Evolutionary news

[Donna]

I wonder if they will be able to extract DNA from something that old? If so, it seems in the years to come they could eventually connect all the different species of humans or near humans and how they relate. Seems to me that is our best hope for understanding where we come from.
Donna

[oldarchystudent]

DNA from old specemins doesn't always survive. It was attempted on Kennewick man to establish what, if any, affiliations he had with local native bands. They were not successful in extracting any useable DNA. I think the conditions in which the body is buried play a key part here as some older specemins have yeilded DNA. I'm not clear what the conditions are I'm afraid.

[Guest]

I'll post again on Oct. 5 and remind everyone of what you said. I'll quote this post also. You've said this very thing many times.

when you do that remember that i said--first i will make a decision then quietly slip away. which does not mean or indicate an abrupt departure but a decreasing participation till i leave. yet i did not say for good as i could return in a couple months, a year but not a week.

Yet, to resolve the debate, scientists may have to find a way to inspect vanishingly small details of such old bones, to get clues to how those bones were used in life, he said

in other words they will declare it an ape man no matter what.

While that doesn't directly reveal anything about language, it does suggest that whatever sounds the creature made "would appeal more to a chimpanzee mother than a human mother," Spoor said.

and they can prove this conjecture?

The remains found in Africa are 3.3 million years old, making this the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor

they give the age but no information on how they dated it.

but i will withhold further comment as you know my objections already

Is this guy like this all the time? I've been in this forum for one day and I'm getting sick of him already......

yes and you are not the only one.

Probably they see archaeology as a threat to their belief system by turning up uncomfortable facts.

not at all in fact archaeology has never disproven the Bible. what is the problem is that the interpretations and conjectures of the secular scientists are misleading people to destruction. it is a sad activity to witness and no matter how hard you try, people have freedom of choice and get to choose what they want to believe.

***minimalist's cheap shot is ignored***

I wonder if they will be able to extract DNA from something that old

we don't even know if such things can survive for millions of years let alone think that the DNA would be uncorrupted. anything determined to be millions of years old is done from a hindsight position which does not allow for verification. the dating methods are also done from a position where their half lives cannot be verified as accurate or true so any date is suspect especially when it goes back past 10,000 years.

evolutionists need time for their theory to work, time which they do not have. thus they need to invent this epochs and place arbitrary time frames to them to justify their acceptance of such a theory. none of which can be observable or verifiable so they rely on conjecture , speculation and string together a set of 'evidences' to support their contentions.

all of which is erected into one giant alternative which is and has the strength of, a house of cards.

[oldarchystudent]

we don't even know if such things can survive for millions of years let alone think that the DNA would be uncorrupted. anything determined to be millions of years old is done from a hindsight position which does not allow for verification. the dating methods are also done from a position where their half lives cannot be verified as accurate or true so any date is suspect especially when it goes back past 10,000 years.

evolutionists need time for their theory to work, time which they do not have. thus they need to invent this epochs and place arbitrary time frames to them to justify their acceptance of such a theory. none of which can be observable or verifiable so they rely on conjecture , speculation and string together a set of 'evidences' to support their contentions.

all of which is erected into one giant alternative which is and has the strength of, a house of cards.

We already have bones that have survived millions of years, so yes, we do know that they can survive.

Now the motivation for your insistence on going back to a system of stone, bronze and iron ages only becomes clear, although your statement is as muddled as ever.

[Guest]

"Bones that survived millions of years," that can't be.

Bones deteriorate in months in deltas and other sedimentary environments where the sediments for the supposed sedimentary rocks of the future are being deposited.

[oldarchystudent]

Tell that to Lucy. Ever hear of fossilization?

You say you studied geology?

[Guest]

Oh, you meant to say fossilized bone, so I wonder how it got fossilized, because when a monkey or human dies today, its bones have been scavenged and disintegrated within a week or two.

[Minimalist]

Quote:
While that doesn't directly reveal anything about language, it does suggest that whatever sounds the creature made "would appeal more to a chimpanzee mother than a human mother," Spoor said.


and they can prove this conjecture?

Because the sounds made by bible-thumpers only appeal to other bible-thumpers.

[Guest]

But the official Darwinian line now is that humans evolved not from monkeys, but from something like a tree shrew, so I think that creature would have listened more to a tree shrew, don't you?

[Donna]

To Old Arch,
Want to go with me to a Bible Board and start arguing with everything they say and going off the subject? Actually, I wouldn't do that but it sure seems to be a problem on this board.
To Arch,
I just got on this board today and I read your message but I'm not sure I understood what you were saying? Are you saying bones can't survive in a fossilized form for 3 Million years or so? Were you saying you have already had this conversation and you are annoyed it was brought up?
Are you saying there is no such thing as science?

Honestly, I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say.
Donna

[Minimalist]

You can't get DNA from a fossilized bone. A fossilized bone is a rock.

Here's a link on the subject....it's technical but the first ones I looked at were even worse.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... io.0030056

Because of the decay that occurs with time, there is a limit to how far back aDNA can gaze (Box 1). “Your ideal preservation conditions are something that falls under ice, freezes instantly, and stays frozen until you get it,” says Cooper. “As soon as we get up to 2 million [years ago] we can't get anything to work, and that's even under deep-frozen conditions.” But within the past 60,000 years, there are several major evolutionary events that are worth studying—including a glacial maximum around 18,000 years ago, the invasion of the New World by humans about 12,000 years ago, and a global mass extinction about 11,000 years ago. These relatively recent events should be a good model for working out how similar events affected genetic diversity throughout evolutionary history.

[Guest]

"Global mass extinction about 11,000 years ago," hmmm, min, oas, Donna, what do you suppose happened at that purported date?

[oldarchystudent]

Oh, you meant to say fossilized bone, so I wonder how it got fossilized, because when a monkey or human dies today, its bones have been scavenged and disintegrated within a week or two.

hmmm - the 400 year old bones I dug up in Bermuda were intact. Where do you get your ideas from? Have you ever been involved in a dig? I'm convinced you have not.

[Guest]

How do you know they were 400 years old?

[oldarchystudent]

How do you know they were 400 years old?

Stratigraphy - context with other finds. Most telling in this case, small bowl clay pipes (acorn pipes) that were used in the early 1600's when the house was first built.