[geocentrism] Re: dino a mammal kangaroo???
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:38:10 +0100
Dear Philip,
The comment below is typical evolutionist reasoning and how it deals with
embarrassing evidence.
There are two conflicting pieces of evidence here.
1 A dinosaur fossil believed to be 80 million years old.
2 The detection of DNA in the said dinosaur.
I once read a paper, in fact I may still have it, written by a DNA expert (not
a creationist) who said that he doubted the so-called millions of years
attributed to bugs found in amber. In his opinion and under the most favourable
conditions, DNA could not be preserved for more that about 10,000 years. So the
paleontologists say because the DNA doesn't agree with their presuppositions it
has to go! It is this kind of conflict that really annoys me because people's
world view and beliefs take precedence over the importance of conflicting
evidence.
So if the DNA expert is correct, that dinosaur is pretty modern. But the
paleontologists won't have it! However the DNA expert has hands-on experience
on his side and it is very unlikely that he could be orders of magnitude wrong
in his assessment of the maximum preservation time for DNA. Whereas the
paleontologist only has an extremely suspect method of dating (radiometric) and
a bucketful of circular reasoning to offer as evidence. When it comes to facts
and experimental evidence they are nowhere near in the same league as molecular
biologists.
If anyone is interested in the paper, I will try and find it. Please let me
know.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:45 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] dino a mammal kangaroo???
And in fact, many paleontologists are skeptical that Woodward has isolated
dinosaur DNA at all. Some flat out don't believe that it's possible to recover
80-million-year-old DNA. Others, like Rob DeSalle of the American Museum of
Natural History, who studies DNA from insects preserved in amber, grant that
Woodward's DNA might be that old but doubt it's from a dinosaur. I am willing
to believe they have gotten ancient DNA out of bone because the way they've
described their experiment seems adequate for obtaining DNA, says DeSalle. But
they have simply not shown that they have dinosaur DNA. There is no way. I
don't think there is enough information in the small sequence they have to do
this kind of analysis. If they got a lot more sequence and showed that the DNA
came out as either the sister group to reptiles or the sister group to birds,
then that would convince me.
Other related posts:
