Undermining long-held paradigms

"In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago.

​

It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

​

In this case, the mammal was about the size of a large cat, and the victim was a very young "parrot dinosaur" that measured about 5 inches long.

​

A second mammal fossil found at the same site claims the distinction of being the largest early mammal ever found. It's about the size of a modern dog, a breathtaking 20 times larger than most mammals living in the early Cretaceous Period."This is what the live science article explains. What makes it particularly interesting is that according to virtually all evolutionary biologists, very small mammals barely eking out of existence, should have ever been contemporaneous with dinosaurs. The prevailing theory, obviously, having mammals made their rise to glory after a profound cataclymsic event caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, allowing for the proliferation of small mammals.This is one of several contradictions concerning the the long-held paradigms of evolution that have been undermined in recent years. Another example and a more notorious case being the discovery of unfossilized fascial tissue attached to an alleged 70 million year old T-Rex. How should modern biology feel about such discoveries, and is it in the best interest of the entire biological community to rethink some of their timescales in lieu of such discrepancies?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Eh, surprise me. I'm not too particular about this one.

I didn't think the argument was going to make or break the entire theory of evolution, its just one more clue to build a case against and demonstrates that much of the theory has to keep reinventing itself. No, that isn't a good explanation. I don't know. Maybe T-Rex was a omnivore. If I'm not mistaken, within the crevices of some T-Rex teeth have been detected trace amounts of chloroplasts. What if T-Rex ended up being an herbivore? Aside from which, anything more than this is just a guess, something I've noticed often becomes hard fact over night. Discovery's "Walking with Dinosaurs" solidifies that point quite nicely. Here's what we know for certain:
1. Dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are not.
2. The earth shows signs of being bombarded by asteroids.Here's the assertion:
1. It was an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaur. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but lets not get carried away and call it facvt when its far from anything factual at this point.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Of course if one were to believe in the typical theory of evolution that they had to be contemporaneous at some point. However, just as the article described, this discovery undermines what biologists and paleontologists previously believed. What everyone believed was that tiny, shrewlike mammals, such as the multituberculata lived in burrows and they were able to survive because they were endothermic and the saurian were exothermic who died out in a cataclysmic event. For this particular organism to have survived, one has to keep lowering the timeline, which has been increasing in frequency. Of course they would have to be contemporaneous at some point. I never suggested they weren't. What this has to deal with is pushing back the timescale that we've grown so accustomed to. Dog-sized mammals are said not to have been on earth in the early Cretaceous Period, right? And this is claimed to be known empirically through radiometric dating, right? So obviously somebody is seriously wrong. And if anyone wants to scoff at millions of years of discrepancies is more than welcome, but I see it a serious deficiency, especially when their entire credibility is on the line.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This has nothing to do with whether or not mammals ate dinosaurs. I know they ate dinosaurs and dinosaurs ate them, depending on the size variance. My objection lies in the timescale. Does this dicovery, coupled with a few others that were forced to change other long-held paradigms, is this going to present a problem? That's the question. That's because I didn't say "facial," I said "fascial." I'm surprised no one has heard of this argument. Surely prior to my arrival on EvC somebody had heard about this argument. I mean, I know that it was kept a little quiet in the evo community because it tends to undermine the timescale, but I'm surprised that no one seems to have heard about this.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Obviously I'm not, as you can see in the article. The misrepresentation, not that it was malicious, came for years about how and when dinosaurs and mammals co-existed. Trilobite found contemporaneously with Coelacanth, fossilized footprints over trilobite, T-rex found with red blood cells, another T-Rex found with palpable flesh, then of course there are all the demonstrable frauds that were once unassailable "proof", such as the Heidelberg jaw, Haeckel's drawings, peppered moths, Ramipithecus, Piltdown Man, Java Man, on and on and on. Why does everyone think I said 'facial' when I said fascial? Do you really not see the profundity of such a discovery? It is said that T-Rex went extinct 70 million years ago. That means, according to evolutionists, that the specimen in question is at least 70 million years old, if not several millions of years older. Now, the tissue was found to be pliable. As well, the specimen was unfossilized and unfrozen. Obviously fossilization and freezing are excellent preserving mechanisms. But how can a logical person think that unfossilized bone, much less soft tissue, can survive decay past a few hundred years? Given the fact that examples of many human skeletal remains rarely surviving decay past 50 years indicates that in 70 million years nothing could survive past this unbelievable length of time. Oxygen accelerates the rate of putrefaction and overall decomposition, greatly. However, despite being in an airtight coffin, buried six feet under ground, many human remains rarely survive decay past half a century without the intervention of embalming techniques. Many instances where a body had been exhumed for legal cases of suspected homicide were found without any soft tissue, and sometimes, no bones survived decay altogether.I mean, I think people have been inundated with literature speaking about millions and billions of years of time with a certain frivolity. Do you really believe that soft tissue can survive decay this long? I ts extremely difficult to reconcile. And I doubt that you can truly appreciate what 70 million years actually means Yes, I was twisting my moustache, hatching a diabolical scheme to trick you all in the name of God. Be careful of your slanderous accusations."On the day of judgment, men will have to give account for every careless word they speak," -(Jesus)-Matthew 12:36

