A recent study has some exciting results. In fact, it strongly indicates the discovery of dinosaur DNA! I would be curious to hear some thoughts on this: @burrawang @burrawang @windar12q @S.M.S. @cwh @T_aquaticus @Kirk Peters @ekrause1406 @knelst @patricktnj @jammycakes.
Here is a link to the original study:
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwz206/5762999
Here is a link to one of Jay Wile's blog posts discussing it:
https://blog.drwile.com/no-other-explanation-dinosaur-dna/#more-24138
Wow! This will be an interesting discussion to follow. I've always appreciated Jay Wile's balanced approach and his thoughtful science. I'm curious to see the refutation attempts that will certainly abound. Thanks for sharing this!
I also appreciate Jay Wile. I'm not entirely sure that there will be refutation attempts (per se), but I am indeed curious to see how our evolutionist friends will respond to the discovery (and see if their explanations will ultimately stand up to scrutiny).
I forgot to tag @rspeir in the post above, so I think I shall do it here! @rspeir, I am very interested in hearing your take.
Wow! Exciting; what are the next discoveries going to be? Could this be the tip of the ice-burgh; are there many more finds yet to come? Thanks for this Jonathan, it has made my day.
Not too underestimate this find, which is still in its investigation period, but it may add to that which I have been trying to find an answer - what caused the demise of the dinosaur?
Science has put forward many theories, but nothing substantial as yet. (I don't agree with any scientific theory that has been put forward so far.)
Thanks again, this is brilliant if proved to be true.
Best wishes.
Hello Jonathan, I feel I have to explain why I think the find of Dr Wile's, if genuine, would mean so much to me.
I have through research reached my own conclusion as to the demise of the dinosaur; though difficult to explain, I shall give it a go.
The total energy of a system includes the sum of kinetic energies. The potential energy function corresponds to the situation.
13.8 billion years ago, our world was this one energy system. 3.8 billion years ago that energy began to change its form and a biological energy was forwarded; which became a kinetic part of its absolute. ( Earth. ) This biological energy system was driven by the same force as all energy and was chained to the same laws of nature. Its form lasted for a time of more changes and to survive its continuing formation, it had to fluctuate; this enabled its energy to go on changing. If it was not allowed to do this, then like all energy, it would implode on itself. This applies to all energy, whether biological or not. Without this fluctuation, intelligent life could not have begun.
Though science tries to explain the demise of the dinosaur, it struggles to get a conclusive decision. This is because no plausible reason has so far been forthcoming. Religion puts it down to a divine influence, but science will go on hacking and will do so until it finds an answer.
Take the demise of the dinosaur and look at it in another way - if life is evolving as a one energy system, then that energy has to be able to change to survive - I am not referring to life itself, I am referring to the energy that supports life. The dinosaur's reign of terror would have left the more vulnerable life-forms searching for ways to survive and this would have meant the weaker species would become more intelligent because they had more purpose. Dendrites would be picking up more information from the neighbouring neurons in the brains of the vulnerable, than they would in the brain of the dinosaur. (This is energy, changing its form to survive.) Due to this change in energy, life began to scale down, allowing intelligence too flourish. This progress has gone on until the present time and brought with it the diversity of life we see today. The dinosaur's reign and indeed the scaling down in size, could be conceived as one energy changing its form to suit that one energy's needs. Look at the diversity of life as one energy, fluctuating to keep it from imploding; if all life reached the same level of intelligence, (The same level of energy,) life would implode. There would be no negative charge to balance the proportional function that energy is designed to conform with. Biological energy, has to follow the same rules. Einstein's theory of relativity is relevant to all energy. (Matter is energy.) In this way, the positive and the negative add up to zero. It is another law of nature and evolution must conform too.
I have mentioned before about our positive and negative emotions, which compliment each other; without this compromise, they would not add up to zero and life as we know it could not have existed.
Physicist, Richard Feynman's one electron theory failed because there was an unequal amount of electrons and positrons, but he was referring to the universe and all it contained. Entropy in the universe is fundamental when considering the activity of Black Holes, which is only part of what's going on. This is the universe settling down. Evolution is a contained kinetic energy within that universe and so the balance in that kinetic energy must be evenly balanced and when something comes along to upset that balance, nature quickly puts it right. (Energy adjusting itself.) EVOLUTION.
Darwin's theory of natural selection was referencing the selection of an individual in a species; the one energy system is for the entire species. It keeps the same pattern and keeps the level of energy needed for life to survive. (The balance in nature.)
You might find this confusing, but it is the best I can do.
Best wishes.
Thank you for sharing, @windar12q! I would be curious to hear if @MDS has any thoughts...
Hello there! This is quite a fascinating discovery. Who knows, scientists may soon have the technology to sequence the genome of a dinosaur from this DNA. I wonder what they would find: Would dinosaurs and birds really be as similar as scientist believe they are? Personally, I can't wait to find out.
That is an interesting theory about the demise of the dinosaurs, Windar12q. Do you believe the process is occurring in the same way today as species go extinct and new species are discovered, or do humans disrupt it? Some of the most common creationist theories about the fall of the dinosaurs include that they were unable to adapt to the radically different post-flood climate or that they were hunted to extinction by people who lived shortly after the flood.
