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

[LadyGreenEyes]

Oh, I LIKE this topic. Older, but going to chime in anyway. The first time I read about this, the article stated that they were saying this could not possibly be as old as expected. Later, they totally back tracked from that position. No surprise there. I figure they were right the first time. Soft tissue CANNOT be that old, no way! Of course, having seen a human print in the same layer as dino (and some mammal) prints, I figure that they aren't as old as evolutionists want us to think, anyway.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Science depends on evidence, not faith.
Faith depends upon evidence as well.
Barbarian chuckles:
It has a weakness. The person making the claim is required to present evidence. A person who merely expresses skepticism has no such burden.

I doubt genetic material can last millions of years.

I notice the "tissue" claim is still unconfirmed. But bits of DNA might make it.

Barbarian observes:
Hence, a claim that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years requires evidence. So would a claim that it can be. But without any evidence, we can only say "maybe." We can't make any conclusions one way or another, based on "maybe", so we're back to looking at other evidence for age.

Genetic material is present.

(Edit)

Checked that claim.

So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T. rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.

And now, researchers led by John M. Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston have been able to analyze proteins from that bone.

What Asara's team found was collagen, a type of fibrous connective tissue that is a major component of bone. And the closest match in creatures alive today was collagen from chicken bones.

Schweitzer and Asara report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's all based on the architecture of the bones," said Asara. "This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."

"The fact that we are getting proteins is very, very exciting," said John Horner of Montana State University and the Museum of the Rockies.

And, he added, it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."

To scientists that's a big deal.

In science, a hypothesis is an idea about something that seems probable, while a theory has been tested and is supported by evidence. Previously, the bird-dinosaur relationship was based on similarities in the shape of bones, now there is solid evidence of a relationship at the molecular level.
http://ww.w.sott.net/articles/show/130185-Researchers-Decode-T-Rex-Genetic-Material

No DNA, apparently, but some protein bits survived. And not surprisingly, they confirm that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Cool.

That means, in all likelihood, the fossil is not millions of years old. Pretty interesting evidence.

Well, you're back in the same hole. That claim requires evidence. The evidence from this discovery is one more nail in the coffin for creationism.

 

[Stripe]

The person making the claim is required to present evidence. A person who merely expresses skepticism has no such burden.

... bits of DNA might make it.

Survive millions of years? Evidence, please. :thumb:

 

[genuineoriginal]

No DNA, apparently, but some protein bits survived. And not surprisingly, they confirm that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Cool.

They don't confirm anything about evolution. They confirm that both birds and dinosaurs were created by the same designer, God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian is skeptical about DNA being preserved for millions of years:

I notice the "tissue" claim is still unconfirmed. But bits of DNA might make it.

Survive millions of years?

Maybe. We can't say yes or no at this point, since apparently, we don't yet have any DNA from fossils that old. But I'd be open to your evidence that it can't happen.

Evidence, please.

Indeed. Do you know of anyone who has some? We now know collagen can last millions of years in some cases. And it answered the question in the OP:

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

The significance is, it confirms the prediction of evolutionary theory that the protein of dinosaurs would be most like that of birds.

Not bad.

They confirm that both birds and dinosaurs were created by the same designer, God.

:yawn:

Yeah, the lifestyles of a chicken and a T-rex are so much alike, it's to be expected that he'd make them genetically very close. WFTH-I

 

[Stripe]

Indeed. Do you know of anyone who has some?

I thought you would have some since it is you claiming that they were deposited millions of years ago and since you've demanded that the person making the claim needs to provide the evidence.

Anytime you're ready. :thumb:

But we know that evolutionists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe argues that DNA fragments cannot be preserved for millions of years)

Barbarian says maybe they can, since no one has any evidence that it can't happen.

Barbarian asks:

Indeed. Do you know of anyone who has some?

(Stipe doesn't have any idea)

We have only direct evidence for that, since we know from a variety of sources in geology, physics, etc. That the deposits are millions of years old. But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long. Seems unlikely that they were recently introduced, though.

I thought you would have some since it is you claiming that they were deposited millions of years ago

So the evidence indicates. But I'd be open to your evidence that DNA fragments were found and they were somehow introduced more recently. You claim they can't be that old.

and since you've demanded that the person making the claim needs to provide the evidence.

We're waiting for you to show us your evidence. Anytime you're ready.

I'm just saying we don't know. You're claiming you know. So it's up to you.

But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We have only direct evidence for that, since we know from a variety of sources in geology, physics, etc. That the deposits are millions of years old.

You have no direct evidence. You have geologists basing the age of the layers on the fossils found in them, and the fossils based on how many millions of years the paleontoligists think it would take to evolve from those species into the ones seen today. Then you have the physicists throwing out any method that returns an age of thousands of years and creating testing methods that return ages of millions of years on rock layers that were formed within the last 40 years. You have no direct evidence for the ages, only speculations based on the theory that the species needed millions of years to evolve.

But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long.

Of course we can't test it. The earth hasn't even been around for one million years. Best estimates place the age between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have no direct evidence.

Physicists have known better for over a hundred years. Radiometric testing shows that the strata from which the dinosaurs are found, are hundreds of millions of years old.

And we know it works, because the method accurately got the date of the eruption that buried Pompeii.

You have geologists basing the age of the layers on the fossils found in them, and the fossils based on how many millions of years the paleontoligists think it would take to evolve from those species into the ones seen today.

And now you know better than that. That foolishness is what the professional creationists tell the faithful. They know better than to trot out that stuff in sight of people who know what they are talking about.

Then you have the physicists throwing out any method that returns an age of thousands of years and creating testing methods that return ages of millions of years on rock layers that were formed within the last 40 years.

Show us that one. In fact, the method was worked out before anyone thought of using it to date fossils. They lied to you about that, too.

You have no direct evidence for the ages, only speculations based on the theory that the species needed millions of years to evolve.

And now you know better than that. In fact, there's a good story behind it. Lord Kelvin once determined by heat flux, that the Earth could be at best about 10 million years old. Darwin objected, pointing out that the history of life indicated a much older Earth. But Kelvin's numbers were right on.

Then radioactivity was discovered, which explained the excess heat, and Darwin won. Evidence is like that.

Barbarian observes:
But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long.

Of course we can't test it.

Unfortunate. Untestable claims fail in science. You can continue to believe it as a religion, though. Just not Christianity.

 

[Stripe]

(Stipe argues that DNA fragments cannot be preserved for millions of years)Barbarian says maybe they can, since no one has any evidence that it can't happen.Barbarian asksStipe doesn't have any idea)We have only direct evidence for that, since we know from a variety of sources in geology, physics, etc. That the deposits are millions of years old. But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long. Seems unlikely that they were recently introduced, though.

So your standard is that whoever is making the claim needs to provide the evidence and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years your evidence is that it must have because it's dino and dinos are really old.

Nicely circularised. :thumb:

So the evidence indicates. But I'd be open to your evidence that DNA fragments were found and they were somehow introduced more recently. You claim they can't be that old. We're waiting for you to show us your evidence. Anytime you're ready.I'm just saying we don't know. You're claiming you know. So it's up to you.

You make the positive claim that dinos are millions of years old. I am skeptical of that claim. According to your standard, the burden of proof lies with you.

But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.

This is how we know Barbie is waving the white flag. He starts out making up bizarre stories and impinging upon the fidelity of his opponents' wives.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Barbarian observes:

You have no evidence for the earth being millions of years old, but you accept it on faith anyway.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
(Stipe argues that DNA fragments cannot be preserved for millions of years)Barbarian says maybe they can, since no one has any evidence that it can't happen.Barbarian asksStipe doesn't have any idea)We have only direct evidence for that, since we know from a variety of sources in geology, physics, etc. That the deposits are millions of years old. But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long. Seems unlikely that they were recently introduced, though.

So your standard is that whoever is making the claim needs to provide the evidence

That's why you were mocked when you claimed you had mathematical proof that evolution was false, and then refused to show it. It's why you're being laughed at for claiming that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, without showing any evidence.

and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years

And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."

your evidence is that it must have because it's dino and dinos are really old. Nicely circularised.

And of course you pretended I didn't mention the radiometric data from physics. It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread.

Barbarian suggests:
But I'd be open to your evidence that DNA fragments were found and they were somehow introduced more recently. You claim they can't be that old. We're waiting for you to show us your evidence. Anytime you're ready.I'm just saying we don't know. You're claiming you know. So it's up to you.

You make the positive claim that dinos are millions of years old.

And I pointed out radiometric data, and then pointed out that the method has been calibrated by data from a known event. So now, let's see your evidence that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years.

Barbarian chuckles:
But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.

This is how we know Barbie is waving the white flag.

It's how you waved the white flag. You got tired of me laughing at you for lying about having the math, and you thought an insult would end it. Bad idea.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have no evidence for the earth being millions of years old, but you accept it on faith anyway.

I just cited radiometric data, and the fact that it's been tested on a known event and found to be accurate.

Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

 

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post(Stipe argues that DNA fragments cannot be preserved for millions of years)Barbarian says maybe they can, since no one has any evidence that it can't happen.Barbarian asksStipe doesn't have any idea)We have only direct evidence for that, since we know from a variety of sources in geology, physics, etc. That the deposits are millions of years old. But we can't yet directly test whether or not DNA fragments can last that long. Seems unlikely that they were recently introduced, though.That's why you were mocked when you claimed you had mathematical proof that evolution was false, and then refused to show it. It's why you're being laughed at for claiming that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years, without showing any evidenceBarbarian suggests:But I'd be open to your evidence that DNA fragments were found and they were somehow introduced more recently. You claim they can't be that old. We're waiting for you to show us your evidence. Anytime you're ready.I'm just saying we don't know. You're claiming you know. So it's up to youSo now, let's see your evidence that organic material can't be preserved for millions of years...

I'm skeptical of the idea that genetic material can last millions of years. If you're not going to produce any evidence for, then my skepticism remains valid.

Feel free to start applying your standards rationally. :thumb:

And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."

Oh, so now you do not have evidence for your claim that dinos are millions of years old?

And of course you pretended I didn't mention the radiometric data from physics. It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread. And I pointed out radiometric data, and then pointed out that the method has been calibrated by data from a known event.

I just cited radiometric data, and the fact that it's been tested on a known event and found to be accurate. Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

Oh. You want to talk about radio-isotope dating now? Have you given up on discussing the topic at hand?

Barbarian chuckles:But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.It's how you waved the white flag. You got tired of me laughing at you for lying about having the math, and you thought an insult would end it. Bad idea.

Are you on drugs? :AMR:

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm skeptical of the idea that genetic material can last millions of years. If you're not going to produce any evidence for, then my skepticism remains valid.

Great. So we toss the idea that organic material is evidence the bones are young, since we now agree, that it's not demonstrated to be true.

Feel free to start applying your standards rationally.

Just did. Thanks.

Stipe writes:
and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years


Barbarian chuckles:
And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."

Oh, so now you do not have evidence for your claim that dinos are millions of years old?

I restored the context (in red) so people would see what I was responding to. Being stupid and dishonest must be a real problem for you. Never lie about stuff in the same thread.

And of course you pretended I didn't mention the radiometric data from physics. It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread. And I pointed out radiometric data, and then pointed out that the method has been calibrated by data from a known event.
Quote:

You make the positive claim that dinos are millions of years old.

Barbarian observes:
I just cited radiometric data, and the fact that it's been tested on a known event and found to be accurate. Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

Oh. You want to talk about radio-isotope dating now? Have you given up on discussing the topic at hand?

Quote:
Barbarian chuckles:But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.

Are you on drugs?

You finally responded to my request to see those numbers you claimed disproved evolution, and you link me to a picture of a girl who gave you the "loser" sign?

I hadn't considered drugs as a possible explanation, but now that you bring it up...

 

[genuineoriginal]

I just cited radiometric data, and the fact that it's been tested on a known event and found to be accurate.

Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

Would you like to see a refutal of your so-called evidence?

Radiometric dating is a method of determining the age of an artifact by implausibly assuming that decay rates have been constant (see below for the flaws in that assumption) and measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.[1] Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called Radiocarbon dating—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

Because radiometric dating fails to satisfy standards of testability and falsifiability, claims based on radiometric dating may fail to qualify under the Daubert standard for court-admissible scientific evidence. It is more accurate for shorter time periods (e.g., hundreds of years) during which control variables are less likely to change.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Would you like to see a refutal of your so-called evidence?

