上海419论坛,上海龙凤419,爱上海 – Powered by Ivan Shamar!

December 19, 2019
by admin
0 comments

Hadrosaur Skin Flick

first_imgThe press is abuzz with the story of a mummified hadrosaur found in North Dakota with skin and fossilized soft parts; see PhysOrg, Science Daily, Associated Press and BBC News.  Since the fully-articulated, uncollapsed, mummified fossil named “Dakota” was discovered in 1999, though, it appears that the announcement is being made now primarily as publicity for a National Geographic documentary airing December 9.    The exceptionally-preserved specimen has allowed paleontologists to understand more details about the skin patterns, muscle mass and body proportions of hadrosaurs, and to infer something about its running speed.  Of interest beyond these details echoed in all the news media reports, however, is what page two of the National Geographic story said about soft-tissue preservation.  Acknowledging that Mary Schweitzer’s team earlier this year had reported evidence for unfossilized collagen (04/12/2007) in a T. rex bone, the NG article states that the hunt is on for preserved macromolecules in Dakota.  If they have been detected, no one is talking about it till the peer-reviewed paper is published.  One team member admitted, though, that “We have an array of chemical analysis techniques that we’re applying to the organism—and not just to the skin.”  Any future announcement of preserved proteins or nucleic acids may be the biggest story within an already big story.    See also the 10/15/2002 story about Leonardo, another mummified dinosaur found in Montana.Evolutionary paleontologists know that creationists are going to beat them over the head with any discovery of preserved soft tissue and biomolecules, so one has to wonder how hesitant they are to reveal what they find.  Hopefully, the excitement of a such a find, and the value of scientific objectivity, will prevent a cover-up.  Such news would deal a severe blow to the belief these specimens are 65+ million years old, and once confidence in millions of years is shattered, the whole evolutionary tree will be undermined with it.    Think of how long the Darwin Party has been feeding the public the assumption of long ages.  They know the public is going to find it hard to swallow the line that soft tissue and DNA or proteins could lie undisturbed for tens of millions of years.  With so much at stake, and the cult of Darwin vulnerable to a mass exodus, will they tell the whole truth?  It may take creationist expeditions to do original research in this area to get the facts out.  They will need to provide unimpeachable documentation and technical rigor to rule out any claims of contamination.  Let’s wait and see what the peer-reviewed paper says.  Creationists do not stand to lose face if soft tissue is not found, because it is tenuous stuff (even for burials of known age).  But if it is found, it would be much more plausible to believe it has been preserved for thousands of years, not tens of millions.    National Geographic, as expected, spun the collagen story into an argument for dinosaurs being related to birds.  But what is the common answer to the question “What does it taste like?” when your friend is offered filet of snake, frog legs or unidentified Chinese mystery meat?  Answer: “It tastes like chicken.”  Undoubtedly, hadrosaur tastes like chicken, too.  That doesn’t mean a chicken is a frog, snake, or hadrosaur.  Similarities do not prove common ancestry, but the fact that our shared biochemistry allows us to consume molecules from a variety of animals indicates common design.(Visited 20 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

December 19, 2019
by admin
0 comments

Good Fossils, But Where’s the Evolution?

