The theory of natural selection explains how such feathers could have appeared: one individual of a dinosaur species was a mutant - understand by that one or a few of his genes were abnormal due to random mutations - and grew very (very very) primitive feathers. Then this trait somehow helped him to survive (or he was just lucky), and his offspring inherited the trait.
One million years later, another mutation made the primitive feather change again, and etc.
Lol, evolution has plenty of faults. Instead of making a list, I simply like starting at the beginning of the faults. How can nothing create something?
The evolutionists randomly came up with the theory, because they didn’t understand how life began.
Evolution is EVOLUTION, not creation.
Please, show me some quote from a evolution believer that says evolution explain how matter originated or even how life started.
Do you know why people get the flue every year? Because the viruses evolve.
Do you know why some antibiotics don’t work anymore? Because the bacteria evolved.
That is what evolutions is. Survival of the fittest. Its no theory, you can see it happening.
Common sense has its limitations. After all, common sense told us that we couldn’t build ships from metal, or flying machines that were heavier than air. Logic and reasoning on the other hand, are used extensively in science to interpret the results of experiments.
No, that’s Lamarckism and isn’t generally accepted as being a valid mechanism for evolution.
It might help if you thought of birds as being dinosaurs. Here’s an interesting page:
It talks about the possible progenitors of feathers (probably scutes) but mentions the alternative, less likely idea that perhaps scutes are the “descendants” of feathers.
Some people…have the idea that evolution is a fucking system of…
“oh i need flippers, i’d better grow some” type bullshit.
It’s more like “Oh shit look at that freak over there with the flippers hahaha OH SHIT I AM DROWNING OH GOD SAVE ME FLIPPER BOY”
I do not see how this evidence could give that man the slightest hint as to that it relates dinosaurs to birds…
For a red blood cell, or any other type of soft tissue to stay around for billions of years is literally impossible. No excuse needed.
One problem I have with evolution is that they back up their theories, with their own theories, and it keeps going around in circles with no solid proof whatsoever.
As you’ll note if you read, the tissue samples were inside the bone, sealed off from external contact by the minerals making the outer crust of the bone.
No offence, but only fools deal in absolutes.
Here’s how the above article ended (emphasis mine):
“We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer. “Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place.”
Firstly: millions, not billions.
Secondly: they weren’t red blood cells.
Do you mean proof of the existence of evolution, or the mechanism by which it occurs? There have been direct observations of evolution in action, so its existence really ought not to be in question. I’d be very interested to hear about other mechanisms though.
Depends on which sources you get your information from.
All the evolutionist groups claim it is not tissue, but the group
that found the bone claim it was a red blood cell.
What are the “direct observations of evolution”, I have yet to see any.
You did realise that what I’ve linked to is the group that did the research, right?
You also noticed that they explicitly say that it’s not full cells but only nuclei, right?
