toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?

[The Barbarian]

Because then they have to admit that YEC is at least a possibility that they cannot deny.

Comes down to evidence. They can either accept someone's unsupported claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, or they can accept a huge body of evidence from diverse sources, that these fossils are millions of years old.

That's why no one who is not YE for religious reasons, believes the story.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Comes down to evidence. They can either accept someone's unsupported claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, or they can accept a huge body of evidence from diverse sources, that these fossils are millions of years old.

That's why no one who is not YE for religious reasons, believes the story.

Show me your evidence that soft tissue can last more than (ill even give an early estimate of when dinos are said to go extinct) of say 60 million years.

 

[The Barbarian]

Show me your evidence that soft tissue can last more than (ill even give an early estimate of when dinos are said to go extinct) of say 60 million years.

Those who claim it can't be preserved that long, have to support your claim. Assuming they want rational people to believe it.

Give us a checkable source for your evidence.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Those who claim it can't be preserved that long, have to support your claim. Assuming they want rational people to believe it.

Give us a checkable source for your evidence.

um you didn't answer the question and it was you who made the claim here:

Comes down to evidence. They can either accept someone's unsupported claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, or they can accept a huge body of evidence from diverse sources, that these fossils are millions of years old.

You claimed there is evidence of this happening, and that we dont buy it, so the burden of proof is yours.

Or should i just take your response to mean you cant show the evidence you claim you have because you don't have any?

Ill ask again lest you get confused again about what i said - i asked you (in response to your claim that it exists and we just dont believe it, even though you didnt show anything)

Show me your evidence that soft tissue can last more than (ill even give an early estimate of when dinos are said to go extinct) of say 60 million years.

Either answer this, or admit you cant.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Show me your evidence that soft tissue can last more than (ill even give an early estimate of when dinos are said to go extinct) of say 60 million years.

I am reading articles here that show possible dinosaur feathers encased in amber from China that may have been 160 million years old, and also feathers trapped in amber that are 80 million years old from Canada.

Numerous Insects are preserved in amber, just like the one in that old movie Jurassic Park where they sucked the dino dna out of it.

Now obviously the amber is giving the objects some crucial preservation quality to allow us to see so vividly structures such as feathers, insects or plant matter that may considered soft tissue or chemically very close to it.

Now think of modern canning techniques. Think of a modern glass jar. No one really knows how long something will last in a modern glass jar. No one knows exactly how long some of these plastics and things we create will go laying around. Think of all the preservatives we eat nowadays, how long will our very bodies be preserved?

Conditions within certain T-rex femurs may produce inert qualities we do not yet quite understand, but could liken to other things we do know, such as the fact that certainly it is possible for preservation conditions to be more optimal in certain places than in others.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I am reading articles here that show possible dinosaur feathers encased in amber from China that may have been 160 million years old, and also feathers trapped in amber that are 80 million years old from Canada.

Numerous Insects are preserved in amber, just like the one in that old movie Jurassic Park where they sucked the dino dna out of it.

Now obviously the amber is giving the objects some crucial preservation quality to allow us to see so vividly structures such as feathers, insects or plant matter that may considered soft tissue or chemically very close to it.

Now think of modern canning techniques. Think of a modern glass jar. No one really knows how long something will last in a modern glass jar. No one knows exactly how long some of these plastics and things we create will go laying around. Think of all the preservatives we eat nowadays, how long will our very bodies be preserved?

Conditions within certain T-rex femurs may produce inert qualities we do not yet quite understand, but could liken to other things we do know, such as the fact that certainly it is possible for preservation conditions to be more optimal in certain places than in others.

'possible' feathers in amber is evidence of soft tissue lasting 60 million years?

Possible anything isnt evidence of anything.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

'possible' feathers in amber is evidence of soft tissue lasting 60 million years?

Possible anything isnt evidence of anything.

