<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dinosaur flesh and the power of denial</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:51:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: charles allan</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-18159</link>
		<dc:creator>charles allan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-18159</guid>
		<description>Amy - just a quick one until I read the article.
There is a common misconception that natural selection is evolution - it most certainly is not.
Natural selection selects the most suitable genes for survival that are ALREADY in the genome of the 
created creature eg the fastest zebra is still a zebra - it does not change its DNA code into that of say a bird. Similarly the white and black moths are still moths ( even although the experiment was a fraud it was an example of selection not evolution).
Evolution means that the actual design of the creature is being changed into another &quot;kind&quot; with something like cosmic ray damage to the genes.

Think about it how can random gene damage design (gradually evolve) the DNA of a deer like animal ( nat geog) into the DNA of a whale. It would need millions or billions of RELEVANT changes to the DNA code. How could &quot;chance&quot; design say the sonar of a whale and the billions of other changes it needs to chase squid 6000 feet under the sea - BY ACCIDENT ????

Natural selection would ensure that the little deer will continue to live on pine cones - this is what its
genome instructs it to do. No one has ever filled in the gaps of mechanism of these changes.

Natural selection only selects characteristics already EXISTING in the genome of the kind.

Random gene damage is neutral or negative it cannot design DNA into a new creature.

It is to do with a misunderstanding of probability theory - there is no chance no matter how much time is given of gene damage changing or adding to the genome. Want to try filling in the gaps of deer to whale  .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amy &#8211; just a quick one until I read the article.<br />
There is a common misconception that natural selection is evolution &#8211; it most certainly is not.<br />
Natural selection selects the most suitable genes for survival that are ALREADY in the genome of the<br />
created creature eg the fastest zebra is still a zebra &#8211; it does not change its DNA code into that of say a bird. Similarly the white and black moths are still moths ( even although the experiment was a fraud it was an example of selection not evolution).<br />
Evolution means that the actual design of the creature is being changed into another &#8220;kind&#8221; with something like cosmic ray damage to the genes.</p>
<p>Think about it how can random gene damage design (gradually evolve) the DNA of a deer like animal ( nat geog) into the DNA of a whale. It would need millions or billions of RELEVANT changes to the DNA code. How could &#8220;chance&#8221; design say the sonar of a whale and the billions of other changes it needs to chase squid 6000 feet under the sea &#8211; BY ACCIDENT ????</p>
<p>Natural selection would ensure that the little deer will continue to live on pine cones &#8211; this is what its<br />
genome instructs it to do. No one has ever filled in the gaps of mechanism of these changes.</p>
<p>Natural selection only selects characteristics already EXISTING in the genome of the kind.</p>
<p>Random gene damage is neutral or negative it cannot design DNA into a new creature.</p>
<p>It is to do with a misunderstanding of probability theory &#8211; there is no chance no matter how much time is given of gene damage changing or adding to the genome. Want to try filling in the gaps of deer to whale  .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james albert</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-18156</link>
		<dc:creator>james albert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-18156</guid>
		<description>amy, dont reply.  that duder is gone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>amy, dont reply.  that duder is gone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Proal</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-18155</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Proal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-18155</guid>
		<description>Perhaps all the vitamin D you&#039;re taking is clouding your thinking. Perhaps in the name of being fair, you would care to read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; which addresses some of your expressed concerns with evolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps all the vitamin D you&#8217;re taking is clouding your thinking. Perhaps in the name of being fair, you would care to read <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist" rel="nofollow">this article</a> which addresses some of your expressed concerns with evolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charles allan</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-18154</link>
		<dc:creator>charles allan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-18154</guid>
		<description>Looks like a lot of evolutionist obfuscation. There have been other finds of plants and tissue and bone and flesh.

Many so called “fossil” bones are actually bones. There is no way any organic matter can last 60 million years. The only alternative is Noah’s flood 4500 years ago . Fossils are carbon dating which is impossible if they were more than 100,000 years.

Diamonds carbon date – no way this is contamination or no carbon date could be right. The 200 year old religious cult of evolution is coming to an end. The discovery of the DNA information code should have buried evolution but they are so tenacious. There will be more irrefutable young age “fossils” found.

What about the supposed 250 million year old octopus dye find which is organic I presume.


