 |
The Sacred Cowtipper | home
Is Your Ancestor an Ape or a Snake? | Missing Links or Weakest Links?
Missing Links or Weakest Links?
I would like to use a bicycle chain as my reference point for this analogy.
We all know that a bicycle is useless without a chain. You can have a 24-speed mountain bike, hydraulic brakes, the best derailers and sprockets in the world, a 10 pound carbon frame with carbon rims and we'll even throw in a little horn to boot and if you would like some pink and yellow tassles to hang from your hand grips on your handlebars, we will give you that also. But what good is all that if you have no chain? The bike isn't going to go anywhere without a chain.
Anyhow, I see evolutionary theory as a bike with no chain. The two things the evolutionist holds on to most for their theory to possibly work are the geologic column (front sprocket) and billions of years with a whole lot of chance sprinkled in the mix (rear sprocket). I built over 10,000 bicycles for Service Merchandise Department stores back when they were around and guess what? All the bikes had chains. If there was no chain, no one would buy the bike. And I am not buying evolutionary theory either because not only are the links missing, so is the common sense behind it. There is no chain in evolutionary theory. All you need for a chain to be useless is to have one link missing. But to have a whole chain missing, you have a serious problem.
Like I said above, these PHD's are hanging all of their beliefs on the front and rear sprockets. Let's look at those for a second.
Let's look at the front sprocket (the geologic column). 99.99% of all the college students don't even realize that the geologic column was made up by Charles Lyle, a lawyer - not a scientist. Charles Lyle was also the one that came up with the idea of uniformity as to "the present is the key to the past". One of the many problems with Lyle's uniformitarianism idea is that if the layers of strata really took millions of years to be laid down between each layer, the fossils would have all been disintegrated by the time the next layer would have been laid. UNBURIED bones do not get fossilized. They must be buried and buried fast. The only good explanation for any fossils is a rapid burial with rapid fossilization. This has been seen in many instances such as the recent finding of fossilized T-Rex skin that still had blood vessels in tact. See articles below. An intelligent person should have a problem with this possibility of any skin still existing after 65 million years if dinosaurs were really around that long ago.
The second problem with the geologic column of Charles Lyle is that there are POLYSTRATE FOSSILS all around the world. What is a polystrate fossil? It is a fossil that goes through several layers of strata in the geologic column. If it takes millions of years for one layer to be laid down to the next layer, these things that become fossils would not have fossilized in the first place, they would have disintegrated before the second layer of sediment would have been deposited.
Ah, and then we have "birth fossilizations" as our third canonball to blast at Lyle's geologic column. There ahve been animals that have been fossilized while giving birth. Now I know that sounds weird but the only explanation I can think of for that is that there was a flood that killed, buried, and fossilized those creatures suddenly. It had to be a sudden flood that came upon that animal for it to not have sought after safer birthing grounds.
Now let's look at the rear sprocket. Billions of years and a lot of chance. It is a total impossibility for life to come from non-life as we all know from the Stanley Miller-Harold Urey Experiment. They even cheated and left oxygen out of the mix knowing that oxygen oxidizes. Here we had intelligence or we can say intelligent design working here and yet toxicity is what came out of the lab along with purposefully leaving out oxygen in the equation.
Fossil Hunters Uncover Rare Dinosaur Skin
by Christopher Joyce
July 3, 2009
Even scarcer than hen's teeth would be ... dinosaur skin.
Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, and skin isn't quite that long-lived. But on very rare occasions, skin or other soft tissue from extinct animals gets fossilized. And that's what happened to a hadrosaur that died about 66 million years ago in what is now North Dakota.
Phillip Manning and the young man who found the fossil, Tyler Lyson, spent years digging up the hadrosaur, funded in part by the National Geographic Society. Paleontologist Manning, from the University of Manchester in England, says he was "gobsmacked" by what they found.
"The tail is three-dimensional, intact. The skin is like a cone of skin slipped over the skeleton; it's beautiful. The arm is just ... it's like shaking hands with a dinosaur, the three-dimensional skin envelope runs all the way around from the hand all the way up to its armpit. It's quite remarkable."
