Co-Existence of Man and Dinosaurs

Live4Him:

Looking at your New Scientist articles, you seem to have left out a few things:

From the first article:
Despite some claimed successes, no one has yet convinced the majority of scientists that they have recovered recognisable dinosaur DNA. ... Proteins remain Schweitzer's main focus. 'I don't want to rule DNA out unequivocally,' she says, but her efforts so far to amplify genetic material for analysis have failed. This may be because only very short DNA chains have survived, she says.
Click to expand...

From your second link:
The longest sequence they extracted is 174 base pairs, with only 134 pairs useful for genetic analysis, says Woodward. He extracted DNA from nine samples during a year of experiments, but the success rate was only 1.8 per cent.
Click to expand...

And from your third link:
Although there were several reports of discoveries of ancient DNA-particularly from amber-in the early 1990s, most subsequent attempts came up with nothing. No one expected getting DNA would be easy, but many researchers would have been more comfortable if these successes had been replicated even once. Recently Thomas and his postdoctoral researcher Jeremy Austin decided they would try to study the evolution of flies by examining specimens trapped in amber. They used a number of insect samples dating back 25 to 40 million years, including some from the same Dominican amber that had been the source of the first reports of successful gene recovery. They never got to study fly evolution-because, as they reported this past year, they could not find any DNA. Trying out many methods for isolating DNA on 15 samples, Thomas and Austin found nothing.

For many researchers the results of this notably rigorous and thorough research was the last straw for ancient DNA. It is such a fragile molecule, they argue, that it can't hold up for more than 100,000 years, even in amber. (The Neanderthal DNA discovered this past year was only between 100,000 and 30,000 years old.) "Either we're all incompetent or it's extremely difficult to make it work," says Thomas. To him, the supposed successes of the past may have been the result of stray DNA from living organisms that drifted through laboratories. Since the common technique for finding ancient DNA involves replicating numerous copies of gene fragments-through a process called the polymerase chain reaction-even a tiny bit of contamination might fool a researcher.

Not everyone agrees with Thomas's gloomy conclusions. "I don't think the book's closed," says Rob DeSalle, a molecular systematist at the American Museum of Natural History who reported finding DNA from a termite trapped in amber in 1992-and who still stands by his claim. "The fact that they're not replicated doesn't invalidate these results." Nevertheless, many labs that were in hot pursuit of ancient DNA, including DeSalle's own team, have dropped the research; DeSalle says the payoff isn't worth the enormous effort. Mary Schweitzer herself tried and failed to get DNA out of a well-preserved fossil of Tyrannosaurus rex. This year, however, she reported her success in isolating blood proteins, which are far sturdier. It's always possible that some similarly encouraging research will emerge in the field of ancient DNA, but for the moment it seems on its way to becoming ancient history.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you have quoted very selectively. That shows an intellectual dishonesty not uncommon among Creationists.

You must have read these articles to extract the relevant parts. Yet, you seem to have extracted only the parts which suit your current argument. Why?

Unfortunately, I can easily think of several motives you could have, and none of them make you look good.
 
Originally posted by Live4Him
Sorry, but I've already presented quite a bit of empirical evidence which has not been refuted.
Click to expand...
:eek: :bugeye: :rolleyes:

Apparently, I'm on Live4's ignore list.

Either that or he's using those selective reading skills again.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Voodoo Child
The Paluxy tracks are widely acknowledged by creationists and science to be eroded dino prints.
Click to expand...
A wondrous bit of deception.
For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.

- see Paluxy; emphasis added - CA
Click to expand...
There exists zero scientific evidence supportive of the YEC silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top