first_imgThey’re millions of years old, evolutionists say, but these fossils look like things you could find around town.Salamander in amber:  The first ever fossil of a salamander trapped in amber was reported by Oregon State University. Found on the Dominican Republic, it’s claimed to be 20 million years old. And that’s not the only long age claim; evolutionists are saying they first evolved in the area 40 to 60 million years ago. Somehow, mysteriously, they went extinct, since no salamanders live on the Caribbean islands now. “I was shocked when I first saw it in amber,” OSU professor George Poinar Jr. remarked; “There are very few salamander fossils of any type, and no one has ever found a salamander preserved in amber.” The headline claims this fossil “sheds light on evolution of Caribbean islands,” but lower in the article we read this:This fossil salamander belonged to the family Plethodontidae, a widespread family that today is still very common in North America, particularly the Appalachian Mountains. But it had back and front legs lacking distinct toes, just almost complete webbing with little bumps on them….“The discovery of this fossil shows there once were salamanders in the Caribbean, but it’s still a mystery why they all went extinct,” Poinar said. “They may have been killed by some climatic event, or were vulnerable to some type of predator.”How did this fossil get there, and what caused the extinction?This fossil is 20-30 million years old, and its lineage may go back 40-60 million years ago when the Proto-Greater Antilles, that now include islands such as Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, were still joined to North and South America. Salamanders may have simply stayed on the islands as they began their tectonic drift across the Caribbean Sea. They also may have crossed a land bridge during periods of low sea level, or it’s possible a few specimens could have floated in on debris, riding a log across the ocean.If this story is to be trusted, it means these delicate amphibians were either sailors on long journeys, or managed to hang on out there for up to 40 million years without a problem, till they all died for no known reason. Is it plausible that no climatic events or predators threatened them for all that time? As for evolution, they don’t look significantly different from living ones of their family today. Did 60 million years pass with no evolution? That’s six to ten times as long as the estimated transition from a four-footed land animal to a fully aquatic whale, as explained in the documentary Living Waters.First flower: Another fossil, this one from Spain, is being dubbed the “world’s first flower” by the secular science news (e.g., Science Daily, Live Science). Alleged to be 125 to 130 million years old (based on fossils in the same strata), Montsechia has shattered evolutionary expectations by appearing to have flowered underwater.“This discovery raises significant questions about the early evolutionary history of flowering plants, as well as the role of these plants in the evolution of other plant and animal life,” said Dilcher, an emeritus professor in the IU Bloomington College of Arts and Sciences’ Department of Geological Sciences.These fossils were known earlier, but are being “reinterpreted” now as being contemporaneous or earlier than Archaefructus, the previous contender for world’s oldest flower. Even though the fossil is being considered primitive, you might find something like it in a Japanese garden:In terms of appearance, Dilcher said, Montsechia resembles its most modern descendent, identified in the study as Ceratophyllum. Also known as coontails or hornworts, Ceratophyllum is a dark green aquatic plant whose coarse, tufty leaves make it a popular decoration in modern aquariums and koi ponds.Predictably, Elizabeth Pennisi in Science Magazine obeyed the DAM Law by referring to the origin of angiosperms (flowering plants) as “Darwin’s Abominable Mystery.” It kept Darwin “perpetually perplexed,” she perceives. The plant was not bioluminescent, but she says “a newly analyzed fossil species has shed light on where these plants, known as angiosperms, may have gotten their start. In water is the surprising suggestion.” But is it plausible that “adaptation to freshwater occurred early in angiosperm evolution” and stayed pretty much the same to the present? Not all evolutionists are convinced, she points out.The chief paleobotanist of the paper in PNAS, David Dilcher of Indiana University, offered this mind twister in the Live Science article: “The plants were very inventive, and it demonstrates how important the outcrossing, the genetics were in the evolution of early flowering plants.” But can a plant breed be an “inventive” plant breeder?  Dilcher and the other authors end the paper by pointing out that this plant, if it is the first flower, was already well adapted for its lifestyle. If so, it doesn’t really matter if the first flower was aquatic or terrestrial; it is not transitional.Montsechia, the fossil angiosperm presented here, raises questions centered on the very early evolutionary history of angiosperms. The importance of very early aquatic flowering plants, perhaps basal to all angiosperms, as previously proposed, merits serious consideration and reevaluation. Clearly, Montsechia was very well adapted to a submerged aquatic habit and lived during an early stage of angiosperm evolution. Now it is time for the fossil angiosperm families Montsechiaceae and Archaefructaceae to become a part of the phylogenies presented in our current angiosperm literature.In short, scientists are surprised that this “basal” plant was not just well adapted, but “very well adapted”. The abominable mystery continues.When you cut away the jargon and posturing, what you see is the People of Fluff defending their fluffy faith in Father Charlie against all evidence. Evolution must be true, no matter what the fossils say. If organisms don’t evolve, they bluff with the word “stasis” which sounds scholarly but just means “going nowhere.” If unrelated organisms hit on the same design, they call it “convergent evolution.” If a variety of organisms show up in the same layers, they call it “explosive radiation.” This gumby theory works backwards, forwards, fast, slow, and stationary. And they call their critics “people of faith.” When you call their bluff, they become the People of Froth. (Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

December 3, 2019
by admin
0 comments

Rape case filed against Gujarat BJP leader

first_imgGujarat police on Thursday filed a case against BJP leader Jayanti Bhanushali, who resigned recently as the party’s State vice-president after a 21-year-old woman accused him of rape and sexual harassment.The woman, a resident of Surat, had written to the police on July 10 seeking registration of rape case against Mr. Bhanushali, who was Abdasa MLA from 2007 to 2012.On Thursday, the victim appeared before the police and recorded her statement. An FIR was subsequently lodged naming Mr. Bhanushali as a key accused.In her complaint, the survivor said the former lawmaker raped her on several occasions from November last after promising to get her admitted to a reputed fashion design institute. The act was videographed by one of his assistants, she alleged.Surat Police Commissioner Satish Sharma has asked a DCP to probe the case. Earlier, Mr. Sharma had said that the woman had failed to appear before the police despite being issued summons.In his resignation letter, that was accepted by the State BJP president Jitu Vaghani, Mr. Bhanushali has denied all allegations.last_img read more