Well, let's see what you can do.

Radiometric dating is a method of determining the age of an artifact by implausibly assuming that decay rates have been constant (see below for the flaws in that assumption)

Turns out, we know that they vary only a tiny amount, and that with temperatures which would have cooked all life on Earth. And recently, the method was tested on the eruption that buried Pompeii, dating it accurately.

So you're out of luck with that line of thinking. But I am pleased that you've come to accept that the age of the Earth is a matter of evidence, instead of faith.

and measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.[1] Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called Radiocarbon dating—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

Some goof, a long time ago, mixed up C-14 dating with the forms used for fossils. As you see, the ignorant still get it messed up.

Because radiometric dating fails to satisfy standards of testability and falsifiability,

Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

You've let them play you again, I'm afraid.

claims based on radiometric dating may fail to qualify under the Daubert standard for court-admissible scientific evidence.

Nope. You've been suckered on that, too.

The results from just one source could possibly be readily contested, but in this case the scientists have correlated the results from multiple sources including that of Lake Gosciaz (Poland), German oak and pine tree ring chronologies and also calibrations from coral data. Many in the scientific community are proposing the result of the above study as a "calibration" to radiometric C14 data...
Figure PE-4.Matching of the 29,100-yr long floating varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu to the absolute chronology. Ä = Lake Suigetsu (Japan); o = Lake Gosciaz (Poland). Continuous lines show the German oak and pine chronologies fixed by comparison with the varve chronology of Lake Suigetsu.


It is more accurate for shorter time periods (e.g., hundreds of years) during which control variables are less likely to change.


You assumed these guys were honest, and they betrayed your trust. Isn't it time you started thinking for yourself?

 

[Stripe]

Great. So we toss the idea that organic material is evidence the bones are young, since we now agree, that it's not demonstrated to be true.Just did. Thanks.Stipe writes:and, after claiming dino genetic material survived for millions of years Barbarian chuckles:And of course you get laughed at for your dishonesty. I said we don't know. At best we can say "maybe."I restored the context (in red) so people would see what I was responding to. Being stupid and dishonest must be a real problem for you. Never lie about stuff in the same thread.

So you don't insist that dinos are millions of years old any more. That's interesting. Perhaps now you'll be willing to rationally discuss some evidence. :thumb:

Know how we know Barbie is waving the white flag? He resorts to insults and mockery instead of presenting rationally his case.

And of course you pretended I didn't mention the radiometric data from physics. It's always stupid to lie about something still in the same thread. And I pointed out radiometric data, and then pointed out that the method has been calibrated by data from a known event.
Quote:Barbarian observes:I just cited radiometric data, and the fact that it's been tested on a known event and found to be accurate. Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

Start a new thread for your rabbit trails. :thumb:

Quote:Barbarian chuckles:But we know that creationists react to the 'E' word like a vampire to sunlight. I'm guessing if I keep asking you for it, as I did for that "math that disproves evolution", you'll link me to that picture of your ex saying good-bye to you again.You finally responded to my request to see those numbers you claimed disproved evolution, and you link me to a picture of a girl who gave you the "loser" sign?I hadn't considered drugs as a possible explanation, but now that you bring it up...

So, you don't know if you're on drugs or not. Good sign that you probably are. lain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am pleased that you've come to accept that the age of the Earth is a matter of evidence, instead of faith.

It has always been a matter of evidence, and the evidence is the Word of the Creator who says it was created in six days around six thousand years ago. I figure He knows what He is talking about much more than the scientists that refuse to believe Him.

You assume God was dishonest and that He betrayed your trust. Isn't it time you started thinking for yourself and believe His Word?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I am pleased that you've come to accept that the age of the Earth is a matter of evidence, instead of faith.

It has always been a matter of evidence, and the evidence is the Word of the Creator who says it was created in six days around six thousand years ago.

That's just your addition to Scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

What He actually said isn't good enough for you, so you tried to improve it.