A Remarkable Set of Circumstances
Writing in the science journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Manning says the skin isn't actually skin anymore — it was mineralized in a rare confluence of circumstances.
The hadrosaur, a 25-foot-long, duckbilled plant eater, died and was quickly covered by water and silt. The mix of chemicals in the water and the dinosaur's own body allowed the quick buildup of calcium carbonate, which enveloped and invaded the skin. Essentially, the skin turned to stone, but kept its form and texture, like a freeze-dried glove.
"You slice through the skin," says Manning, "and you can see original cell boundaries that have been locked in the calcium carbonate cement of this remarkable fossil." From the outside, the skin looks segmented into geometric shapes, like the outside of a soccer ball.
There's More Than One Way To Skin A Dinosaur
Paleontologists have been pushing the boundaries of their science lately, borrowing technology from chemistry and medical laboratories to tease out molecular information from fossilized dinosaurs.
"Our analytical and imaging facilities are becoming much more sophisticated at a very rapid rate," says Derek Briggs, a paleontologist at Yale University. "And that's yielding all sorts of exciting new results about the chemistry and appearance of these kinds of animals."
For example, researchers have recently extracted what they claim are blood vessels and proteins from the inside of a Tyrannosaurus rex bone.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106229723
Soft tissue
In the March 2005 issue of Science, Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues announced the recovery of soft tissue from the marrow cavity of a fossilized leg bone, from a Tyrannosaurus rex. The bone had been intentionally, though reluctantly, broken for shipping and then not preserved in the normal manner, specifically because Schweitzer was hoping to test it for soft tissue.[59] Designated as the Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125, or MOR 1125, the dinosaur was previously excavated from the Hell Creek Formation. Flexible, bifurcating blood vessels and fibrous but elastic bone matrix tissue were recognized. In addition, microstructures resembling blood cells were found inside the matrix and vessels. The structures bear resemblance to ostrich blood cells and vessels. Whether an unknown process, distinct from normal fossilization, preserved the material, or the material is original, the researchers do not know, and they are careful not to make any claims about preservation.[60] If it is found to be original material, any surviving proteins may be used as a means of indirectly guessing some of the DNA content of the dinosaurs involved, because each protein is typically created by a specific gene. The absence of previous finds may merely be the result of people assuming preserved tissue was impossible, therefore simply not looking. Since the first, two more tyrannosaurs and a hadrosaur have also been found to have such tissue-like structures.[59] Research on some of the tissues involved has suggested that birds are closer relatives to tyrannosaurs than other modern animals.[61]
In studies reported in the journal Science in April 2007, Asara and colleagues concluded that seven traces of collagen proteins detected in purified Tyrannosaurus rex bone most closely match those reported in chickens, followed by frogs and newts. The discovery of proteins from a creature tens of millions of years old, along with similar traces the team found in a mastodon bone at least 160,000 years old, upends the conventional view of fossils and may shift paleontologists' focus from bone hunting to biochemistry. Until these finds, most scientists presumed that fossilization replaced all living tissue with inert minerals. Paleontologist Hans Larsson of McGill University in Montreal, who was not part of the studies, called the finds "a milestone", and suggested that dinosaurs could "enter the field of molecular biology and really slingshot paleontology into the modern world."[62]
Subsequent studies in April 2008 confirmed the close connection of Tyrannosaurus rex to modern birds. Postdoctoral biology researcher Chris Organ at Harvard University announced, "With more data, they would probably be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches." Co-author John M. Asara added, "We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards."[63]
The presumed soft tissue was called into question by Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington and his co-authors in 2008. They contend that what was really inside the tyrannosaur bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.[64] The researchers found that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods, including an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood.[65] However, Schweitzer has strongly criticised Hayes' claims and maintains that she really did find blood cells, and argues that there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study.[66]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Soft_tissue
The death pose.
They also don't realize that the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on Earth in the order they claim it exists and that it would have to be