I would also be fascinated by the numerous discoveries which would doubtless be made from the sequencing of a dinosaur genome! Although some definitely consider this impossible, I think I will maintain some hope and curiosity. :)
Hello ekrause, Biological energy is different from the universal energy, in that it is self serving. The changes you mention would not be observed in this complexity of life. All is observed as reality until we discover the secrets of our biggest mystery - the subconscious, then all reality will be established. Think about the dinosaur - did it disappear to allow that energy to develop? Was the reason that the primates stopped evolving to reach the same level of intelligence, was because intelligence had been reached? Don't they serve a better purpose to an intelligent life, staying the way they are? Don't think of it as different species, but as energy - one energy. (Would you put a 3amp plug into a 13 amp socket?)
Do humans have an effect on this energy? Of course we do, but we cannot destroy this energy. This is the beauty of self serving energy or any other energy; it can change its form, but can never be eradicated. If man makes a mistake, nature (energy) will put it right. (I remind you of the wrong plug for the wrong socket. ) We can only be guided by the pattern that energy dictates.
In lake Malawi there are 650 different types of fish and all are proved to come from one ancestor. They are all different in colour and the way they give birth. Science puts this down to different food means different species, but if these fish were given a better choice of survival, wouldn't it have been more satisfying for them not to mutate? Just one species being able to eat the different foods regardless (the same has us) would have been a far more logical way for survival, that is until you consider the pattern of energy. (The only sensible explanation is the fluctuation of energy,) A divine influence would have been a poor excuse also, because the logic is at fault.
When considering brain activity; think quantum mechanics - the energy of each proton is proportional to its frequency value, for all possible functions. It has been scientifically proved that protons can appear from nothing. (Check Stephen Hawking.)
I am not a scientist and am at a loss when trying to explain in scientific terms, but some times observation brings forth the truth - it must have been that way at the beginning, when man first started to think. It was only when man stopped thinking, did we start going forth blindly.
Best regards.
The obvious implication is that the dinosaur remains are only a few thousand years old at most. The imagined 65+ million years for the age of the dinosaurs is clearly a widely held illusion, that will likely take some years before it is ultimately accepted as having been experimentally and statistically falsified and discarded.
Common sense dictates that when verified dinosaur soft tissue and DNA fragments are found in unmineralised bone, the imagined evolutionary age is where the error lies, it's as simple as that!
There are no actual scientifically derived reasons that I am aware of to believe that the verified dinosaur soft tissue and DNA fragments are actually 65+ MA old; the "deep time" belief is wholly and solely the result of the mainstream academic predisposition to evolution mythology and the highly religious Darwinian dogma. It is only this predisposition that continues to propagate and reinforce this falsified theory.
It will become harder and harder to convince intelligent science students that evolution is how we came to be here in the face of the enormous body of evidence being produced by sound science that rigorously refutes evolution as an outdated, defunct and falsified theory.
The Bible can be trusted; the account of Creation and the global flood in Genesis are reliable historically and wholly consistent with what we observe today using operational science in fields such as geology, biology and astrophysics.
The global flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and the rapidly buried well preserved fossils of unmineralised dinosaur bone containing pliable soft tissues being discovered all over the world are entirely consistent with a global flood within the Biblical time frame whereas the unbelievable millions of years derived from the supposed evolutionary scenarios are leaving many scientists scratching their heads in sheer incredulity.
Every day is a good day for 6-day creationism and this news just adds to that fact. How could it get any better? Well, we creationists have our hands full trying to explain the way they date the rock, but I am optimistic that within a decade or two the truth will somehow begin to emerge that *all lava flows* that are used to date sedimentary rock will be found to be so overwhelmingly overstated that the obvious conclusion will be that they are all young - around 4500 years young and occurring at or near Noah's Flood. And for the universe? Well, that good news for the 6-day creationist is also probably just around the corner. Keep the faith! Things are going just as they are supposed to.
If it was true, which I doubt, it still doesn't prove the existence of God - it just means science got it wrong. Jay Wile is referring to the work of Mary H Schweitzer and her colleagues. She also made the same claims in 1993, which was disputed when the soft tissue was found to be the same as in frogs, chickens, newts and many other animals. Her 'office' on the site was discovered to be like a holy shrine of worship, which didn't do much to help her claim. Can you really expect anyone to take her word seriously?
Religion is to blame for many misleading principles and this debate is an example of this.
I have written twice to Dr Wile and each time my letters have disappeared. You can make anything true in your own mind if you dismiss all that which attacks your ideas. You can make fairies true, or dragons and Harry Potter, if you dismiss all the evidence that disputes it.
You mention Noah's flood and I have already discussed this with the same results; you don't associate things to God just because you have no other explanation, unless you can demonstrate it. The sedimentary strata found on Earth is also found on Mars and is attributed to water and erosion, there is no need for a God. I don't believe there is any mention in the Bible about the flood on Mars? When the Bible was written, they didn't know about Mars, all they knew was that heaven was somewhere up there.