No you wouldn't. The faithful would cry out, that it is just an anomaly. Look at all the other evidence. Just ignore the skeleton as something curious and unexplainable for the moment. We essentially found a similar situation when some "junk" DNA of humans and mice were identical(humans, mice, and the common ancestor lie in the same strata). There is no reason for that situation to have occurred according to Darwin's theory.
That's because it would probably be proven to be an anomaly. But my point was if you could find a legimate human fossil in with dinos it would falsify.
I didn't mean a faked up piece of trash like the creationist museum in Kentucky or the nonsense of human footprints faked in Texas by those epitomies of Christian behavior in the creationist con game.
"No you wouldn't. The faithful would cry out, that it is just an anomaly. Look at all the other evidence. Just ignore the skeleton as something curious and unexplainable for the moment"
It would, there would be so many problems with a human skeleton with dinosaurs evolution would be in dire peril.
"We essentially found a similar situation when some "junk" DNA of humans and mice were identical(humans, mice, and the common ancestor lie in the same strata). There is no reason for that situation to have occurred according to Darwin's theory."
This is NOTHING like finding a human skeleton beside a t-rex my friend! Genetics is a very new, and very complicated field of study, new, unanticipated discoveries happen all the time. Assuming what you say is even true.
When the first test pilots tried to break the sound barrier, the intense vibrations from traversing the phenomena locked the controls and destroyed the planes. They've since corrected the problem. According to your logic, sicne the theory of flight didn't warn them about it before hand, planes can't fly?
Odd, I don't recall Darwin commenting on the mechanisms of DNA replication, nor on the probabilities of accurate replication in the absense of obvious selection.
I'm kind of curious about what ID says about this. Since replication errors occur, and this fact is not in dispute, how does ID explain long sequences replicated without error.
It would seem to me that there are several possibilities: the sequence has a yet unknown function that is being selected; the sequence is at the extreme end of a bell curve distribution of preserved sequences; it's a miracle.
I'm curious. Is there a nice curve published somewhere of preserved sequence lengths?