lot, so then it would be lik ein jurassic park, and then we could make it go boom when it eats people
Do we have any way of knowing what the average lifespan of a T-Rex is? I've always wondered if dinosaurs were big simply because the environment let them live very long lives. Could you imagine what a thousand year old croc might look like if it just kept growing?
I suppose if we cloned this thing we could actually find out.
I suppose if we cloned this thing we could actually find out.
QUOTE
if the one we got is a male, we could probably make a female
I don't think that would work. Remember that even though female humans have two X's, they're not identical. They get one from each parent. I don't know what would happen if you tried to use identical ones. Probably you'd end up with a retarded or stillborn dinosaur, or maybe it would not develop at all.
if brother and sister mate and have a girl, the chances are 50/50 that she would have identical x chromesomes, and I think this has happened enough to show that it's possible without major negative consequences.
especially in Dogs and Cats who are interbred a great deal. It wouldn't be an ideal situation, but it should still work.
especially in Dogs and Cats who are interbred a great deal. It wouldn't be an ideal situation, but it should still work.
Don't call our T-Rex retarded. He's just mentally challenged, confused, and all alone. Poor little guy. All he needs is some therepy.
Matt:
At first I read this:
and went "huh???"
Then I continued and saw the next sentence:
and went "huh???"
Then I continued and saw the next sentence:
especially in Dogs and Cats who are interbred a great deal
And then it made sense. I had forgotten that some animals do interbreed fairly often without too many negative consequences. It's mainly humans that have the problem. Thanks for the reminder! I retract my last post.
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution? Seems like creationism is a better theory to explain everything.
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
Here we go into the realms of I.D. versus Evolution again... You guys are all NUTs. You just can't leave the ID v EV topic alone (LOL).
How about I sum it up:
1) EV can not be proven. Unless it was observed. The thing observing would need to have evolved too, which could only be proven by something observing it... and so on.... If God was the thing observing, then it would prove ID not EV.
2) ID can be proven, only if God chooses to manifest him self. When he does, the whole argument would no longer matter any more
At first I read this:
QUOTE
I think this has happened enough to show that it's possible without major negative consequences.
and went "huh???"
Then I continued and saw the next sentence:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think this has happened enough to show that it's possible without major negative consequences. |
and went "huh???"
Then I continued and saw the next sentence:
especially in Dogs and Cats who are interbred a great deal
And then it made sense. I had forgotten that some animals do interbreed fairly often without too many negative consequences. It's mainly humans that have the problem. Thanks for the reminder! I retract my last post.
"Has anyone considered that it may be that dinosaurs actually secrete something in their blood that, at least when they are dead, suppresses the development of bacteria? After all they represent a rather different lineage to the rest of the animal kingdom that no longer have any representatives today."
Croc's and Alligator's have very tough immune systems to the diseases that they are commonly exposed to, and if you look at how well and quickly a croc can heal from what would be a mortal wound to a human you can imagine that bacteria probobly wouldn't be able to survive very well at all in a dinosour. So if the dinosour died and was quickly covered with clay, the bacteria trying to enter the body would be killed quickly...untill all blood functions ceased *which would be rather fast* but slow enough to kill off alot of bacteria. When our hear stops beating, our cells don't die off instantly, they continue to work for a period of time then die of lack of nutrients. An example, that shows the crocs strong immune system *overall* it is common for the dominant croc to bit off the feet of a submissive croc. I have seen many programs where crocs are missing half or their tail, ALL of their feet, and have nastey looking gashes from prey on their body. I can say that if my feet were cut off and I swam in a river...walked on dirt, and lived off my bodyfat for a while till I could hunt again, ALL without medical attention, that I would probobly die.
"it the one we got is a male, we could probably make a female. assuming their gender system works the same way ours does, but if it works like it does for Gators and crocs, then it's the temperature of the egg during development that determines it's gender. though also keep in mind, that it'd be tough on the T rex with no other t rexes to teach it how to be a t rex. so even if it we were some how able to pull this off, we still wouldn't be able to know what they were like back then. we could study them physically, but not their behavior."
While I don't think we could any time soon, I do believe that in the future we will be able to identify the genes that would make a male, male, and a female, female. And would then be able to reproduce a dinosour of both sexes from one strand of DNA. The animal would of course have the same colored eyes, same weaknesses and strengths, and so on. This could be done by further studying of dna, and being able to understand why certian trains skip a generation totally only to reappear. We would then be able to take parts of "granpa and grandma" possibly and make a breed animal...But this is with alot of further study and the ability to work around current limitations.
