- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Dinosaur Soft Tissue Problem (Videos)
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:08 am to bencoleman
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:08 am to bencoleman
quote:
A strand of DNA already contains all of this information.
Right but from what I read a few months ago, I think in Nat Geo and I may have forgotten some of it, but the gist was DNA doesn't survive that long in fossils so they have to improvise by using a chicken DNA bc there just isn't any actual Dino DNA, or it's insufficient.
1
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:11 am to WONTONGO
quote:
quote:
But if they're finding soft tissue in the fossils maybe it'll solve their problem of not having DNA to clone
I read that they had found some actual tissue preserved in amber recently just like in JP.
LINK
That's amazing!
fricking feathers. How about that. That kind of makes them even scarier looking. Big arse T-Rex with feathers.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:12 am to Langland
That video never states that dinos are thousands of years old lol.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:14 am to Honky Lips
quote:
youre not seriously trying to argue that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old, i hope.
A damn brontosaurus was eating my fruit trees until I let my pet T-Rex chase it off.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 12:20 am to biglego
No. In a strand of DNA there was parts of it that didn't seem to do anything and was considered junk dna. What they finally realized was by manipulating certain parts of it they could cause different reactions in chickens or whatever test animal they used. To make a long story short they believe given time they can grow whatever animal they choose with the DNA available.
This post was edited on 1/7/17 at 12:22 am
Posted on 1/7/17 at 1:28 am to Fun Bunch
Evidence for Young Earth
by Dr. Russell Humphreys
#5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Salt in the sea
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
by Dr. Russell Humphreys
#5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Salt in the sea
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
This post was edited on 1/7/17 at 1:29 am
Posted on 1/7/17 at 1:36 am to Langland
The problem with what Armitage posits, is that it almost demands that the tissue is days old, and he doesn't even realize it.
Which is even weirder.
Which is even weirder.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 3:28 am to braindeadboxer
quote:
I have no idea what any of that means, but scientist tend to always disprove themselves. They make a bunch of wild arse guesses and know that most of us don't give enough of a shite to question them.
Step 1: Get funding to solve a huge mystery that has no real bearing on mankind.
Step 2: Use up funding then throw a wild arse guess at the mystery. Call it a theory so you don't look like an arse when someone calls bullshite.
Step 3: Find a new mystery and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Step 4: Get more funding to disprove wild arse guess in Step 2.
Rinse and repeat
your moniker is very appropriate and descriptive
Posted on 1/7/17 at 3:31 am to vettegc
quote:
Salt in the sea
Ice Ages...ice ages trap freshwater and as ocean levels drop they concentrate salt in landlocked seas, that eventually get covered by erosion creating salt domes and removing salinity from the oceans.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 5:36 am to Langland
I'm banking on the fact once I decompose there's a " Matrix For Dummies" on the other side that explains the program.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 5:57 am to dpd901
quote[I could never worship a God who was so insecure he demanded that I ignore irrefutable scientific evidence as a condition of my faith.[/quote]
Which Christian denomination requires a belief in Young Earth Creation for salvation?
Which Christian denomination requires a belief in Young Earth Creation for salvation?
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:19 am to Langland
I thought this thread was about old toilet paper.... 
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:26 am to Langland
quote:
science has already proven that soft-tissue CANNOT last that long
We love science!
quote:
we have to face the fact that dinosaurs are only THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, NOT MILLIONS!!!
Wait, what?
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:31 am to Langland
I'm not touching this.
Not that I cannot debate it...but if I did it would appear as this has equal merit an can be arguable, when it is not.
Not that I cannot debate it...but if I did it would appear as this has equal merit an can be arguable, when it is not.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:34 am to Pectus
quote:
I'm not touching this.
Not that I cannot debate it...but if I did it would appear as this has equal merit an can be arguable, when it is not.
Fellow geologist... I'm laying off as well.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:36 am to Langland
First, IWHI especially out on a dig after about two weeks, she'd be the best thing around by far.
Second, whomever brought up f-ing with Chicken's DNA to make a dinosaur is in deep shite.
Third, original premise takes 2 + 2 and gets 0.00000000000000004.
Second, whomever brought up f-ing with Chicken's DNA to make a dinosaur is in deep shite.
Third, original premise takes 2 + 2 and gets 0.00000000000000004.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:37 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
your moniker is very appropriate and descriptive
Sure kid
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:48 am to Langland
Proof dinosaurs are not millions of years old:
Posted on 1/7/17 at 10:59 am to Shiftyplus1
quote:
Let's get down to brass tacks. Does this mean we can clone dinosaurs for a theme park or not?
Soft tissue means DNA so it's remotely possible apparently
Posted on 1/7/17 at 11:03 am to Honky Lips
quote:
youre not seriously trying to argue that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old, i hope.
STOP DENYING MEH SCIENCE
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News