Possible anything is exactly what I'm trying to get YECs to consider.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:You want to see it again? Sure. As the ancient Christians wrote, it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.Nope. Just pointing out the logical absurdity.(Stipe considers Christian theology to be "nonsense.")In one of the two accounts in Genesis. The logical contradiction only exists for modern Christians who try to revise it to make it a literal history. The early Christians saw it as figurative.Barbarian observes:And since the timing and sequence are different for the two creation stories in Genesis, we have to conclude that either Genesis is self-contradictory, or the account is not a literal history. You should read the Bible. Lots of good stuff therein.[c olor="Indigo"]The creation narrative is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis. While Genesis 2–3 is a simple linear narrative proceeding from God's forming the first man through the Garden of Eden to the creation of the first woman and the institution of marriage, Genesis 1 is notable for its elaborate internal structure. It consists of eight acts of creation over six days, framed by an introduction and a conclusion. In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light, day two the "waters above" from the "waters below", and day three the sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are populated: day four populates the darkness and light with sun, moon and stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and birds; and finally animals and mankind are placed on the land. On day zero primeval chaos reigns, and on day seven there is cosmic order.[14]There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first narrative the humans (male and female together) are created after the animals, while in the second the man is created first (and alone), then the animals, and finally the woman[/color].[u rl]http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Ge nesis_creation_narra tive[/url]Christians have always known this.(Stipe considers accepting Genesis as it is, to be a "non-sequitur")G.O. writes:[i ]The problem is not that creationists refuse to believe that a T. Rex can be 70 million years old and have soft tissue. It is the irrational dogma of the evolutionists that cannot accept any theory that would shorten that time to a few thousand years.[/quoteComes down to evidence. Find something that supports your ideas. If you really think so, you don't know anything about paleontology. Such material (which isn't yet shown to be tissue) has been long known from invertebrate fossils, for example.Some are still around. They are called "birds."It's that "E" word you guys hate so much.There's a very long list. But I suppose anything seems completely adaptable, if you don't know much about it.Because it's rare for anything to fossilize and exceedingly rare for complex organic material to survive that long.ut I notice no one yet can come up with any evidence showing that it can't.

Barbie loves this nonsense, pretending his assumptions are evidence, appealing to authority and twisting words. Unfortunately the bible says evening and morning happened before there was a sun. So it seems utterly reasonable to accept that the light available produced the effects described.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Barbie loves this nonsense, pretending his assumptions are evidence, appealing to authority and twisting words. Unfortunately the bible says evening and morning happened before there was a sun. So it seems utterly reasonable to accept that the light available produced the effects described.

I believe in a God who can make 25 hour days.

I believe in a God who can work trillions of hours in a trillion hour long day, and then command it at whim to become night when he so chooses. Time is not God's God. There is no rule of time God cannot break, and look the Bible says he stopped the sun.

Did he literally stop the sun, or stop the earth from going around it? The humans with their primitive understanding of science had thought the sun stopped. That is the only way they could understand what had happened, and the lesson to you should be that to God time means nothing.

 

[The Barbarian]

possible' feathers in amber is evidence of soft tissue lasting 60 million years?

Possible anything isnt evidence of anything.

The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France

Vincent Perrichot ,
Loïc Marion
Didier Néraudeau
Romain Vullo
Paul Tafforeau

Abstract

The developmental stages of feathers are of major importance in the evolution of body covering and the origin of avian flight. Until now, there were significant gaps in knowledge of early morphologies in theoretical stages of feathers as well as in palaeontological material. Here we report fossil evidence of an intermediate and critical stage in the incremental evolution of feathers which has been predicted by developmental theories but hitherto undocumented by evidence from both the recent and the fossil records. Seven feathers have been found in an Early Cretaceous (Late Albian, ca 100 Myr) amber of western France, which display a flattened shaft composed by the still distinct and incompletely fused bases of the barbs forming two irregular vanes. Considering their remarkably primitive features, and since recent discoveries have yielded feathers of modern type in some derived theropod dinosaurs, the Albian feathers from France might have been derived either from an early bird or from a non-avian dinosaur.