Croc's and Alligator's have very tough immune systems to the diseases that they are commonly exposed to, and if you look at how well and quickly a croc can heal from what would be a mortal wound to a human you can imagine that bacteria probobly wouldn't be able to survive very well at all in a dinosour. So if the dinosour died and was quickly covered with clay, the bacteria trying to enter the body would be killed quickly...untill all blood functions ceased *which would be rather fast* but slow enough to kill off alot of bacteria. When our hear stops beating, our cells don't die off instantly, they continue to work for a period of time then die of lack of nutrients. An example, that shows the crocs strong immune system *overall* it is common for the dominant croc to bit off the feet of a submissive croc. I have seen many programs where crocs are missing half or their tail, ALL of their feet, and have nastey looking gashes from prey on their body. I can say that if my feet were cut off and I swam in a river...walked on dirt, and lived off my bodyfat for a while till I could hunt again, ALL without medical attention, that I would probobly die.
"it the one we got is a male, we could probably make a female. assuming their gender system works the same way ours does, but if it works like it does for Gators and crocs, then it's the temperature of the egg during development that determines it's gender. though also keep in mind, that it'd be tough on the T rex with no other t rexes to teach it how to be a t rex. so even if it we were some how able to pull this off, we still wouldn't be able to know what they were like back then. we could study them physically, but not their behavior."
While I don't think we could any time soon, I do believe that in the future we will be able to identify the genes that would make a male, male, and a female, female. And would then be able to reproduce a dinosour of both sexes from one strand of DNA. The animal would of course have the same colored eyes, same weaknesses and strengths, and so on. This could be done by further studying of dna, and being able to understand why certian trains skip a generation totally only to reappear. We would then be able to take parts of "granpa and grandma" possibly and make a breed animal...But this is with alot of further study and the ability to work around current limitations.
the UNC professor has now looked at hadrasaur and other T rexes and also found soft tissue, but we still don't know if it is protein or not (she probably does but has not yet said so--probably waiting to publish the stuff first--Remember: publish or perish)
I said it would be the same gender because that has worked with mammals which have been cloned, sheep, cats, dogs, etc. but you are right: temperature affects the gender in crocs and shrimp start out male and as they age they become female so I should not have assumed that the clone would be the same gender. I should not have assumed
I said it would be the same gender because that has worked with mammals which have been cloned, sheep, cats, dogs, etc. but you are right: temperature affects the gender in crocs and shrimp start out male and as they age they become female so I should not have assumed that the clone would be the same gender. I should not have assumed
yep, 100 years from now when we can do something like that, you bet,
science requires ethics
the above statement is false
scientists sometimes have ethics
the above statement is true
when we do something in the name of science, we dont care about ethics
we just want to do something cool
science requires ethics
the above statement is false
scientists sometimes have ethics
the above statement is true
when we do something in the name of science, we dont care about ethics
we just want to do something cool
The The March 24, 2005 issue of "Science News", page195, describes how the T. Rex bone marrow was processed. It was mineralized, but the investigators dissolved the minerals by soaking the fossil in a series of slightly alkaline solutions.
The full article was to appear in the March 25 issue of "Science".
The article also reports that demineralization of bones of modern-day ostrich bones with the added step of digest the collagen strengthening the bones yield blood vessels of similar size and texture as found in the T. Rex fossel.
It is also found that a spongy material extracted from the T. Rex fossil triggered a response in tests used to detect proteins commonly found in the bones of modern chickens and cows.
That, IMHO, is incontrovertible proof of the fact that the conservation of many genetic molecules and processes yields strong evidence about the ancestral genetic contribution to all of we modern critters.
(I certainly hope that the material I have provided above doesn't violate Science News's copyrights. I'd hate to have to declare bankruptcy at my advanced age.)
The full article was to appear in the March 25 issue of "Science".
The article also reports that demineralization of bones of modern-day ostrich bones with the added step of digest the collagen strengthening the bones yield blood vessels of similar size and texture as found in the T. Rex fossel.
It is also found that a spongy material extracted from the T. Rex fossil triggered a response in tests used to detect proteins commonly found in the bones of modern chickens and cows.
That, IMHO, is incontrovertible proof of the fact that the conservation of many genetic molecules and processes yields strong evidence about the ancestral genetic contribution to all of we modern critters.
(I certainly hope that the material I have provided above doesn't violate Science News's copyrights. I'd hate to have to declare bankruptcy at my advanced age.)
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution? Seems like creationism is a better theory to explain everything.
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
#1 Matter can neither be created or destroyed. If matter can't be created, then evolution can't be accurate. A creationists solution to this problem is a God that operates outside the realm of phyics.
#2 Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
#1 Matter can neither be created or destroyed. If matter can't be created, then evolution can't be accurate. A creationists solution to this problem is a God that operates outside the realm of phyics.
#2 Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
QUOTE
That, IMHO, is incontrovertible proof of the fact that the conservation of many genetic molecules and processes yields strong evidence about the ancestral genetic contribution to all of we modern critters.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That, IMHO, is incontrovertible proof of the fact that the conservation of many genetic molecules and processes yields strong evidence about the ancestral genetic contribution to all of we modern critters. |
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution? Seems like creationism is a better theory to explain everything.
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
Here we go into the realms of I.D. versus Evolution again... You guys are all NUTs. You just can't leave the ID v EV topic alone (LOL).
How about I sum it up:
1) EV can not be proven. Unless it was observed. The thing observing would need to have evolved too, which could only be proven by something observing it... and so on.... If God was the thing observing, then it would prove ID not EV.
2) ID can be proven, only if God chooses to manifest him self. When he does, the whole argument would no longer matter any more
Nice summary of ID vs. EV, Insyght.
DMJ-
I do agree with DMJ on this confusion:
it either proves evolution wrong, or it proves that it is possible for organic matter to survive millions of years.
you can't start out with an assumption. otherwise you'll beleive that triangular shaped rocks prove that there's life on mars.
I'll let you google your other arguments, they've been shot down to death and are litterally all over the internet.
but in the end, EV has evidence. ID has faith.
Heck, I am a creationist and even I will say this isn't a true statement. From everything I have seen, (if there is no God that intervened) evolution is a very sound theory given the evidence.
Heck, I am a creationist and even I will say this isn't a true statement. From everything I have seen, (if there is no God that intervened) evolution is a very sound theory given the evidence.
It takes more faith to buy into evolution than creationism.
In the ID as Science forum, rpenner had a really good link on this stuff.
TalkOrigins: Speciation
Ha ha ha ha!
It would be funny Fealorin but you are probably sincere.
Maybe this will bring a smile to your "deadpan" face...
Rapture Bell (2.5MB) Charles Tyler (free mp3 download)
Cheers
What if we could walk with dinosaurs? If scientist found a way to Duplicate dinosaurs using there DNA we could walk with dinosaurs. What is a dinosaur? A dinosaur is a reptile from 220 million years ago. If we could bring to life a real dinosaur we would have to first know what to feed it, then we would have to know how to tame it. We could use dinosaurs to help us around in society. Scientist would have to make something that when the dinosaur gets out of control you could control it using that certain thing. Mabey in the future when we have more technology we could clone a dinosaur using its DNA. If we found out how to clone dinosaurs then mabey we could clone more things using bones of other things like cavemen or other old extinct creatures. I think that cloning a dinosaur would be the most coolest thing ever next to Time machines. If we found out how to clone we could use animals or cloned things as test subjects knowing that if it dies we could always clone more. All what i said right now are all the good things that wold happen, now i have to tell you all the bad things. If we cloned dinosaurs using there bone DNA dinosaurs could probable rule once again killing all man kind. If we cloned dinosaurs there could be more fright in the world Which would cause mayhem in the world. Also if we cloned dinosaurs We would have to find places to put them and waste money to buy electric wire fences, i mean the strongest fences in the world, then we would have to cut down more trees to build dinosaur proof hoses to be where they live. Also if we cloned dinosaurs and made one mistake which led to a treranasuares rex running into civilization which would lead to a evacuation then that would cause more money being wasted. Candy Dominguez the eighth grade science teacher says that we would be able to clone a dinosaur using the DNA from a bone, she says that not right now but yes when our technology increases we will be able to clone a dinosaur. Candy Dominguez also says that if we clone a dinosaur that we will be able to also make technology that will be able to tame the dinosaurs which if they go out of control then we will be able to tame them. Also we could get DNA From the blood sucking insects that sucked the blood from dinosaurs, we would find these insects trapped in amber. If we do clone dinosaurs they would probably die from all the diseases from today, then we would pile them into a canyon or so and they would get buried , in about one hundred years we could find fossil fuels. As scientist are still working to try to clone instinct animals including dinosaurs, scientist say that it would take a while unless they upgrade there technology, then mabey they could clone instinct animals including dinosaurs.