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Lots of objects have hit the earth that purportedly could have triggered a cataclysmic event. In the last state I lived in, Arizona, rests an enormous and impressive crater known as Meteor Crater. Another serious impact can be found in Australia at the Wolfe Crater site. The point is that these are significant impacts that did not destroy life on earth, the other point is, though the theory that a meteor hitting the Yuccatan Peninsula is attractive, it isn't something that is a certainty. That's all I said and that's all that I meant. If you've deduced anything more than that I can't help you with that. Neither am I. That's why I said that its a fact that meteor's have struck the earth, but what is theoretical is that it caused a K-T extinction level event. Perhaps. Its not a stupid theory. But as I pointed out, there have been much more recent impacts, significant ones, that have not destroyed the earth's ecosystem. Why not? Is possible that a dust cloud couldn't throw the earth in a radical climate change? Is it possible that its an embellishment or a temporal explanation for how that many animals can disappear at once?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Isn't evolution the Special Creation event for atheists? Don't misunderstand me. Surely, more evidence is always good to improve on theories. But what if the evidence doen't improve on it, but rather bring parts of it into disrepute? And if those proponents just change times that are supposed to have been based on empirical testing, then what is that saying about the validity of that testing, the validity of the experimentors? Isn't giving an opponent of theirs more ammunition to believe that those who swore, hand to Origins, that they were right all along end up being proven false?NJ, how do you think this find alters the Theory rather than simply our understanding of mammal evolution?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

As I said, just this one thing is no enormous deal. The purpose of the thread is to show that more and more of these situations that were once empirical fact are being undermined with the advent of greater and more sophisticated technology. I mean, why and how did Crocs, Alligators, and their direct progeny survive the extinction if all large reptiles succombed to the elements? The Mesozoic and upper Creataceous should have had very small mammals that were herbovires, but now we have dog-sized carnivorous mammals.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Yes. And did you not get the memo that mammals were supposed to be no more than 5 inches and herbivores? Why only Laurasian as opposed Gondwanan as well? During the Cretaceous period, most of Pangea was still supposed to be well intact intead of separating into the two supercontinents. According to the theory it wasn't until the late Mesozoic era that plates would have shifted in such a way as to form two distinct continents. Well, I'd sure hate to diminish my well-liked but mostly wrong stature here on EvC. How do I sound like Randman? I really don't see much of him so I don't know what his arguments entail. Does he have piss-poor arguments or something?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

quote:

---

That's because I didn't say "facial," I said "fascial."

---

No worries brother.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

No, that would be one thing. That would learning off of new discoveries. I certainly don't ever expect science to ever plateau. What I expect is that theory needs to be tread lightly. Really what I'm little ticked about is 1880 evolution was a theory. 1900 evolution was a theory. By 1920 evolution was a fact, including all the anamolies we now find. Then 1970 evolution was a fact, but its a large departure from Darwin's theory-- a very large departure that sought to reinvent the wheel to reconcile the deplorable fossil record.My point is that 'facts' are often tentative. And the scientific community should show a little more restraint until we flat out know that what we are investigating is a solid fact, not simply leaning in a certain direction. If I taught high school biology in 1995 and some kid told me that he believed mammals were much larger in the late Cretaceous period, I would be inclined to inform him that he was wrong because I have the facts. As it turns out, the boy was right. Isn't that a reasonable objection?As for this article, its not the be-all-end-all of evolution. Its just to elucidate the point that there are several discoveries which are compelling more and more people to take another look at these long epochs of geologic time.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

No, I think you might have been the only one in light of the responses. I guess kudos to you. Okay, I stand corrected about the bone being fossilized. That would certainly allow for a much better preserving mechanism, however, this is still quite a discovery that pushes the boundaries. Who would believe in earnest that any soft tissue should remain in 70 million years or older? That's unheard of. Therefore, is it possible that T-Rex did not die out 70 mya?"A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

​

Most fossils preserve an organism's hard tissues, such as shell or bone. Finding preserved soft tissue is unheard of in a dinosaur-age specimen. o my knowledge, preservation to this extent”where you still have original flexibility and transparency”has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

​

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

​

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said." National GeographicI didn't see it. I've been answering questions in sequential order, except for those that overly redundant. I'll go back and look for the article and address those points. I work for secret evolution taskforce at the NSA. I have to keep queit about certain things..... Damn, I just blew my cover!

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Somebody asked me to provide a list of similar arguments that tend to undermine previous beliefs concerning the ToE. That's what I did. okay.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Alright, that is enormous. Obviosly much bigger than Meteor Crater, which by the way, is extremely impressive once you're inside it. Here is the purpose of the inquiry: Theory and fact often converge prematurely when theory unduly becomes fact. The general concensus of the K-T event is that a meteor that hit the Mexican peninsula was the factor for such a catastrophic event. Afterall, there has to be some good reason for why these creatures simply disappeared, right. But not everyone is convinced that it was the Chicxulub site that did them in. A few separate teams, including some researchers from NASA, believe that it was another site that caused such a massive extinction. As for my own beliefs on the subject, they are tentative, as I'm not swayed in either direction. My reason for mentioning has to do with the difference between fact and theory and how that line often gets hazy. It would be one thing if the community stated their beliefs based on certain pieces of evidence. That way, as new evidence appears, they can tailor their beliefs accordingly. But some people just can't do that. Instead, they have to tell me all about their "proof," and how its a "fact" that this or that happened. Suddenly, fact becomes factoid. As a defense, they tout the much coveted line, "We accomodate our beliefs as new evidence sufaces." Then what you stated prior was not a fact, right? Don't call it a fact unless its a fact. This is really the purpose of my post. To show how theory and fact become convergent prematurely.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton