Scientists Recover T. Rex Soft Tissue

among other things (last point)

Originally posted by Lana
.....there's no good way to splice the words human and banana....🙁

I think people DID mean to cross a human and dinosaur. Which obviously wouldn't work.

Hmmm. Humosaur. Doesn't really have a ring to it.

You could say "Dinoman" but that's too obvious.

humanan!!

Banaman 😛 still doesn't sound as fun as dogberry or berryburger though.

And dinoman is painfully obvious, which is why I opted for humosaur 😛

Originally posted by MC Mike
Very good news for evolution, as stated. 😄

Dino sapiens 😖mart:

Originally posted by PVS
Dino sapiens 😖mart:

Tyrannahuman Rex 😖mart:

Originally posted by FeceMan
Sorry to quote this a second time, but I don't see how this is 'good news' for evolution at all. Ignoring my earlier post, I don't see how this helps prove evolution/disproves Creationism.

Well, I was actually thinking the same thing about soft tissue being preserved and etc. However, I think the argument a scientist would make is that there is a veritable mountain of other evidence that points against the universe being so young—so much that this could be disregarded as somewhat of a fluke, remarkable as it is.

I said (and I'm sure that MC Mike said it for the same reason) that it is good news for evolution, because if they can indeed extract DNA then they can compare it to DNA of animals existing today. It could be hard, incontravertable evidence for the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.

But it could also be taken as evidence towards young-earth creation, since it's more likely that soft tissue would be preserved for 6,000 years than several billion.

Yeah, I know, and I'm slightly skeptical about the fact that they DID find soft-tissue. I guess we'll see once testing is done.

Originally posted by Lana
I said (and I'm sure that MC Mike said it for the same reason) that it is good news for evolution, because if they can indeed extract DNA then they can compare it to DNA of animals existing today. It could be hard, incontravertable evidence for the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Well, I was actually thinking the same thing about soft tissue being preserved and etc. However, I think the argument a scientist would make is that there is a veritable mountain of other evidence that points against the universe being so young—so much that this could be disregarded as somewhat of a fluke, remarkable as it is.

However, the only thing is that humans share half of our genes with bananas. I think birds and dinosaurs having similar genetic coding is likely...as is humans and dinosaurs having similar genetic coding.

I don't mean simply sharing some coding. I mean a very high level of similar coding. Humans and apes have 99.9% of the same DNA.

Originally posted by Lana
I don't mean simply sharing some coding. I mean a very high level of similar coding. Humans and apes have 99.9% of the same DNA.

i think its chimpanzees that we share such a close makeup to, not apes in general...so i heard

Originally posted by Lana
I don't mean simply sharing some coding. I mean a very high level of similar coding. Humans and apes have 99.9% of the same DNA.

Originally posted by PVS
i think its chimpanzees that we share such a close makeup to, not apes in general...so i heard

I can't remember which specific species of ape it is, myself...I think it may be chimps but I don't remember.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, I know what you mean 🙂.

😛

You know, there are two possible outcomes to the genetic testing.

1. The DNA tests show that dinosaurs are very close to birds in genetic code. They tell the world, evolution gets a +1.

2. The DNA tests show that dinosaurs are dissimilar to birds in genetic code. The scientists slink off and the findings don't make headlines.

Actually, I believe humans are 56% similar to bananas, FeceMan. 😉

Considering the fact that we already know how genetically similar all living things are, I doubt that if it actually is soft tissue from a dinosaur, and they are able to extract DNA from it, that it will change much.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Actually, I believe humans are 56% similar to bananas, FeceMan. 😉

Considering the fact that we already know how genetically similar all living things are, I doubt that if it actually is soft tissue from a dinosaur, and they are able to extract DNA from it, that it will change much.