[SIZE=14][COLOR=red]
DMJ-
QUOTE
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years
Prove it. I do agree with DMJ on this confusion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years |
Prove it.
I do agree with DMJ on this confusion:
Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
I do agree with DMJ on this confusion:
Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
Not getting too far off subject, but it seems life (in it's many varieties) always organizes matter, fighting back entropy. Are there any evolutionary explanations for this?
QUOTE
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution?
it either proves evolution wrong, or it proves that it is possible for organic matter to survive millions of years.
you can't start out with an assumption. otherwise you'll beleive that triangular shaped rocks prove that there's life on mars.
I'll let you google your other arguments, they've been shot down to death and are litterally all over the internet.
but in the end, EV has evidence. ID has faith.
DMJ Posted: Apr 6 2005, 08:14 PM
<<I couldn't let this one pass without comment.>>
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution? Seems like creationism is a better theory to explain everything.
<<It was THOUGHT that organic matter could not survive millions of years. New evidence has been revealed that the belief is not true. You now have no support for saying "impossible" unless someone finally determines that the material from the T-Rex bone is not organic, which seems unlikely thus far.>>
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
<<Evolution does NOT violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I have no idea how you dragged the first law in; all the erroneous discussion I have read dealt with the second law and is wrong because of misunderstanding and misapplication.
<<The second law leads to increasing entropy ONLY for a closed system which experiences no energy flux. No subsystem within the universe is closed; they all have energy streaming through them with the possible exception of black holes. When energy streams through a system, all kinds of interesting things happen, including life.>>
#1 Matter can neither be created or destroyed. If matter can't be created, then evolution can't be accurate. A creationists solution to this problem is a God that operates outside the realm of phyics.
<<What a crock to claim that evolution requires matter to be created! It's nonsensically false and no conclusion drawn from such a mistatement has any validity.>>
#2 Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
<<Evolutionists have never, in their roles as evolutionists, dealt with the creation of life. As I pointed out above, you completely mis-state, if not thoroughly misunderstand, the second law of thermodynamics.>>
<<I couldn't let this one pass without comment.>>
Since it is impossible for organic matter to survive millions of years, doesn't this finding dismiss the notion of evolution? Seems like creationism is a better theory to explain everything.
<<It was THOUGHT that organic matter could not survive millions of years. New evidence has been revealed that the belief is not true. You now have no support for saying "impossible" unless someone finally determines that the material from the T-Rex bone is not organic, which seems unlikely thus far.>>
Although, I never quite bought into evolution since it violated the first and second law of thermodynamics.
<<Evolution does NOT violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I have no idea how you dragged the first law in; all the erroneous discussion I have read dealt with the second law and is wrong because of misunderstanding and misapplication.
<<The second law leads to increasing entropy ONLY for a closed system which experiences no energy flux. No subsystem within the universe is closed; they all have energy streaming through them with the possible exception of black holes. When energy streams through a system, all kinds of interesting things happen, including life.>>
#1 Matter can neither be created or destroyed. If matter can't be created, then evolution can't be accurate. A creationists solution to this problem is a God that operates outside the realm of phyics.
<<What a crock to claim that evolution requires matter to be created! It's nonsensically false and no conclusion drawn from such a mistatement has any validity.>>
#2 Law of Entropy, that things go from order to increased disorder. The evolutionary theory states the opposite. Evolutionist argue creation came from a random act which lead to increasing sophisticated organisms and order.
<<Evolutionists have never, in their roles as evolutionists, dealt with the creation of life. As I pointed out above, you completely mis-state, if not thoroughly misunderstand, the second law of thermodynamics.>>
It takes more faith to buy into evolution than creationism. There is zero evidence to support evolution.
There is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution, ie. no transitional fossils. Although, I once saw a picture of a cow with six legs. I however don't believe cows are evolving into spiders. I think the cow suffered from serious birth defect.
There is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution, ie. no transitional fossils. Although, I once saw a picture of a cow with six legs. I however don't believe cows are evolving into spiders. I think the cow suffered from serious birth defect.
QUOTE
There is zero evidence to support evolution.
Heck, I am a creationist and even I will say this isn't a true statement. From everything I have seen, (if there is no God that intervened) evolution is a very sound theory given the evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is zero evidence to support evolution. |
Heck, I am a creationist and even I will say this isn't a true statement. From everything I have seen, (if there is no God that intervened) evolution is a very sound theory given the evidence.
It takes more faith to buy into evolution than creationism.
This is a matter of opinion. Either way, it is a matter of trusting your experimentation and that of others you have researched.
guest.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
try learning about the theory before you debunk it.
speaking points from creationist web sites don't count as scientific evidence.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
try learning about the theory before you debunk it.
speaking points from creationist web sites don't count as scientific evidence.
no evidence to support evolution? man, your a dummy if i ever saw one
so how come when we do autopsies now, some people have a certain muscle in the back, but others dont (from different geographic location)
sounds like evolution to me, we didnt need the muscle anymore so we quit growing it, its a waste of energy to maintain anyway,
how come we have to have wisdom teeth removed?
because we have smaller jaws, sounds like evolution to me
so how come when we do autopsies now, some people have a certain muscle in the back, but others dont (from different geographic location)
sounds like evolution to me, we didnt need the muscle anymore so we quit growing it, its a waste of energy to maintain anyway,
how come we have to have wisdom teeth removed?
because we have smaller jaws, sounds like evolution to me
haste-
Your point's aren't especially convincing either. Please direct us to some sources if you have them. Cool sounding statements do not cout as evidence.
Your point's aren't especially convincing either. Please direct us to some sources if you have them. Cool sounding statements do not cout as evidence.
Matt-
I was poking around that link you posted. It's pretty interesting and had a great quote from David Canzi:
"According to the Just So Theory of Instantaneous Cosmogenesis, the universe came into existence suddenly, just as it is. This theory predicts that, if we examine reality, we will observe that things are the way they are. The theory is falsifiable: If things were not the way they are, it would be proven false. Observation has shown that things are, indeed, the way they are. Thus the theory is proven."
I was poking around that link you posted. It's pretty interesting and had a great quote from David Canzi:
"According to the Just So Theory of Instantaneous Cosmogenesis, the universe came into existence suddenly, just as it is. This theory predicts that, if we examine reality, we will observe that things are the way they are. The theory is falsifiable: If things were not the way they are, it would be proven false. Observation has shown that things are, indeed, the way they are. Thus the theory is proven."
MattWenson, i have no link or sources for them, however one of the teachers at my old high school used to do autopsies, and she pointed out that not everyone has all the muscles everyone else has
evolution takes millions of years, it occurs because of the same kind of organisim being exposed to different stimuli, needing different requirements
why else are there white and black people in the world???
evolution takes millions of years, it occurs because of the same kind of organisim being exposed to different stimuli, needing different requirements
why else are there white and black people in the world???
I'd like to take a moment to point out a little something that a lot of people take for granted.
Scientests don't just accept something without evidence. Scientests live to prove the other guy wrong. we get a kick out of it.
in the 1800s when darwin published his work, people weren't looking for a theory of the origin of species, even Darwin himself wasn't looking for it. Everyone was quite content that they were the chosen species hand crafted by God above and were quite special. When Darwin published, there was not one person who threw up their hands and said Whoopee! now I can stop going to church and I can marry my Gay lover! They fought him tooth and nail, and not just the church and the population in general, but also the other scientests. and from that point on, thousands of scientests have set out to prove him wrong. and for each one that has tried and failed, the theory got a little bit stronger and well accepted. to the point that we are at today. where it is pretty much universally accepted by anyone who bothers to learn about it.
It's not like we're arguing Mohamod Vs Moses here, we're not saying our god is better than your god. Scientests don't just beleive stuff that their parents taught them. we're much more cynical than that. it took mountains of data and predictions and tests and observations to get EV as accepted as it is today. otherwise we'd treat it with the same skeptism that we treat acupunture, Chi, psychic powers and ghosts.
we can't say that they don't exist, but there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that they do.
there is sufficient evidence to prove that life evolved. and it's not even hard to find.
Scientests don't just accept something without evidence. Scientests live to prove the other guy wrong. we get a kick out of it.
in the 1800s when darwin published his work, people weren't looking for a theory of the origin of species, even Darwin himself wasn't looking for it. Everyone was quite content that they were the chosen species hand crafted by God above and were quite special. When Darwin published, there was not one person who threw up their hands and said Whoopee! now I can stop going to church and I can marry my Gay lover! They fought him tooth and nail, and not just the church and the population in general, but also the other scientests. and from that point on, thousands of scientests have set out to prove him wrong. and for each one that has tried and failed, the theory got a little bit stronger and well accepted. to the point that we are at today. where it is pretty much universally accepted by anyone who bothers to learn about it.
It's not like we're arguing Mohamod Vs Moses here, we're not saying our god is better than your god. Scientests don't just beleive stuff that their parents taught them. we're much more cynical than that. it took mountains of data and predictions and tests and observations to get EV as accepted as it is today. otherwise we'd treat it with the same skeptism that we treat acupunture, Chi, psychic powers and ghosts.
we can't say that they don't exist, but there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that they do.
there is sufficient evidence to prove that life evolved. and it's not even hard to find.
"it took mountains of data and predictions and tests and observations to get EV as accepted as it is today. otherwise we'd treat it with the same skepticism that we treat acupuncture, Chi, psychic powers and ghosts."
Ghosts, I'm pretty much with you there. Psychic powers, probably. Chi, seems like it could have effects like meditation or prayer, in a calming and focusing way, but not in the way I think you mean it like blasting someone from across the room with a bolt of lightning like something out of mortal combat. I've never seen any direct evidence that leads me to believe in the existence these things, but a lot of people believe in them nonetheless.
Acupuncture is another matter entirely. It's been used for thousands of years, and modern science is just beginning to examine its effects.
For example.
Ghosts, I'm pretty much with you there. Psychic powers, probably. Chi, seems like it could have effects like meditation or prayer, in a calming and focusing way, but not in the way I think you mean it like blasting someone from across the room with a bolt of lightning like something out of mortal combat. I've never seen any direct evidence that leads me to believe in the existence these things, but a lot of people believe in them nonetheless.
Acupuncture is another matter entirely. It's been used for thousands of years, and modern science is just beginning to examine its effects.
For example.
Not that that has anything to do with population, but "Whatevs"
QUOTE
why else are there white and black people in the world???
Uh, we are all still the same species, though. It is genetically possible, for two blacks to have a white child (I have actually seen that), and I think the reverse may also be possible. Races and species are not the same thing.In the ID as Science forum, rpenner had a really good link on this stuff.
TalkOrigins: Speciation
just because it works doesn't mean some people won't be skeptical.
which is my whole point. acupuncture has been around for thousands of years, but it is not widely accepted as science. it may be one day, but theres a lot more work that has to be done and alot of questions that need to be answered.
and even then, there's the question of why it works. current acupuncture theory states that sickness is caused by blocked chi pathways, which are invisible. is this really what's going on? or is there something else.
I could also throw in cold fusion on the list. Scientests jumped all over that. even though many of them would have liked to beleive that it was real. it's clear something is happening in some of these bottles, and there is work continuing on it. but it's clearly not widely accepted. Natrual Selection was the cold fusion of the day.
which is my whole point. acupuncture has been around for thousands of years, but it is not widely accepted as science. it may be one day, but theres a lot more work that has to be done and alot of questions that need to be answered.
and even then, there's the question of why it works. current acupuncture theory states that sickness is caused by blocked chi pathways, which are invisible. is this really what's going on? or is there something else.
I could also throw in cold fusion on the list. Scientests jumped all over that. even though many of them would have liked to beleive that it was real. it's clear something is happening in some of these bottles, and there is work continuing on it. but it's clearly not widely accepted. Natrual Selection was the cold fusion of the day.
Hi Matt,
Matt Posted on Apr 8 2005, 03:09 PM
Well you will be pleased to know that Cold Fusion is back and "hotting up"!
Cold Fusion- It's Baaack And It's brought some "big guns" with it.
I don't think it's going away now.....
Update: I have created a separate topic about this information in "Striking Research and Developments" called Cold Fusion is back... This time it's personal!
Cheers
Matt Posted on Apr 8 2005, 03:09 PM
QUOTE
I could also throw in cold fusion on the list. Scientests jumped all over that. even though many of them would have liked to beleive that it was real. it's clear something is happening in some of these bottles, and there is work continuing on it. but it's clearly not widely accepted.
Well you will be pleased to know that Cold Fusion is back and "hotting up"!
Cold Fusion- It's Baaack
And It's brought some "big guns" with it.I don't think it's going away now.....
Update: I have created a separate topic about this information in "Striking Research and Developments" called Cold Fusion is back... This time it's personal!
Cheers
Well... I may be Christian, and I may believe that it's against God to recreate dinosaurs like in "Jurassic Park," but I somewhat believe in Natural Selection. I think nature has selected these things to die. They had their chance. Which is also why I think Panda Bears should be let go. Pandas don't breed enough, so they will die off and become extinct. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest. I do also think that it's playing "God." I don't think it's against God.
Ha ha ha ha! It would be funny Fealorin but you are probably sincere.
Maybe this will bring a smile to your "deadpan" face...
Rapture Bell (2.5MB) Charles Tyler (free mp3 download)
Cheers
What if we could walk with dinosaurs? If scientist found a way to Duplicate dinosaurs using there DNA we could walk with dinosaurs. What is a dinosaur? A dinosaur is a reptile from 220 million years ago. If we could bring to life a real dinosaur we would have to first know what to feed it, then we would have to know how to tame it. We could use dinosaurs to help us around in society. Scientist would have to make something that when the dinosaur gets out of control you could control it using that certain thing. Mabey in the future when we have more technology we could clone a dinosaur using its DNA. If we found out how to clone dinosaurs then mabey we could clone more things using bones of other things like cavemen or other old extinct creatures. I think that cloning a dinosaur would be the most coolest thing ever next to Time machines. If we found out how to clone we could use animals or cloned things as test subjects knowing that if it dies we could always clone more. All what i said right now are all the good things that wold happen, now i have to tell you all the bad things. If we cloned dinosaurs using there bone DNA dinosaurs could probable rule once again killing all man kind. If we cloned dinosaurs there could be more fright in the world Which would cause mayhem in the world. Also if we cloned dinosaurs We would have to find places to put them and waste money to buy electric wire fences, i mean the strongest fences in the world, then we would have to cut down more trees to build dinosaur proof hoses to be where they live. Also if we cloned dinosaurs and made one mistake which led to a treranasuares rex running into civilization which would lead to a evacuation then that would cause more money being wasted. Candy Dominguez the eighth grade science teacher says that we would be able to clone a dinosaur using the DNA from a bone, she says that not right now but yes when our technology increases we will be able to clone a dinosaur. Candy Dominguez also says that if we clone a dinosaur that we will be able to also make technology that will be able to tame the dinosaurs which if they go out of control then we will be able to tame them. Also we could get DNA From the blood sucking insects that sucked the blood from dinosaurs, we would find these insects trapped in amber. If we do clone dinosaurs they would probably die from all the diseases from today, then we would pile them into a canyon or so and they would get buried , in about one hundred years we could find fossil fuels. As scientist are still working to try to clone instinct animals including dinosaurs, scientist say that it would take a while unless they upgrade there technology, then mabey they could clone instinct animals including dinosaurs.
[SIZE=14][COLOR=red]
Dinosuar cloning Posted: Yesterday at 9:42 PM a lot of iffy stuff about cloning dinosaurs.
The notion of extracting dinosaur genes from sucking insects which were entombed in amber was the basis for "Jurassic Park" that was first a book by Michael Crichton and then was subsequently made into what I believe was a successful movie.
However, it ain't gonna happen in the real world as far as anyone can anticipate, so Dinosaur Cloning was engaging in an empty exercise which might be an outline for a science fiction novel. However, that aspect has been covered somewhat in book which was named, IIRC, "Bones of Earth".
It has been too long since this topic was started for me to remember if the reality of the "soft tissue" from a T-Rex bone has been discussed.
In case it hasn't, it wasn't really a finding of soft tissue in the T-Rex bone. Rather, the interior of the bone was completely mineralized, but it was found possible to dissolve the mineralization of what had been marrow and isolate what appeared to be cellualr components.
The notion of extracting dinosaur genes from sucking insects which were entombed in amber was the basis for "Jurassic Park" that was first a book by Michael Crichton and then was subsequently made into what I believe was a successful movie.
However, it ain't gonna happen in the real world as far as anyone can anticipate, so Dinosaur Cloning was engaging in an empty exercise which might be an outline for a science fiction novel. However, that aspect has been covered somewhat in book which was named, IIRC, "Bones of Earth".
It has been too long since this topic was started for me to remember if the reality of the "soft tissue" from a T-Rex bone has been discussed.
In case it hasn't, it wasn't really a finding of soft tissue in the T-Rex bone. Rather, the interior of the bone was completely mineralized, but it was found possible to dissolve the mineralization of what had been marrow and isolate what appeared to be cellualr components.
As for the ID Ev debate...
For every piece of evidence in favor of one side of the debate there is a plausable refutation. The only difference is... one is accepted by a faithless community called "academia" whom uses their theories as an assumption, and finds "facts" based on this assumption. IDers use the Bible as an assumption too.
For example:
Assumption: The world is billions of years old.