Have you found that evidence that organic material can't survive for millions of years? When do you think you can show it to us?

 

[Stripe]

I believe in a God who can make 25 hour days.I believe in a God who can work trillions of hours in a trillion hour long day, and then command it at whim to become night when he so chooses. Time is not God's God. There is no rule of time God cannot break, and look the Bible says he stopped the sun. Did he literally stop the sun, or stop the earth from going around it? The humans with their primitive understanding of science had thought the sun stopped. That is the only way they could understand what had happened, and the lesson to you should be to God time means nothing.

That's great.

I believe in God as described in the bible. I reckon what it says there trumps what you say here.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe in God as described in the bible.

No, you don't accept it. You believe in a modern re-interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France

Vincent Perrichot ,
Loïc Marion
Didier Néraudeau
Romain Vullo
Paul Tafforeau

Abstract

The developmental stages of feathers are of major importance in the evolution of body covering and the origin of avian flight. Until now, there were significant gaps in knowledge of early morphologies in theoretical stages of feathers as well as in palaeontological material. Here we report fossil evidence of an intermediate and critical stage in the incremental evolution of feathers which has been predicted by developmental theories but hitherto undocumented by evidence from both the recent and the fossil records. Seven feathers have been found in an Early Cretaceous (Late Albian, ca 100 Myr) amber of western France, which display a flattened shaft composed by the still distinct and incompletely fused bases of the barbs forming two irregular vanes. Considering their remarkably primitive features, and since recent discoveries have yielded feathers of modern type in some derived theropod dinosaurs, the Albian feathers from France might have been derived either from an early bird or from a non-avian dinosaur.

Fossils found in amber arent soft tissue, your excerpt has no dates, i see no reference cited so we can check the sources and they arent even sure where the feathers came from.

Again, show me some evidence like you claimed of SOFT TISSUE lasting more than 60 MILLION years.

waiting.....

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that organic material can last millions of years.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1639/1197.full

Fossils found in amber arent soft tissue, your excerpt has no dates, i see no reference cited so we can check the sources and they arent even sure where the feathers came from.

As you might know, the "soft tissue" found in T rex bones hasn't been verified to be tissue.

From the site "Reasons to Believe", a Christian site:
In fairness, the researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells. However, a careful reading of the paper reveals that this is hopeful speculation, not a statement of fact.

The paper states complete demineralization of the T. rex material released vessels from some regions of the bone matrix that floated to the surface of the flask. Many of these vessels contained round microstructures that resembled blood cells and inside these they observed smaller objects that resembled nuclei. The researchers then subjected ostrich bones to the same process and, when viewed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the resulting vessels and contents were virtually identical to the T. rex specimen.6

However, since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.7 Therefore, it is very possible that the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants—the degradation products of vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.8 In fact, Schweitzer admits as much in the closing paragraph of the paper:

From the author's paper:
Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.9
http://www.reasons.org/dinosaur-blood-revisited-part-1-2

So your assumption is wrong. In fact the feathers are much more impressive than a little bit of flexible material processed from dino bone.

And of course, we're still waiting for your evidence that such material couldn't be preserved in that state from millions of years. When do you think you might be able to show us that?

Again, show me some evidence like you claimed of SOFT TISSUE lasting more than 60 MILLION years.

I didn't. You invented that. I merely expressed skepticism at the claim that such organic stuff couldn't be preserved for millions of years.

By now, I think we've all figured out that you have no evidence, just as you assumed the material in question was "soft tissue." As you see, even the author of the paper warns that we can't conclude that it is.

So why not put an end to this, and tell us. Do you or do you not have evidence that such material as was found, cannot be preserved for millions of years?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Barbarian notes that organic material can last millions of years.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1639/1197.full



As you might know, the "soft tissue" found in T rex bones hasn't been verified to be tissue.

From the site "Reasons to Believe", a Christian site:
In fairness, the researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells. However, a careful reading of the paper reveals that this is hopeful speculation, not a statement of fact.

