Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment

Showing 1-6 of 6 messages
Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment ArthurP 12/28/12 9:06 PM
Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment

When you look at a chicken embryo with a microscope as it starts to
develop you will see that they have teeth buds and the beginnings of
multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA, which among other
things contains activation switches, tells the developing embryo to
absorb them.  This is the same process by which humans absorb their
own vestigial tails.

Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction
you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur
tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside
edge.  Both results of which can bee seen using a simple
magnification. Other studies have also been successful in changing
scales to feathers.
  The process used to do this is called atavism activation.

This is not hypothesis.  This is not supposition.  This is not
interpretation.  This is cold hard, hold in your hands see with your
own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in
Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible.

It should be noted that at no time was any DNA  ever added to or
removed from the chicken DNA.  This was done using 100% pure chicken
DNA.

They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur
characteristics and the only way this can happen is through the
process described by The Theory of Evolution.

So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and
learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their
microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are
correct.

The Theory of Evolution is real.

Scientists and their related institutions doing this research:

Raul Cano, professor of microbiology at California Polytechnic State
University
Jack Horner, professor of palaeontology at Montana State University
Hans Larsson, a paleontologist at McGill University in Canada
Matt Harris and John Fallon, developmental biologists at the
University of Wisconsin
Dewey Kramer, at Texas A&M University

Publications related to this research:

The method turning genes on and off is called atavism activation,
numerous papers related to this field of research can be found on
Google Scholar.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=atavism+activation&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

A paper presented covering various aspects of this ongoing field of
study, 'Dinosaur’s feather and chicken’s tooth? Tissue engineering of
the integument'.
http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/01/88/9F/article.phtml

Occurrences of Tooth Development Mutations in Chickens Happening in
Nature:

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken
Mutant
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982206000649

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth - Scientific American 2006.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

Human Tail Bone
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aja.1001520108/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0046817784800799


In addition here are a few populist sites that give none technical
explanations:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/05/dinosaur-chicken.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/12/60minutes/main5629962.shtml
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/scientist-vows-backwards-engineer-dinosaur-chicken

----

The beauty of this proof is that it only requires genetics no other
disciplines are required, not dating evidence, not the fossil record.
Just the fact that if not for methodologies within The Theory of
Evolution how did these traits that are not used by the modern chicken
get into the modern chicken.

Re: Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment John Harshman 12/28/12 9:31 PM
On 12/28/12 9:06 PM, ArthurP wrote:
> Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
>
> When you look at a chicken embryo with a microscope as it starts to
> develop you will see that they have teeth buds and the beginnings of
> multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA, which among other
> things contains activation switches, tells the developing embryo to
> absorb them.  This is the same process by which humans absorb their
> own vestigial tails.
>
> Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction
> you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur
> tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside
> edge.  Both results of which can bee seen using a simple
> magnification. Other studies have also been successful in changing
> scales to feathers.
>    The process used to do this is called atavism activation.

Your references don't seem to support several aspects of your claim. The
farthest any of them go with regard to teeth is early development of
toothlike structures lacking enamel and dentine. No mention of serrated
dinosaur teeth. Further, your interpretation of the experimental
mechanism seems faulty. In most (all?) cases tooth production was
induced using cells from non-bird species.



Re: Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment g...@risky-biz.com 12/28/12 9:43 PM
On Dec 29, 12:31 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/12 9:06 PM, ArthurP wrote:

>
> Your references don't seem to support several aspects of your claim. The
> farthest any of them go with regard to teeth is early development of
> toothlike structures lacking enamel and dentine. No mention of serrated
> dinosaur teeth. Further, your interpretation of the experimental
> mechanism seems faulty. In most (all?) cases tooth production was
> induced using cells from non-bird species.

Prediction:

Ray will claim this is further evidence that you have lost confidence
in, well, something.

Re: Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment prawnster 12/29/12 9:37 AM
On Dec 28, 9:06 pm, ArthurP <arthurpali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
>

Wrong.  That you don't understand a creator's process or find fault
with a creator's process doesn't mean there's no creator.  Or, more
simply, your ignorance doesn't negate God's existence.

Lightweight.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis.  When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

Re: Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment wiki trix 12/29/12 10:54 AM
On Dec 29, 9:37 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:06 pm, ArthurP <arthurpali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
>
> Wrong.  That you don't understand a creator's process or find fault
> with a creator's process doesn't mean there's no creator.  Or, more
> simply, your ignorance doesn't negate God's existence.

Where does the original post discuss a creator's process? Where does
the original post imply that there is no creator?  The only conclusion
that I could make out from what was said is that "The Theory of
Evolution is real", which could be the creator's process you are
referring to.

> Lightweight.

You sound pretty Higgsless yourself.

> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
> hypothesis.  When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
> called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

Assertion, hypothesis, and consensus are all provisional. Although
dogma and pride slips in now and then, the scientific method seems to
work very well. Much better than religion. Did you have a point to
make about that?

Re: Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment Mitchell Coffey 12/30/12 1:39 PM
On 12/29/2012 12:37 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:06 pm, ArthurP <arthurpali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
>>
>
> Wrong.  That you don't understand a creator's process or find fault
> with a creator's process doesn't mean there's no creator.  Or, more
> simply, your ignorance doesn't negate God's existence.
>
> Lightweight.

Except genetics does demonstrate that evolution is true. You have
claimed otherwise, but since you refuse to defend that claim the claim
isn't anymore serious than the rest of your bilge.

Mitchell Coffey