Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Few can be tested. Too old and degraded.

Would you happen to know if Lucy's bones revealed any DNA? I know they surmised she was pre-human (meaning pre-homo sapien) based on the idea that she (I don't think the researchers know for sure whether it was a she or he, but anyway, if I recall correctly, they think it was a she) had a more erect posture, maybe didn't swing from trees, etc. So the question really is though -- do you know if her (?) bones revealed any DNA?

 

[YoursTrue]

Teeth are a better repository, actually, and the rate of degradation would depend on environmental factors, temperature, humidity, environment, &. You can google yourself for DNA degradation factors.

ok, teeth. Which brings us back to gorillas and Lucy. I suppose. To figure just how close were they by DNA revelation. Not sure about Lucy's teeth if they found any.

 

[YoursTrue]

Teeth are a better repository, actually, and the rate of degradation would depend on environmental factors, temperature, humidity, environment, &. You can google yourself for DNA degradation factors.

Now that you mention about environmental factors, I will do some research into the teeth factor in reference to DNA.

 

[rational experiences]

If you're looking at something as some thing. It's not no thing. If it's some thing as any thing you choose as dominion owner a human on earth to discuss it.

Then you choose the topic. The bones don't talk. You do.

So humans say I identify exactly what I'm looking at. Given it a study belonging to dead bones. Who take the living advice further back again living as not it's dead bones. Back the other way. Not forward to us now.

It's thesis exact what I'm observing subject intentional what I'm looking at.

If I believe I'm the God as a man human then my intentions are stated. I want to copy my advice to take all evolved bio cells now back to the living mutated lives. Not evolution at all.

It doesn't own any other story.

So if a Scientist says these dead bodies I talk about. I pretend I'll arise them back into the living of its past. By inferring its living bodies now they hadn't owned back then.

Isn't termed correct. It's actually termed lying.

As human behaviour is a legal precedence as it does lie.

So actually mutated bones is his machines answer now as everything living as deceased.

As we aren't dead bones. And if he said I believe all you'd get now is mutated bones as you live. Id say it's okay for the machines power. As I care less if family gets sick by heavens experiments.

Yet he was talking total destruction in thesis. About all bio life now.

Based in I claim a living biological human began as carbon mass. Carbon mass a humans thesis is just carbon mass first I identify it.

Nothing like biology in any terms correct thinking.

 

[Valjean]

Would you happen to know if Lucy's bones revealed any DNA? I know they surmised she was pre-human (meaning pre-homo sapien) based on the idea that she (I don't think the researchers know for sure whether it was a she or he, but anyway, if I recall correctly, they think it was a she) had a more erect posture, maybe didn't swing from trees, etc. So the question really is though -- do you know if her (?) bones revealed any DNA?

She was clearly a hominid, walked fully upright and had a body like ours, except much smaller with slightly longer arms, proportionately. Her head, however, was very "apelike."
No DNA, but her skeleton identifies her as a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis.

 

[Valjean]

Now that you mention about environmental factors, I will do some research into the teeth factor in reference to DNA.

Teeth are very durable little enclosed capsules, much better than bone for preserving DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your posts, or in general? So fossils can be bones of animals without DNA, is that right? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll get into the evidence you claim is such that chimps and humans come from a common ancestor.

Yes, in most fossils there is very little original material left. The DNA will be long gone from any fossilized bone.

But you still have no clue as to what is or what is not evidence. You are now arguing science at an elementary school level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's say that's true. How does it work then? I mean how old would the bone fragments have to be order to demonstrate DNA?

Why does it matter? We do not need DNA from bones to have evidence.

You really need to read that post on evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

She was clearly a hominid, walked fully upright and had a body like ours, except much smaller with slightly longer arms, proportionately. Her head, however, was very "apelike."
No DNA, but her skeleton identifies her as a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis.

The fact that her(? they're not sure..)
Maybe I'll get back into this later, but I've been looking up some information about dating fossils.

Teeth are very durable little enclosed capsules, much better than bone for preserving DNA.

I read something about teeth either hers or nearby and wonder if DNA testing was done on her teeth. But this discussion made me wonder about dogs, because they have 4 limbs, then I looked at wolves, then I wonder about, as Darwin spoke of, the origin of species. While it seems convincing to a degree (no one alive lately has seen it), evolution from a few cells to plant and animal life is questionable. And I am going to mention that so far as modern humans observe, chimps remain chimps and humans remain humans. But I will continue reading about DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it matter? We do not need DNA from bones to have evidence.

You really need to read that post on evidence.

I understand. But scientists have said, I believe, that gorilla DNA is close to human DNA. Of course there is nothing to show that the hair and stance and brain power had humans evolve to this point from the Lucys of this world, but it is interesting and suggests to me that there's more to it than sheer evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that her(? they're not sure..)
Maybe I'll get back into this later, but I've been looking up some information about dating fossils.

I read something about teeth either hers or nearby and wonder if DNA testing was done on her teeth. But this discussion made me wonder about dogs, because they have 4 limbs, then I looked at wolves, then I wonder about, as Darwin spoke of, the origin of species. While it seems convincing to a degree (no one alive lately has seen it), evolution from a few cells to plant and animal life is questionable. And I am going to mention that so far as modern humans observe, chimps remain chimps and humans remain humans. But I will continue reading about DNA.

You really need to quit repeating rather stupid sayings. That saying comes from Ray Comfort, one of the biggest idiots out there when it comes to attempting to refute evolution.

Do you know why you are still an ape? And you are, because apes remain apes. Do you understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. But scientists have said, I believe, that gorilla DNA is close to human DNA. Of course there is nothing to show that the hair and stance and brain power had humans evolve to this point from the Lucys of this world, but it is interesting and suggests to me that there's more to it than sheer evolution.

No. You don't. If you understood you would be lying in your posts. I do not think that you are a liar.

Why do you think that a brain is hard to evolve?

 

[Valjean]

The fact that her(? they're not sure..)
Maybe I'll get back into this later, but I've been looking up some information about dating fossils.

I read something about teeth either hers or nearby and wonder if DNA testing was done on her teeth. But this discussion made me wonder about dogs, because they have 4 limbs, then I looked at wolves, then I wonder about, as Darwin spoke of, the origin of species. While it seems convincing to a degree (no one alive lately has seen it), evolution from a few cells to plant and animal life is questionable. And I am going to mention that so far as modern humans observe, chimps remain chimps and humans remain humans. But I will continue reading about DNA.

Read about fossil sequences.

 

[Valjean]

Now that you mention about environmental factors, I will do some research into the teeth factor in reference to DNA.

There is no "teeth factor." They're not factors, just protective structures that can preserve DNA longer than bones or muscles or blood.

I understand. But scientists have said, I believe, that gorilla DNA is close to human DNA. Of course there is nothing to show that the hair and stance and brain power had humans evolve to this point from the Lucys of this world, but it is interesting and suggests to me that there's more to it than sheer evolution.

The further removed in biological relatedness, the more dissimilar DNA becomes from ours. Look at the cladogram in post #83, Follow the succession line back in time (down). The DNA from species at each junction becomes less and less similar to ours.

DNA is a footprint leading back in time, but there are other dating methods; tested methods, that give consilient dates for artifacts too old for DNA or soft tissue to remain.

"...more to it than sheer evolution?" That's a statement of personal incredulity, not an evidence-derived conclusion.
What other factors are you hinting at? God?
God isn't a mechanism. It doesn't address 'how?'. God is an agent, and I'd suggest an unneeded, superfluous one, given the known, natural mechanisms driving evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no "teeth factor." They're not factors, just protective structures that can preserve DNA longer than bones or muscles or blood.
The further removed in biological relatedness, the more dissimilar DNA becomes from ours. Look at the cladogram in post #83, Follow the succession line back in time (down). The DNA from species at each junction becomes less and less similar to ours.

DNA is a footprint leading back in time, but there are other dating methods; tested methods, that give consilient dates for artifacts too old for DNA or soft tissue to remain.

"...more to it than sheer evolution?" That's a statement of personal incredulity, not an evidence-derived conclusion.
What other factors are you hinting at? God?
God isn't a mechanism. It doesn't address 'how?'. God is an agent, and I'd suggest an unneeded, superfluous one, given the known, natural mechanisms driving evolution.

I believe the researchers, if I may call them that, of Lucy, found apparent vestiges of wisdom teeth or molars, therefore figured she? was an adult. I am looking up dating methods, but find it complicated. Meantime though I believe I read that the time element centers around the ground (strata) surrounding the fossils

 

[YoursTrue]

No. You don't. If you understood you would be lying in your posts. I do not think that you are a liar.

Why do you think that a brain is hard to evolve?

Lol. Ok. So you are apparently saying a brain is not hard to evolve. There are, of course, infants born with little or no brains, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. Ok. So you are apparently saying a brain is not hard to evolve. There are, of course, infants born with little or no brains, right?

So what?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it matter? We do not need DNA from bones to have evidence.

You really need to read that post on evidence.

It doesn't hurt to learn, does it? Furthermore, DNA is used as some kind of marker as if demonstrating humans and gorillas are just so similar by DNA comparison. Therefore I am wondering about "Lucy's" DNA but from what I discern from you and @Valjean , if I remember correctly, there IS no DNA in her bones because -- it deterioriated. You may correct me if I'm wrong thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what?

So that can't be evolution is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't hurt to learn, does it? Furthermore, DNA is used as some kind of marker as if demonstrating humans and gorillas are just so similar by DNA comparison. Therefore I am wondering about "Lucy's" DNA but from what I discern from you and @Valjean , if I remember correctly, there IS no DNA in her bones because -- it deterioriated. You may correct me if I'm wrong thanks.

Once again, Lucy's DNA would have all deteriorated by now. This is from just one source, and the rate of decay of this sort will vary depending upon environment, but for Moa bones they found a DNA half life of 521 years. If we assume that is true then on the order of 61,000 half lives have occurred since then. Or to put it another way 99. 999 ... 9% using a total of over 18,000 "9"s would be gone. In other words all of it.

DNA is not a tool used in studying fossils of any significant age at all.