Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

Well Done Don

Great scientific evidence

Thanks

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: peter vlar

Also, it's only a poster (which are held to MUCH lower standards) in a conference (which typically aren't peer-reviewed). And, of course, nothing to do with Harvard in the slightest.

Cooperton is being very dishonest indeed.

Actually, I don't think he's being dishonest as such, rather he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

They quote all their sources, i.e. (Lundgren et al 2011 PLos One). This is all peer-reviewed research that they are quoting, which if you are truly interested in refuting their conclusion, you can peruse the various experiments where they are pulling their data from and say why you think it was not a viable experiment. You asked for reputable research, its all there:

(Ostrom et al. 1993, Geology, v. 21)
(Lindgren et al. 2011, PloS ONE, page 9)
(Taylor-Southon, Nuclear Instruments 2007)
(Berthault 2002, Geodesy and Geodynamics 22, China)

originally posted by: noonebutme
Thankfully, science allows and even INVITES you to criticise and pull-apart its theories.

And you won't be beheaded for doing so, which is far less than some groups of people.

Actually... Beheading via job termination is common for anyone defying the evolutionary dogma:

Carbon-dated soft tissue of a Triceratops: Subsequently Fired

originally posted by: cooperton




They quote all their sources, i.e. (Lundgren et al 2011 PLos One). This is all peer-reviewed research that they are quoting, which if you are truly interested in refuting their conclusion, you can peruse the various experiments where they are pulling their data from and say why you think it was not a viable experiment. You asked for reputable research, its all there:

(Ostrom et al. 1993, Geology, v. 21)
(Lindgren et al. 2011, PloS ONE, page 9)
(Taylor-Southon, Nuclear Instruments 2007)
(Berthault 2002, Geodesy and Geodynamics 22, China)

Actually... Beheading via job termination is common for anyone defying the evolutionary dogma:

Carbon-dated soft tissue of a Triceratops: Subsequently Fired

And once again, you're creating a false paradigm with your BS hyperlink. He wasn't fired as a result of publishing a carbon date that went against "evolutionary dogma". He was fired because he claimed, after publishing a legitimate paper regarding soft tissue preservation, for claiming first that the preservation of soft tissue meant that Noachian flood event 4KA BP was a real event. He then went on to dispute other peer reviewed work and lied about the tissue itself. He claimed that the tissue itself was still soft and spongy and that the cells themselves were osteocytes and not epithelial films. Osteocytes decay within days of an organisms expiration therefore, if there were osteocytes present in his microscopy, the organism would have died more recently than the meat in my refrigerator. To his credit, Armitage never cited or gave a date regarding the Triceratops horn in his own paper. nor did he have it tested for 14C period. If he did not do any of that, how could he have been fired for giving a 14C date that is out of context with accepted paleontology?

ETA just for the sake of clarity and context, Mark Armitage is not a biologist, he's a microscope technician. His Bachelors degree came from Jerry Falwell's University and his masters is from ICR. he has no Ph.D., no formal training or peer-reviewed published research in the histology he was working on. He’s just a humble lab tech on a 2-day a week part-time gig, with no guarantee of employment from one semester to the next. His sole job is to maintain and keep track of the microscopes in a big department with hundreds of them, not to teach courses or do research.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Really?..

I think that it was. First paragraph lays this down supposition.

As per usual there seems to be quite a lot of back tracking when the discussions shows that, yet again, flawed science is touted as the latest so called breakthrough, evidence or kick in the man sack of creation science.

Regards

a reply to: drevill

You can't kick creation science in the sack when there's no such thing.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

But it's totally flawed. It's like saying it's going to rain and we know this because the evidence we decided to put into our weather prediction software dictates that it will.

Talk about stacking the deck.

It's pure conjecture and becomes circular reasoning. One is evidence of the other despite the guess work

Surely, despite what conclusions they come to anyone can see that xyz cannot be accurate when abc was pure speculation.

Regards

a reply to: peter vlar

Right, like this is real science on the O.P

Oh hang on it must be cos men in white coats have done it. That statement isn't even an argument meladdo

Don't look at it objectively just accept it. Blimey! and those that believe in creation are told they are idiots and blind

Regards

a reply to: TerryDon79

I believe in creation but I don't think radio dating is an accurate or reliable tool.

a reply to: drevill

If Creationists are doing science that proves their position, why do I not see any of their data published for peer review? I don't accept anything blindly, that's the domain of the scientifically illiterate. I'm a big fan of due diligence. Can't engage in due diligence of creation "scientists" can't or won't publish their work for review now can I?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: drevill

If Creationists are doing science that proves their position, why do I not see any of their data published for peer review? I don't accept anything blindly, that's the domain of the scientifically illiterate. I'm a big fan of due diligence. Can't engage in due diligence of creation "scientists" can't or won't publish their work for review now can I?

If you truly were a fan of due diligence you would pursue the topic of carbon-dated dinosaurs, coal, and diamonds more thoroughly before blindly disregarding it because it does not fit your contemporary world view.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: drevill

If Creationists are doing science that proves their position, why do I not see any of their data published for peer review? I don't accept anything blindly, that's the domain of the scientifically illiterate. I'm a big fan of due diligence. Can't engage in due diligence of creation "scientists" can't or won't publish their work for review now can I?

If you truly were a fan of due diligence

Oh the irony!

a reply to: cooperton

You clearly don't understand what a conference is, what a conference poster is or what the peer-review process for publication is.

As usual, you're talking bollocks.

a reply to: cooperton

I have and that's my opinion. Flawed and u reliable.

Cheers

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: drevill

If Creationists are doing science that proves their position, why do I not see any of their data published for peer review? I don't accept anything blindly, that's the domain of the scientifically illiterate. I'm a big fan of due diligence. Can't engage in due diligence of creation "scientists" can't or won't publish their work for review now can I?

If you truly were a fan of due diligence you would pursue the topic of carbon-dated dinosaurs, coal, and diamonds more thoroughly before blindly disregarding it because it does not fit your contemporary world view.

This has nothing to do with my worldview. It has everything to do with science. The testable repeatable and peer reviewed kind. You're level of willful ignorance and confirmation bias is pretty staggering. The difference between you and I in this scenario is that I've got degrees and 2 decades of research to support my position. This isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, its just a fact.

If you knew anything about science and how it works, you would know that everyone in related fields gets off on scrutinizing every detail of your work looking for flaws. We don't mind this at all because sometimes when we are incorrect or going sideways off of the path, someone else points out an error which then leads you down the correct path. And other times, you can be absolutely correct despite many nay sayers and a decade later you are proven correct. This is due diligence. Something you are not at all familiar with.

I don't discard things based on my personal viewpoints or opinions, I weigh the data and look to see how that data came to be. You don't have any that supports your position.

a reply to: peter vlar

Mary Schweitzer has done a lot of research into these things over quite a number of years she published in the bone journal in 2012 with some ideas


Thoughts?

a reply to: drevill

the one regarding osteocytes in turtle shells over a period of 150MA?

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: Prezbo369

Really?..

I think that it was. First paragraph lays this down supposition.

Which is why I said you were ignorant of the process.

As per usual there seems to be quite a lot of back tracking when the discussions shows that, yet again, flawed science is touted as the latest so called breakthrough, evidence or kick in the man sack of creation science.

No it's just a lack of comprehension on your part.

And there's no such thing as 'creation science'....

a reply to: drevill

From the lady herself:

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. Still, it’s not surprising they’ve reacted this way—the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.”

biologos.org...

a reply to: Prezbo369

Ok mate

Dream on.

a reply to: peter vlar

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules

Is the title

link

There are various sites linking to this from various ideals. I'm not personally paying though for the full report

Regards