User Tag List

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Oops on Soft Tissue; A Brightening Quasar; and the Missing RSR Underwriter!

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Seated with Him in the heavenlies
    Posts
    6,666
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 81 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    102861

    Oops on Soft Tissue; A Brightening Quasar; and the Missing RSR Underwriter!

    Oops on Soft Tissue; A Brightening Quasar; and the Missing RSR Underwriter!

    This is the show from Friday, September 29th, 2017

    SUMMARY:

    Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart shares news items from the latest Creation magazine including one on unfossilized dinosaur tissue that turns out to be incorrect. (See below for the widely used ambiguous terminology that sometimes misleads science reporters and bloggers into presuming that the discovery of dinosaur "soft tissue" means original biological material, when often, what the term refers to is permineralized soft tissue, i.e., stone that has taken the shape of the dead creature.) Other topics include Yosemite's El Capitan rockslide, NASA's Solar Probe, and a quasar growing ten times brighter, not over millions but in one year! And then there's the request that you help us find RSR's missing underwriter (see below). We need an underwriter (perhaps you!) to put our full Global Flood video on YouTube so it can be viewed freely by a wider audience. Doing so will mean our sales of the video will end. So we are looking for a gift of $10,000 from an underwriter (that can be you!) to put this resource freely online and to bring us from $23,500 (updated on 9/30/17) to put us over our telethon goal of $30,000! Just call 1-800-8Enyart (83k6-9278) or email bob@rsr.org or go to rsr.org[/url] and click on the store. Thank you for your consideration!

    * Example of Need to Clarify Paleontology Terminology: In the age of sequencing endogenous dinosaur proteins, etc., the customary use of "soft tissue" without further clarification to describe permineralized remains should be discontinued. As of 2018, the unqualified phrase "soft tissue" should refer to actual biological material with "permineralized soft tissue" or its equivalent being used when no endogenous material is being indicated. Further, most likely, the best general term to refer to a dinosaur (or other creature) that has endogenous still-biological material is to call it a "biomaterial fossil". Such ambiguity led to confusion in an article, Soft Tissue in Fossil Dinosaur Brains, published in the current October 2017 issue of Creation magazine (Vol. 39, Num. 4) on page 7. That piece is based on the 2016 Geological Society of London Special Publication, Remarkable preservation of brain tissues in an Early Cretaceous iguanodontian dinosaur. Here's what the Creation article concluded from that paper:


    - "in 2016, researchers... reported not just fossilized brains, but unfossilized brain tissue"
    - this allegedly 133 million-year-old "fossil... was found to contain unfossilized protein fragments--brain tissue, fine capillaries, collagen structures, and the membrane that surrounds the brain."
    This is just the latest problem resulting from the ambiguity of "soft tissue" reports. To make matters worse, the GSL paper, as is common among paleontologists, refer to "blood vessels" and "collagen" when they actually mean permineralized vessels and collagen bands. However, the paper doesn't use terms, such as "unfossilized" and "protein fragments", that would have indicated a biomaterial fossil.

    * Diagnostic Terms that Indicate a Biomaterlal Fossil: By default, a scientific paper reporting on a "soft tissue" discovery will be referencing stone artefacts, i.e., permineralized skin and scale impressions, feathers, internal organs replaced with phosphates, carbonates, etc. Of course, nothing substitutes for reading a particular paper of interest. However, you can usually quickly rule out that a publication is referring only to permineralized fossils if contains a number of the following biomaterial diagnostic terms:

    - endogenous, endogeneity
    - molecule, molecular, chemistry
    - sub-cellular, cellular, cell, red blood cells
    - proteinaceous
    - fragments [not bone or carbonized wood, for example, but protein fragments]
    - protein [but not used as in "protein replacement by calcium phosphate", etc.]
    - sequence [as in the amino acid sequences in a protein, an RNA, or a double helix]
    - beta-keratin, tubulin, actin, tropomyosin, myosin, hemoglobin, heme, osteocytes, pigment, melanosomes
    - spectral signature
    - peptide, biomolecules, biomarkers, biochemistry, chemistry
    - nucleic acid, DNA
    - amino acids, chirality
    - organic, organic compounds [but not of course a use like "organic decay]
    - flexibility, pliable, still-soft, transparent
    - immunology, immunological, immunofluorescence
    - antibodies
    - antigenic, antigenicity
    - collagenase, digestion
    - unfossilized
    - contamination, contaminants, biofilm

    And as stated above, again, be careful with terms often used ambiguously, including collagen, blood vessels, even capillaries (as in the above GSL paper) soft tissue, etc., all of which are used somewhat carelessly in the latest issues of paleontological and other scientific journals.

