"508 Million Year Old" Exceptionally Preserved Embryos Found (page 2)

Finkelstein

Creationists are usually intellectually dishonest and usually poorly educated particularly on subject matter which they make an attempt to criticize. In other words don't trust people like Perry to give honest academically backed investigative answers from open analytical posed problems of unusual occurrences in specific sciences.

SecretSlaveClass

Perry you just seem so incredibly intellectually lazy. You couldn't be bothered doing actual research. Instead you seek out articles which support your need to believe so you can find those little bullshit tidbits that can allow you to say "Ah-huh! See evolution is a lie". You try so hard to search out these confirmational biased articles it makes me suspect you have nagging doubts about your beliefs and constantly seek reinforcement for them. Is your faith perhaps a little shaky there buddy?

Perry

Oh dear,

Same old tired misdirection & personal attacks. Why didn't anyone comment on the fact that the published article stated specifically that it was preserved embryos?

There is no amount of misdirection or personal attacks that can change that fact.

Like I mentioned there are MANY scientifically published articles that illustrate soft ORIGINAL tissues, blood cells, dna fragments and other biological material found in items that are dated in the "millions" of years...... which is an impossibility for the evolutionist; not to mention many other "not so old things".

Here's just a few:

As listed by Dr. Walt Brown…
- allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
- allegedly 18 million year old salamander muscle and vessels filled with blood (Proc. Roy. Soc. 2009)
- allegedly 40 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
- allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
- allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
- allegedly 400 million year old fish amino acids (Journal of Applied Genetics 2003).
- allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

AGAIN: Here's the list of 20 Years of Scientific Journal Article Research

Way past time to dethrone evolution folks.

Perry

Secret Salve writes:

Perry you just seem so incredibly intellectually lazy. You couldn't be bothered doing actual research. Instead you seek out articles which support your need to believe so you can find those little bullshit tidbits that can allow you to say "Ah-huh! See evolution is a lie". You try so hard to search out these confirmational biased articles

Secret Slave,

Below, I have gone to the trouble of cutting and pasting for you the information being discussed IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. This way you do not have to click on the sole link that I provided in my opening post. I have even added bold type and underlining.

New, exceptionally preserved specimens of the weakly sclerotized arthropod Waptia fieldensis from the middle Cambrian (ca. 508 million years ago) Burgess Shale, Canada, provide the oldest example of in situ eggs with preserved embryos in the fossil record. The relatively small clutch size, up to 24 eggs, and the relatively large diameter of individual eggs, some over 2 mm, contrast with the high number of small eggs—found without preserved embryos—in the bivalved bradoriid arthropod Kunmingella douvillei from the Chengjiang biota (ca. 515 million years ago).

Link

SecretSlaveClass

I'm glad you read something genuinely scientific, my apologies. Now please point out in that article (which I read and re-read) where it disputes evolution.

At any rate, thank you for sharing the article it was an interesting and informative read.

cofty

Why didn't anyone comment on the fact that the published article stated specifically that it was preserved embryos? - Perry

Because the article doesn't say that.

The amazing thing is the preservation of fossilised embryos in an early arthropod.

Nowhere in the original science paper or even in the creationist bullshit does it even suggest the embryos were soft tissue.

New, exceptionally preserved specimens of the weakly sclerotized arthropod Waptia fieldensis from the middle Cambrian (ca. 508 million years ago) Burgess Shale, Canada, provide the oldest example of in situ eggs with preserved embryos in the fossil record ...

The amazing thing about this find is what it tells us about the evolution of parental care strategies.

FFS take a moment to read things before you copy-paste utter nonsense.

sir82

Wait...so this whole hullabaloo is because Perry and/or the creationists he copy-pastes don't understand that fossilized embryos are not "soft tissue"?

Sheesh, that's embarrassing, even for someone as wrong as Perry often is.

cofty

Actually the creationists he plagiarised did understand that it wasn't about "soft-tissue"

Not only can Perry not understand the abstract of a science paper he can't even understand creationist bullshit.

It's a new low.

Crazyguy

One has to really do thier home work when researching this stuff. Christian zealots take published reports out of context in order to get thier point across.

Vidiot

Finkelstein - "Creationists are usually intellectually dishonest..."

And not even particularly effective at it.

Realizing that was a major red flag for me.

x

Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

... if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

"508 Million Year Old" Exceptionally Preserved Embryos Found

Share this