I'm sure the creation biologists will be forthcoming with some. Just wait. And wait
and wait
and wait.
Real Science Friday: Now Soft Tissue from a Mosasaur!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
I'm sure the creation biologists will be forthcoming with some. Just wait. And wait
and wait
and wait.
Protein isn't the issue? You will say anything to insult God. Protein, blood vessells, and connect tissues are all still preserved. Nothing you can do changes that.
Mary H. Schweitzer said:
Protein is a molecule, often a really big one, but it is not tissue.
Take a bio course somewhere.
And I am not sure the paper says that blood vessels and connect(ive) tissue is preserved.
If all that was insulting to your god, that is a god with some pretty thin skin. The analysis by Pastor Bob and his buddy is insulting to science but I don't think they really care about that.
Know what's funny? After arguing with Bob Enyart and Fred Williams (years earlier), I find I like both of them personally.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Protein is the ENTIRE issue, much of the point of the paper was dedicated to detecting collagen, which is a protein.
Why would discussing the nature of a fossil's preservation in any way be insulting to God? Do you think God is a man that He can be insulted? I've read no commandments against studying or discussing God's creation. That is what we are doing here.
I think you are the one that is insulted, because you cannot stand to have your incredibly peculiar view of science challenged in any way. It appears you've managed to confuse yourself with God. You've now decided to throw out random insults against me which have no basis in anything. You are crazy.
You could, I don't know, read the paper. The cross sections of fossilized bone retain some of the shape of blood vessels, however the amount of actual biological material (I'm talking biomolecules) remaining is relatively small, which is no surprise considering it's a *fossilized* organism. If the tissue were truly "fresh" they wouldn't have had to demineralize the fossil and the entire structure would have been biomaterial.
Again, we have preserved biomaterials that we KNOW are 4000 or so years old. There's DNA left in mummies of that age and far, far more protein.
There is no evidence from any of these "soft tissue" reports that any of them are anywhere close to a few thousand years old. All of Bob's arguments boil down to "look scientists were surprised, that must mean the earth is 6000 years old". That is what is called a non sequitur.
Epicycles
Epicycles
Having recently reread Origin of Species, and with my contemporary knowledge of what has transpired since its publication, I am surprised at the religious fervor with which Darwinists defend this outdated, racist, anti-God, diatribe!
Junk DNA? Essential functionality proves it is Wrong!
"Dinosaurs" millions of years old? Soft tissue proves it is Wrong!
Natural selection? Species stasis proves it is Wrong!
White man is superior, more evolved than dark skinned man? Common sense, history, and real science proves it is Wrong!
The once respectable career of Biology is being replaced by Biological Engineers, can't you see it is because life is engineered?
I mean seriously, how much will it take before this house of cards falls down?
Epicycles
Having recently reread Origin of Species, and with my contemporary knowledge of what has transpired since its publication, I am surprised at the religious fervor with which Darwinists defend this outdated, racist, anti-God, diatribe!
Junk DNA? Essential functionality proves it is Wrong!
"Dinosaurs" millions of years old? Soft tissue proves it is Wrong!
Natural selection? Species stasis proves it is Wrong!
White man is superior, more evolved than dark skinned man? Common sense, history, and real science proves it is Wrong!
The once respectable career of Biology is being replaced by Biological Engineers, can't you see it is because life is engineered?
I mean seriously, how much will it take before this house of cards falls down?
Calm yourself. Even Darwin suggested that God created the first living things.
"Junk DNA" was a term of jest. When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, scientists knew some non-coding DNA (the name it has in the literature) had functions. Some of it is truly functionless, but some of it is not.
"Dinosaurs" millions of years old? Soft tissue proves it is Wrong!
You've been misled on that one. When a population is well-adapted to a constant environment, natural selection will actually prevent evolution. Would you like to learn about that? And, of course, even most honest creationists admit that natural selection is a fact.
So creationists were saying, well into the 90s. Uber-creationist Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research was writing about the alleged spiritual and intellectual inferiority of black people. But you won't find many racist evolutionists, because evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races.
It's directly observed. Sorry about that.
(Barbarian checks the literature) Nope. That's wrong, too.
Evidence. Get some evidence. And then you win. No evidence, you keep on losing. That's the way the game goes.