The paper states complete demineralization of the T. rex material released vessels from some regions of the bone matrix that floated to the surface of the flask. Many of these vessels contained round microstructures that resembled blood cells and inside these they observed smaller objects that resembled nuclei. The researchers then subjected ostrich bones to the same process and, when viewed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the resulting vessels and contents were virtually identical to the T. rex specimen.6

However, since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.7 Therefore, it is very possible that the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants—the degradation products of vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.8 In fact, Schweitzer admits as much in the closing paragraph of the paper:

From the author's paper:
Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.9
http://www.reasons.org/dinosaur-blood-revisited-part-1-2

So your assumption is wrong. In fact the feathers are much more impressive than a little bit of flexible material processed from dino bone.

And of course, we're still waiting for your evidence that such material couldn't be preserved in that state from millions of years. When do you think you might be able to show us that?



I didn't. You invented that. I merely expressed skepticism at the claim that such organic stuff couldn't be preserved for millions of years.

By now, I think we've all figured out that you have no evidence, just as you assumed the material in question was "soft tissue." As you see, even the author of the paper warns that we can't conclude that it is.

So why not put an end to this, and tell us. Do you or do you not have evidence that such material as was found, cannot be preserved for millions of years?

I dont need evidence for a claim i didnt make, you do, and you have none.

Do you always post random things that dont adress your claims to obscure your earlier false claims?

 

[The Barbarian]

I dont need evidence for a claim i didnt make

It's true. If you aren't claiming that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, then it's not you who must provide the evidence. Whoever made the claim is laying low right now, um?

Looks like no one will step up and admit it, or provide the evidence. Which is about par for those guys. Still, it would have been interesting to see what they would have done to try to justify the belief.

Not much chance of that, though.

Do you always post random things that dont adress your claims to obscure your earlier false claims?

I merely expressed skepticism, and invited anyone who supported the claim to provide some evidence for it. So far, all we've gotten is "I don't believe it could last that long, so it can't be so."

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is pretty weak.

Again, show me some evidence like you claimed of SOFT TISSUE lasting more than 60 MILLION years.

As you know, I didn't make that claim. And as you know, even the person who discovered the material doesn't say it's soft tissue.

However, since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.7 Therefore, it is very possible that the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants—the degradation products of vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.8 In fact, Schweitzer admits as much in the closing paragraph of the paper:

Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.9
http://www.reasons.org/dinosaur-blood-revisited-part-1-2

But I'm certainly interested in seeing the evidence anyone might present that such a thing is impossible.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's true. If you aren't claiming that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, then it's not you who must provide the evidence. Whoever made the claim is laying low right now, um?

Looks like no one will step up and admit it, or provide the evidence. Which is about par for those guys. Still, it would have been interesting to see what they would have done to try to justify the belief.

Not much chance of that, though.



I merely expressed skepticism, and invited anyone who supported the claim to provide some evidence for it. So far, all we've gotten is "I don't believe it could last that long, so it can't be so."

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is pretty weak.

Please tell me you are kidding me with that post, how can anyone prove a negative?


Beside that though -
You are who made the claim that there is evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years

 

[voltaire]

No, you don't accept it. You believe in a modern re-interpretation of the Bible.

Translated. The catholic interpretation of the Bible is the only acceptable interpretation. Some pope decided long ago that augustine's commentary on genesis was the correct interpretation. I am sorry, but I do not agree that the catholic church is infallible and is the only true church ever in history. To you, any interpretation of the bible that is not straight form the catholic catechism is a modern reinterpretation. The pope only held sway in western europe for much of christianities history. There was a much larger christian population that laid outside of his reach. There was much disagreement with the pope within his reach too. They were called heretics. Those heretics , for the most part, were christian, save the arians.

 

[voltaire]

Please tell me you are kidding me with that post, how can anyone prove a negative?


Beside that though -
You are who made the claim that there is evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years

Yes , where is that evidence?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes , where is that evidence?

Covered in feathers evidently since thats all ive seen so far.