Fact: Blood vessels must be able to withstand 80 million years of decay
For every piece of evidence in favor of one side of the debate there is a plausable refutation. The only difference is... one is accepted by a faithless community called "academia" whom uses their theories as an assumption, and finds "facts" based on this assumption. IDers use the Bible as an assumption too.
For example:
Assumption: The world is billions of years old.
Fact: Blood vessels must be able to withstand 80 million years of decay
QUOTE (me me meee+May 5 2007, 04:24 AM)
As for the ID Ev debate...
For every piece of evidence in favor of one side of the debate there is a plausable refutation. The only difference is... one is accepted by a faithless community called "academia" whom uses their theories as an assumption, and finds "facts" based on this assumption. IDers use the Bible as an assumption too.
For example:
Assumption: The world is billions of years old.
Fact: Blood vessels must be able to withstand 80 million years of decay
and also...
You're a dumb git.
For every piece of evidence in favor of one side of the debate there is a plausable refutation. The only difference is... one is accepted by a faithless community called "academia" whom uses their theories as an assumption, and finds "facts" based on this assumption. IDers use the Bible as an assumption too.
For example:
Assumption: The world is billions of years old.
Fact: Blood vessels must be able to withstand 80 million years of decay
and also...
You're a dumb git.
QUOTE (Dinosuar cloning+Dec 12 2006, 09:42 PM)
What if we could walk with dinosaurs? If scientist found a way to Duplicate dinosaurs using there DNA we could walk with dinosaurs. What is a dinosaur? A dinosaur is a reptile from 220 million years ago. If we could bring to life a real dinosaur we would have to first know what to feed it, then we would have to know how to tame it. We could use dinosaurs to help us around in society. Scientist would have to make something that when the dinosaur gets out of control you could control it using that certain thing. Maybe in the future when we have more technology we could clone a dinosaur using its DNA. If we found out how to clone dinosaurs then maybe we could clone more things using bones of other things like cavemen or other old extinct creatures. I think that cloning a dinosaur would be the most coolest thing ever next to Time machines. If we found out how to clone we could use animals or cloned things as test subjects knowing that if it dies we could always clone more. All what i said right now are all the good things that wold happen, now i have to tell you all the bad things. If we cloned dinosaurs using there bone DNA dinosaurs could probable rule once again killing all man kind. If we cloned dinosaurs there could be more fright in the world Which would cause mayhem in the world. Also if we cloned dinosaurs We would have to find places to put them and waste money to buy electric wire fences, i mean the strongest fences in the world, then we would have to cut down more trees to build dinosaur proof hoses to be where they live. Also if we cloned dinosaurs and made one mistake which led to a tyrannosaurus Rex running into civilization which would lead to a evacuation then that would cause more money being wasted. Candy Dominguez the eighth grade science teacher says that we would be able to clone a dinosaur using the DNA from a bone, she says that not right now but yes when our technology increases we will be able to clone a dinosaur. Candy Dominguez also says that if we clone a dinosaur that we will be able to also make technology that will be able to tame the dinosaurs which if they go out of control then we will be able to tame them. Also we could get DNA From the blood sucking insects that sucked the blood from dinosaurs, we would find these insects trapped in amber. If we do clone dinosaurs they would probably die from all the diseases from today, then we would pile them into a canyon or so and they would get buried , in about one hundred years we could find fossil fuels. As scientist are still working to try to clone instinct animals including dinosaurs, scientist say that it would take a while unless they upgrade there technology, then maybe they could clone instinct animals including dinosaurs.
[SIZE=14][COLOR=red]
we cant duplicate dinosaurs because we would need an animal similar to a dinosaur to hold the embryo. Otherwise its not even worth posting a long blog post about. Humans will be able to clone and there is nothing you can do about it. We will do it the same way the pyramids at Egypt were built. With the help of the aliens.
p.s. Learn how to spell maybe.
[SIZE=14][COLOR=red] we cant duplicate dinosaurs because we would need an animal similar to a dinosaur to hold the embryo. Otherwise its not even worth posting a long blog post about. Humans will be able to clone and there is nothing you can do about it. We will do it the same way the pyramids at Egypt were built. With the help of the aliens.
p.s. Learn how to spell maybe.
QUOTE (Tom Cruise+May 23 2007, 01:00 PM)
p.s. Learn how to spell maybe.
People in glass houses (who can't use apostrophes) shouldn't throw stones (at people who don't spell 100%)
hehe
People in glass houses (who can't use apostrophes) shouldn't throw stones (at people who don't spell 100%)
hehe
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.