As soon as all those crack creation scientists get their act together and do so real science I am sure the current paradigm will be turned on its head and all the world's biologists will replace Darwin on their bookshelves with King James.
http://www.livescience.com/37297-science-of-jurassic-park-evolved.html
If the demotion of T. rex from king to peasantry weren't enough, perhaps the cruelest blow to dino lovers came last year, when researchers determined that "Jurassic Park" would be impossible. The reason? Too much time has passed to recover the terrible lizards' DNA from the blood of petrified insects, as the movie portrays: The molecules would have decayed long ago. Researchers in Australia last year made the first-ever calculation of DNA's half-life, or the time for half of a DNA molecule's bonds to break. By the researchers' calculations, all DNA would disappear, "even under the best scenarios, in 6-7 million years," researcher Mike Bunce, from Murdoch University's Ancient DNA lab in Perth, wrote in an email to LiveScience. That means cloners could still use DNA from the relatively recent woolly mammoth, which survived until a few thousand years ago. But the last T. rex roared 65 million years in the past, and most dinosaurs disappeared much earlier.
The soft tissue and blood found in the fossil shows this is wrong. Just like the carbon-14 in found in things that are supposed to be millions of years old.
If the demotion of T. rex from king to peasantry weren't enough, perhaps the cruelest blow to dino lovers came last year, when researchers determined that "Jurassic Park" would be impossible. The reason? Too much time has passed to recover the terrible lizards' DNA from the blood of petrified insects, as the movie portrays: The molecules would have decayed long ago. Researchers in Australia last year made the first-ever calculation of DNA's half-life, or the time for half of a DNA molecule's bonds to break. By the researchers' calculations, all DNA would disappear, "even under the best scenarios, in 6-7 million years," researcher Mike Bunce, from Murdoch University's Ancient DNA lab in Perth, wrote in an email to LiveScience. That means cloners could still use DNA from the relatively recent woolly mammoth, which survived until a few thousand years ago. But the last T. rex roared 65 million years in the past, and most dinosaurs disappeared much earlier.
The soft tissue and blood found in the fossil shows this is wrong. Just like the carbon-14 in found in things that are supposed to be millions of years old.
Lordkalvan
New member
You do realise that the 'soft tissue and blood' had to be demineralised in a weak acid solution before it could be identified? You do realise that measuring the C14 content of material much older than 60-70 thousand years' old is a waste of time, rather like weighing an elephant on bathroom scales and deciding it weighs only 150 kilograms?
If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Lack_of_DNA_in_fossils
And if dinosaurs are millions of years old, no DNA should ever be found.
And your evidence for this belief is...?
http://www.livescience.com/37297-science-of-jurassic-park-evolved.html
If the demotion of T. rex from king to peasantry weren't enough, perhaps the cruelest blow to dino lovers came last year, when researchers determined that "Jurassic Park" would be impossible. The reason? Too much time has passed to recover the terrible lizards' DNA from the blood of petrified insects, as the movie portrays: The molecules would have decayed long ago. Researchers in Australia last year made the first-ever calculation of DNA's half-life, or the time for half of a DNA molecule's bonds to break. By the researchers' calculations, all DNA would disappear, "even under the best scenarios, in 6-7 million years," researcher Mike Bunce, from Murdoch University's Ancient DNA lab in Perth, wrote in an email to LiveScience. That means cloners could still use DNA from the relatively recent woolly mammoth, which survived until a few thousand years ago. But the last T. rex roared 65 million years in the past, and most dinosaurs disappeared much earlier.
Or are you saying the standard cliche' of 60 millions years that seperate man and dinosaur is flexible?
How do you know if it is older than 60-70 thousand years? You are proceeding from an assumption as though it is true.
Who did you crib this nonsense from? I will give one million US dollars to anybody that carbon dates the dino soft tissue. I don't have it to give, but know that the challenge will never be met.
gcthomas
New member
It is interesting how you both take scientific research papers as some sort of gospel if they they can be distorted to support your dogmatic YEC position, but far better verified work is rejected because you don't like the conclusions.
At the moment, the DNA half life work was done on bones only a few thousand years old, with the DNA limit reached by extrapolating a thousand times more than the evidence documents. DNA degradation is time, temperature, moisture and fossilisation condition dependent. Many factors have not been investigated yet, and the work has not yet even been replicated within its own limitations. The dinosaur DNA may yet be contamination or low level metabolic activity. The soft tissue might be biofilm forming on cavity surfaces. The blood evidence was iron in small spheres indicating haemoglobin, but similar spheres were found in Ammonites, which have copper based blood.
So, to draw a firm conclusion based on individual, unverified papers now is unjustified. Patience is necessary. Wait until other teams and fossils have been through the verification and extension exercises. To come to a firm conclusion either way is wishful thinking.
Lordkalvan
New member
Because there are several different yet consilient dating methodologies used by archaeologists, palaeontologists and geologists.
So you think weighing an elephant on bathroom scales will give you an accurate weight for the elephant?
