Overton

Is this how 200 million year old dinosaur soft tissue can look like?

Evolutionists utterly BTFO.


edition.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.html


livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607448/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

How many actual dinosaur fossils exist?

Why are 90%+ that are exhibited in museums fabricated by a single Chinese manufacture?

Questions like this kill.

>Why are 90%+ that are exhibited in museums fabricated by a single Chinese manufacture?
source?

Sure, they've found some tissue deep inside thigh bones. It kind of makes sense, it didn't get mineralized. There's no DNA strands but there is enough protein to do analysis on it.
>hint: tastes like chicken

Don't think it's true

When I was a kid I was big into this stuff and I remember that they'd make plaster casts in the museums with the original bones, and put the casts up on display while keeping the actual bones in the back for science and stuff

I don't see why or how anyone would order these from china when it'd require shipping the bones overseas for casting

And there's not nearly enough dino museums to honestly even need mass production of dinobones

We've most likely found 20% of all species most didn't fossilize or we haven't found them yet
>a single Chinese manufacturer
There are pictures of these being dug up and might I add that the Chinese don't make money off of the this unless they are the paleontologist

Well, 90% of fossils are marine creatures since they are (were) more likely to die in ways that left their bodies undisturbed. But nobody wants to see a bunch of boring fish bones.
On top of that, paleontologists rarely find more than a few bits of a fossilized skeleton of larger animals at a time.

73 trillion days old soft tissue?

They are hiding giant skeletons in the smithsonian as well

Please fuck off retard, there is much more than "dinosaurs" at hand. For all we know, NWO is "God" and they reset us every 10K years with "floods" the Bible is simply a heavily diluted accounts of this cycle... (((They))) clone themselves and it's like the Island, who gives a fuck about fake dinosaurs?

Shit gets preserved pretty damn well in certain conditions

>flag checks out
kys burger

Don't we all love us some burgers, the new chromosome lacking slave race of the future.

t. muzzie

You really got me this time Haji!

Evolution:
>Organisms undergo random mutations as they reproduce
>some mutations give organisms an advantage in their current environment
>organisms with those good mutations thrive and produce more offsprings
>the new mutation becomes the norm
>repeat this over and over again with every new generation
>after some time your organisms have evolved so much from their ancestors that they are so different and thus can be categorized as a new, different species

What's the big fucking problem here christcucks?

Is that fried chicken?

>flag checks out

>>Organisms undergo random mutations as they reproduce
There's literally as much evidence for the mutations being random as there is for intelligent design, read: none.

>some mutations give organisms


what is cancer?

I dont think you understand that Germans are whiter than you are

>not understanding the very concept of evolution at all

>intelligent design
lol

>There's literally as much evidence for the mutations being random as there is for intelligent design, read: none.
u wot m8? what are mutations then if not random?
also what is your point?

>what is cancer?
unbeneficial mutations that lead to the mutated cells to anarchistically reproduce and in the process damage the organism and eventually drain its energy resulting in death

A mutation that doesn't give an advantage, meaning without modern medicine said organism would die, becoming unable to spread their genes even further or past the moment of alteration.

Jurassic Park when?

To make macroevolution plausible in terms of random mutations which rather turn out to be harmful than beneficial in the majority of cases in order to make humans evolve from the cambrien explosion the span of a generation would need to be 20 minutes for an organism the size of a rat.

can you re write that for a complete retard.
t.retard

Are you considering differing breeding rates between species? Some species, such as rats and several species of fish, tend to have numerous children. This in turn grants numerous opportunities for beneficial mutations as opposed to non beneficial ones.

first, most mutations are neither good nor bad. our coding in the dna is redundant. several codons code for one amino acid so a mutation always changes your genome but due to this redundancy most mutations show no effect in the phenotype

second, i doubt that you can produce the math that lead you to this silly 20 minute rat thingy. it sounds like someone imagined evolution as a linear process not taking into account different breeding cycles and the fact that one organism can have many breeding cycles and still breed when his offspring is already breeding themselves.

...

There is a mathematically model for evolutionary biologist which suggest that only 1 in 10000 mutations is beneficial for the organism, therefore random mutation would drive a species down which is low in numbers, large in body size and long reproductive cycles such as whales, horses, elephants.

If you now take the 1/10000 ratio. You can calculate when random mutations is actually positive for a species. The population size has to be truly enormous about > quadrillion and a body size < 1cm and a generation time < 3 months. Therefore you can observe speciation only within this narrow frame for example bacteria in the real world.

I am not saying that there is or was no evolution, though something dont match the statistics in terms of random mutation. Thats all.

wat?

a mutation being good or bad is entirely determined by the environment in which the mutated organism lives. if the environment changes your previously good mutations can become a disadvantage (i.e. being a cold blooded reptile vs. warm blooded mammals when that asteroid hit mexico)
pinning a number on a random process that is mutation is not realistic and extrapolating that to determine how long it took from the cambrian explosion to shitposting primates on a surinamese window painting forum is a rather abstract concept.

also please provide the paper that establishes this 1/10000 ratio you are talking about.
i'm sitting on a bunch of papers but none say that

before the thread dies here is one

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607448/

I could not find the one saying exactly the 1/10000 ratio but I have in my mind that this was the most positive ratio and the real ratio is even higher... mathematically.


On last anecdote. Darwin himself was theological and metaphysical "aware". He never claimed that evolution should be matter of primary cause but of "first" cause. His theory should never become that what it is used for today in pop science.

Grill it, make a burger out of it, tell me how it tastes its all I care about.