    * Help Find RSR's Missing Underwriter: Imagine if you organized a Global Flood Seminar at a coliseum for less than $1 per person for the evening and you filled the place with 20,000 interested people! Would that be worth the investment to you? The equivalent of doing exactly that is possible and here's how you (yes you) can make it happen!

    You can underwrite putting Real Science Radio's full Global Flood and Hydroplate Theory video online so that we can bring it to at least another 20,000 people, young and old! Here at RSR we are eager to publish our full flood video on YouTube except that when we do, because it will be freely available to everyone for viewing, we will lose our ability to sell the video. So to do both, to make sure that RSR can financially stay on the air, and to present our full video online for free viewing, we need a $10,000 underwriter to make both of these things possible.

    According to Google's Analytics, our BEL/RSR YouTube channel has over 300,000 views during which people have invested 29,000 hours watching and learning from our videos

    Currently, our most popular YouTube videos are:
    38,900 views: pro-life
    35,800 views: evaluating a criminal case
    25,500 views: Bob's theology debate with James White (+7k audio version)
    21,600 views: Hydroplate Theory (this only shows excerpts; as a reminder, for the full video, here's the cover and contents):



    Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart presents the scientific evidence for Dr. Walt Brown’s model of the global flood, along with the relevant biblical material. Enyart also discusses Brown's opponents and contrasts both the vapor canopy and catastrophic plate tectonics with the hydroplate theory.

    DVD Vol. 1:
    1. Walt Brown, Creation Leaders, and Scripture
    2. Hydroplate Theory & Scientific Evidence

    DVD Vol. 2:
    3. Hydroplates vs. Plate Tectonics
    Bonus: Origin of Earth's Radioactivity

    Getting an additional 20,000 interested viewers (as we expect that we will, and more, over time) is many more than would see it as compared to just those who buy it over a five-year period through our radio program and online store. So, timed to put our annual September telethon over the top (we have currently raised $23,500 of our $30,000 goal), we are asking you (yes you!) to consider becoming an underwriter. $10,000 can subsidize the publication of RSR's full flood video online. (And yes, we could add an underwriters credit or a thank you to the YouTube posting.) If you are interested, please call 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278), email Bob@rsr.org, PayPal the funds to SecurePayment@kgov.com, or send a check payable to BEL, PO Box 583, Arvada, CO 80001. (And here are those excerpts, but if you watch this, please don't get so interested that you forget to consider becoming our underwriter!



    Thank you so much for your consideration! -Bob Enyart
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  2. #2
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 580 Times in 397 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    236926
    The second sentence of the paper's abstract states "We report here the highly detailed mineralization of soft tissues associated with a naturally occurring brain endocast of an iguanodontian dinosaur found in c. 133 Ma fluvial sediments of the Wealden at Bexhill, Sussex, UK. Moulding of the braincase wall and the mineral replacement of the adjacent brain tissues by phosphates and carbonates allowed the direct examination of petrified brain tissues."
    The writers at Creation cannot understand simple English? Or is there something else at play. I have not read the entire paper so perhaps there is some other language that would lead one to believe the researchers found "unfossilized protein fragments--brain tissue, fine capillaries, collagen structures, and the membrane that surrounds the brain." but I suspect not. But it allows Pastor Bob to suggest it is the scientific community that plays fast and loose with words.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonahdog For Your Post:

    User Name (October 4th, 2017)

  4. #3
    Over 4000 post club gcthomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,065
    Thanks
    510
    Thanked 862 Times in 580 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    440530
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    The second sentence of the paper's abstract states "We report here the highly detailed mineralization of soft tissues associated with a naturally occurring brain endocast of an iguanodontian dinosaur found in c. 133 Ma fluvial sediments of the Wealden at Bexhill, Sussex, UK. Moulding of the braincase wall and the mineral replacement of the adjacent brain tissues by phosphates and carbonates allowed the direct examination of petrified brain tissues."
    The writers at Creation cannot understand simple English? Or is there something else at play. I have not read the entire paper so perhaps there is some other language that would lead one to believe the researchers found "unfossilized protein fragments--brain tissue, fine capillaries, collagen structures, and the membrane that surrounds the brain." but I suspect not. But it allows Pastor Bob to suggest it is the scientific community that plays fast and loose with words.
    I have read the actual paper, and it describes in great detail the exact sequence of processes that lead to the complete replacement of biological material with minerals as the process of fossilisation. As you suggest, it is not the scientists playing loose with language, it is the Creation folks who are just looking out for mentions of 'soft tissue' to further their own misrepresentations of science. I expect that they have set up Google Scholar searches for the term and they never read or understand the full papers.

    Bob can hardly expect scientists to change the very precise language they uses in papers written for other experts in the field just because some laymen will misunderstand it. The responsibility for interpretation lays with those who report on the research to actually read the paper before jumping on a trigger phrase from a Google search.
    We wunt be druv.

    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us