[Wow, you are dramatically oversimplifying the rationale for an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Unsurprising.]
Lol- ‘oversimplifying’ lol- of course ‘Dinos evolved into birds’ isn’t based on oversimplified sketchy similarities. Here’s a thought- Dinos and birds had similiar designs- that’s it. A wolf and lion have similiar designs too.
[Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer’s recent work]
I never claimed it was impossible, I stated that most evidence for ‘old specimens’ shows clearly that tissue can not be preserved for millions of years. Tissue that has survived has two possible explanations- either they are not as old as we’re told, or there is a miraculous preservation system at play.
[nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind]
You never did address the other thread in which I explained macro-evolution includes ‘creation’ of new organs needed for KINDS to become other KINDS. Yuo say you left creationism, for what? For assumptions of evolution devoid of evidence?
[I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence]
That ‘fit the evidence? Don’t you mean ‘that fit the evolution assumptions and apologetics’? Tell me again how amino acids became protiens, or how DNA ‘evolved’ without first having evolved DNA repair genes? or how the process of evolution was so perfect that left hand amino acids wouldn’t contaminate right hand amino acids and kill them off before they could move on in their million year scenario to make the impossible leap to protiens? ‘Nitpicking’? Call it what you want- but the truth is, these are serious problems, as are the built in protection levels at the molecular level that prevent perversion beyond species specific caps. To think that ‘an accumulation of small mutations’ could ‘result in macro-evolution’ is nothing but unscientificly supported apologetics.
[In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can’t possibly be 68 million years old]
No sir, that is a misrepresentation of what I’m saying- I’m suggesting that it is however strong support for the plausibility that dinos might not be as old as we’re told. Did you know that webbing between dino’s toes have been found intact? Or that skin has been found?
[Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation?]
Why? Because even Susan’s mentor told her to ‘try to disprove’ the fact that cells were present. Even secular scientists opposed Susan (Yet incredibly, she only whined about the big bad creationists who raised concerns lol) Why? Because as you well know, scientists never looked for the molecular material because of the faith bound beleif that bones simply could not contain molecular material. (Despite creationists discovering material from many locations and presenting it to hostile reviews- now however, they’ll have to take a SERIOUS look at the evidences now that one of their own has come out with like-mannered material. Bias in the scientific comunity? Oh heck no- must be just our imagination)
[For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory.]
Oh we do- yet the incredible bias that believes in old earth poo poo’s anything proposed. Radio-Halos have stood up to scrutiny for over 15 years now, yet there is fierce vehemence toward Gish and others who have declared that they show a valid plausibility for a young earth. Seems when the evidence is strong, the messengers character gets attacked rather than the evidence. “Chip holes’? I’m sorry- but pointing out obvious biological impossibilities that get covered up isn’t ‘chipping holes’, it’s demanding a less subjective- one-sided science.
Coyote- Ah- so the fact that they aren’t your field means they must be invalid along with all the other scientific material presented simply because the scientists have opinions. Perfectly reasonable- sigh.
I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much.
One part of being a scientist is that I do not feel comfortable arguing the genome as I have little training in that field. Non-scientists such as yourself, with no training in any field, seem not to be bothered by their lack of expertise. A quick trip to AIG and stay at a Holiday Inn Express and you're all set to tell scientists how things really are.
The sections of AIG that I have checked, in my fields, where I can tell good from bad and accurate from inaccurate, are pretty pathetic. Why should I assume that the others are any better?