Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Darth Omar said:
It’s exceedingly difficult to find intact DNA fragments in fossils. In fact, I was always told that DNA is notoriously unstable outside of the cell. How they manage to get even fragments of DNA from fossils is beyond me but supposedly it happens.

But they use our old friend the PCR tests to amplify fragments of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and conclude this or that. Not saying they’re wrong or right but how many assumptions are entailed *just in that*? How do they know the PCR results weren’t contaminated with human DNA? How do they know the fragment hasn’t been degraded to such an extent it could lead to a faulty conclusion?

We actually all know how unreliable PCR results can be, right?

This is kind of my point: when someone says ‘it’s a fact that man is descended from a less evolved ancestor’ they are seemingly unaware that their ‘fact’ is actually a provisional claim that was arrived at using a few assumptions.
Click to expand...

Dude, we're not talking DNA. How was "Lucy" dated? What, exactly, is your educational background on science?

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story
How old is Lucy?
The hominid-bearing sediments in the Hadar formation are divided into three members. Lucy was found in the highest of these—the Kada Hadar or KH—member. While fossils cannot be dated directly, the deposits in which they are found sometimes contain volcanic flows and ashes, which can now be dated with the 40Ar/39Ar (Argon-Argon) dating technique. Armed with these dates and bolstered by paleomagnetic, paleontological, and sedimentological studies, researchers can place fossils into a dated framework with accuracy and precision. Lucy is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old.
 
Cypress said:
I am not going to categorically rule out that biological emergence could have been an act of providential design.

But to practice wholesale skepticism that the conventional laws of chemistry and physics could not result in the jump from a pre-biotic soup to bio-molecules and cellular structure is a leap too far for me.
Click to expand...
and I am just the opposite......if find it unbelievable that something as complex as DNA could result from random shit happening randomly.......especially since it apparently has only happened once since time began........
 
Cypress said:
Physics is undoutedly the queen of the sciences.

But it appears you have been watching too many Jurassic Park movies if you think the science of evolution is limited to some low tech field paleontologists wearing Indiana Jones fedoras.

The evolutionary sciences are multidisciplinary invoking genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, biology, geology, etc.

The Mendelian version of Darwinian evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence -- and evolution by natural selection and gene flow has been observed in real time under both laboratory and field conditions.

On balance, Mendelian-Darwinian evolution is one of the most secure and firmly established theories in science, on a par with general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
Hell go to PubMed, Cell, Nucleotide databases and do a quick search of evolution. It is published billions of times. Do the same with bible. -0-

Evolution is black letter law underpinning all biological science.

Beating evolution over the head with a math book isn't going to make creation science relevant outside of PIMPS studio apartment
above the liquor store.
 
Darth Omar said:
As has been pointed out already Darwin and his contemporaries considered themselves as practicing natural philosophy. Darwin’s philosophy of science was that it [science] was equipped to answer such questions that might be considered beyond the reach of science.

I don’t think there’s any debate that Darwin ‘broadened’ science in that respect.
Click to expand...

the question is.....did he take it where it wasn't or did he take it where it isn't..........
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, we're not talking DNA. How was "Lucy" dated? What, exactly, is your educational background on science?

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story
How old is Lucy?
The hominid-bearing sediments in the Hadar formation are divided into three members. Lucy was found in the highest of these—the Kada Hadar or KH—member. While fossils cannot be dated directly, the deposits in which they are found sometimes contain volcanic flows and ashes, which can now be dated with the 40Ar/39Ar (Argon-Argon) dating technique. Armed with these dates and bolstered by paleomagnetic, paleontological, and sedimentological studies, researchers can place fossils into a dated framework with accuracy and precision. Lucy is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old.
Click to expand...

I thought you were an Army private or something? What are you doing here?

Educate yourself:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08976?message=remove&free=2
 
Micawber said:
stop using the the term narrative in association with evolution. It's not a fucking narrative. It's scientific fact.
Click to expand...

can you distinguish between the scientific fact of evolution and the speculation regarding what evolution might have resulted in?.........that unproven and untestable speculation is the narrative......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top