Posted on 11/03/2007 7:44:49 PM PDT by 49th
The chicken egg has been prepped for surgery – a pea-size hole cut in the shell and covered with sticky tape. And now Hans Larsson, a McGill University researcher, removes it from the incubator, places it under a microscope and prepares to operate.
He gently peels off the tape and teases back the membranes that line the shell with tweezers. Through the eyepiece, he can see the tiny dot of a heart, steadily beating. He can also see the bud where he implants a milky bead doused in a protein. He hopes it will coax the embryo to grow a big tail. A dinosaur-like tail.
paleontologist, Prof. Larsson spends a significant portion of his time doing traditional dinosaur hunting, digging fossils as far afield as the Arctic and Africa with jackhammers and pickaxes. But he has long been frustrated with the limitations of studying old bones and what they reveal about the mysteries of evolution.
It was by examining ancient skeletons that paleontologists learned that modern birds, including chickens, descended from dinosaurs and that their relatives include such fierce predators as Tyrannosaurus rex. What fossils don't reveal, though, is how exactly such dramatic anatomical changes first arose. How did teeth the size of bananas turn into beaks? Or mighty tails become wimpy, feathered stumps?
For answers, Prof. Larsson has turned to the burgeoning field of evo-devo – or evolutionary developmental biology – a radical new approach to understanding the past.
It is based on the astonishing discovery that modern animals, including humans, share many of the same body-building genes and that some of these genes have been around for millions of years.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
He does? If he does, Dinesh D'Souza is wrong.
Because science doesn't know, they are only guessing.
There's a difference between an educated guess supported by a significant amount of evidence and a wild guess based on nothing.
Fossil evidence indicates beyond any doubt the presence of life at least 2bya; stromolites dating back 3.4 are said to be indicative of life, although that is under contention. Even those who dispute the biological origins of the 3.4 bya stromolites agree that genetic evidence indicates pretty strongly that the last universal ancestor existed 3.6 to 4.1 bya.
Face the facts. Educated guess vs. wild guess. They are both just as accurate when there is no evidence to arrive at either. Oh, of course, scientists say they have stuff such as rocks but they have nothing to work with in going back and therefore one guess is as good as another. That is, unless you figure the true age based on the Bible.
“You’re just mad...”
I would like to point out at this time that Alter is clearly not the one who is angry. Perhaps Alter is not angry because they have, through careful thought, consideration, and study, come to the realization that if, in fact, there IS a God and the Universe is that God’s creation then that Universe itself is a far, far better record of that God’s actions than any book could ever be.
“You really are a jerk! ...”
I don’t mean to belabor a point, but it is rather obvious that it is YOU who are behaving like a jerk with your cute little acronyms for swears and insults. It is not very high praise for either your Creator, or his Word, that you, one of it’s avowed adherents, are capable of behaving in a manner so contrary to its basic tenets. What are we to think of your religion if you, its devout practitioner, are incapable of acting in the manner your faith expects you to act?
Um, ok. Except as I just showed you above, there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the first life appeared approximately 4 billion years ago.
oh, of course, scientists say they have stuff such as rocks
Actually, I cited fossil and genetic evidence. I did not mention geologic evidence, although perhaps I should have.
but they have nothing to work with in going back and therefore one guess is as good as another.
I'm honestly afraid you've lost me there. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
No acronyms intended....I meant each and every actual word, but the abbreviations were required to prevent getting banned. I owe you no explanations whatsoever for my words, my faith, or my "religion".
So, go waste your busybody critiques on a freeper who might actually listen to your tripe.
No. There is quite of bit of conjecture. Evidence is based on facts and all your evidence is based on theories. So therefore you are operating under best guesses because what you have can be altered today, tomorrow or next year because you have no factual basis for the age of the earth. That is unlike belief in the Biblical account of creation where one will not see a change in the age of the earth. It has been established based on the Book of Facts.
“Why is earth the only habited planet? “
And you know this how?
“You’re just mad because about 6,000 years ago God created the world in six litteral days and rested on the seventh”
Now wait a minute, taxesareforever believes the Bible literally and he says it’s 10,000 years. Can’t you guys get it straight? Which is it?
Because you can't tell me another one that is.
At least we are within 4,000 years, unlike you evos who don’t know the difference between 15 billion years and a million years.
“At least we are within 4,000 years, unlike you evos who don’t know the difference between 15 billion years and a million years.”
OK, but if the Bible is absolutely and completely accurate, there shouldn’t be any question, should there? Everything is crystal clear. Or are you saying there’s room for debate now? If we can debate 4,000 years, what else is up for debate?
“Because you can’t tell me another one that is.”
Ah, that’s definite proof there’s no other inhabited planet.
Isn't that the answer to evolution? Can't prove anything else so this has to be the answer. Sheesh.
Let’s see 10 people do a geneology, without the years or ages listed, and go back 6-10,000 years and all come up with the same answer.
“Isn’t that the answer to evolution? Can’t prove anything else so this has to be the answer. Sheesh.”
Once again, nothing.
“Let’s see 10 people do a geneology, without the years or ages listed, and go back 6-10,000 years and all come up with the same answer.”
I’m trying think of a more irrational answer than the one you just gave, but I can’t. I don’t know of anybody who can go back more than, say, 1,000 years. What does that prove?
BTW, is the Earth 6,000 or 10,000 years old? I need an answer. And some proof to go with it.
You seem to have all the answers. Open the Bible and figure it out. Does somebody have to do all your work for you?
No, we have facts. We have fossils unambigously dated to 2.0 bya. That's a cold, hard fact. We have genetic analyses that date the last common universal ancestor to 3.6 to 4.1 bya. Another cold, hard fact.
Is the actual date of the first life on earth something of an educated guess? Absolutely: single celled micro organisms don't tend to survive too well in the fossil record. However, don't tell me there are no facts behind it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.