Just ask yourself – how could a fish evolve into an air breathing land animal – how could billions of characters in its DNA code be redesigned into to that of a land animal by something like cosmic ray gene damage no matter how much time you give it. If you throw a watch against a wall will it turn into a mobile phone.

By the way I take plenty of vitamin D – in my diet and from the sun which can give 5000 IU’s in an hour of two. This is what my ancestors did.

Everyone knows there is a lack of this vitamin due to diet , sun creams , fear of the sun and avoidance of cod liver oil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like a lot of evolutionist obfuscation. There have been other finds of plants and tissue and bone and flesh.</p>
<p>Many so called “fossil” bones are actually bones. There is no way any organic matter can last 60 million years. The only alternative is Noah’s flood 4500 years ago . Fossils are carbon dating which is impossible if they were more than 100,000 years.</p>
<p>Diamonds carbon date – no way this is contamination or no carbon date could be right. The 200 year old religious cult of evolution is coming to an end. The discovery of the DNA information code should have buried evolution but they are so tenacious. There will be more irrefutable young age “fossils” found.</p>
<p>What about the supposed 250 million year old octopus dye find which is organic I presume.</p>
<p>Just ask yourself – how could a fish evolve into an air breathing land animal – how could billions of characters in its DNA code be redesigned into to that of a land animal by something like cosmic ray gene damage no matter how much time you give it. If you throw a watch against a wall will it turn into a mobile phone.</p>
<p>By the way I take plenty of vitamin D – in my diet and from the sun which can give 5000 IU’s in an hour of two. This is what my ancestors did.</p>
<p>Everyone knows there is a lack of this vitamin due to diet , sun creams , fear of the sun and avoidance of cod liver oil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Proal</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-13521</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Proal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-13521</guid>
		<description>Dear Phil,

Actually, it might not be the craziest possibility. At least with regard to this study, the impresison I got was that the dinosaur flesh had decayed and that the gaps around the bones were colonized by biofilm bacteria.

This is especially true since one of the samples was 30 years old, so obviously that particular biofilm had not been in the tissue when the dinosaur had been alive.

But thinking back on dinosaurs, it seems within the realm of possibility that they were also victim to certain pathogens, which were certainly evolving around that time.

Who knows -- maybe the mega-cloud kicked up by a meteor impact could have had a negative effect on immune function potentially allowing pathogens the dinosaurs harbored to spread. 

I really don&#039;t think this is what wiped the dinosaurs out, but it makes for interesting speculation.

Best,
Amy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Phil,</p>
<p>Actually, it might not be the craziest possibility. At least with regard to this study, the impresison I got was that the dinosaur flesh had decayed and that the gaps around the bones were colonized by biofilm bacteria.</p>
<p>This is especially true since one of the samples was 30 years old, so obviously that particular biofilm had not been in the tissue when the dinosaur had been alive.</p>
<p>But thinking back on dinosaurs, it seems within the realm of possibility that they were also victim to certain pathogens, which were certainly evolving around that time.</p>
<p>Who knows &#8212; maybe the mega-cloud kicked up by a meteor impact could have had a negative effect on immune function potentially allowing pathogens the dinosaurs harbored to spread. </p>
<p>I really don&#8217;t think this is what wiped the dinosaurs out, but it makes for interesting speculation.</p>
<p>Best,<br />
Amy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Schoner</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-13327</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Schoner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-13327</guid>
		<description>Golly, is it possible that the dinos were brought down by bugs and not a giant meteor?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Golly, is it possible that the dinos were brought down by bugs and not a giant meteor?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeannine</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-12872</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeannine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-12872</guid>
		<description>I was aware of the find of Dr. Schweitzer and was skeptical then.... I find this article very informative and intersting. Once again keep up the great work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was aware of the find of Dr. Schweitzer and was skeptical then&#8230;. I find this article very informative and intersting. Once again keep up the great work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ragnar Michal Schjølberg</title>
		<link>http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/comment-page-1/#comment-12593</link>
		<dc:creator>Ragnar Michal Schjølberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bacteriality.com/?p=362#comment-12593</guid>
		<description>I LIKE IT!:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I LIKE IT!:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 1/12 queries in 0.002 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 328/330 objects using disk: basic

Served from: bacteriality.com @ 2012-02-04 04:06:49 -->
