Tyrannosaurus Rex And Mastodon Protein Fragments Discovered, Sequenced

[bob b]

I would be very interested in hearing an actual biologists remarks regarding this conversation. I guess some of the objections are just somewhat silly. Bob, do you really think there is some vast conspiracy to suppress the real way we got here?

I wouldn't call strict adherence to explanations of how the universe and life came about "naturally" a "vast conspiracy". Students have been told for many years that science is the pursuit of natural explanations. So if you want to do science one has no choice but to assume "natural" explanations. So this is what everybody is doing, whether it applies to creation of the universe and life or not.

And I think that Johnny has an obligation to show us reliable evidence that exposure to radioactive rocks can generate C-14 in coal, diamonds, etc. I have never read that rationale before.

 

[The Barbarian]

The reason that carbon 14 dating wouldn't work, is that even 60,000 years age would simply peg the meter, and tell us nothing at all. Even worse, if the age was very young, the carbon contamination from rock would likely say it was very old, anyway.

So C14 testing would be a complete waste of time. Other radioisotop methods would be useful.

 

[Johnny]

And I think that Johnny has an obligation to show us reliable evidence that exposure to radioactive rocks can generate C-14 in coal, diamonds, etc. I have never read that rationale before.

If you had even a general knowledge of the process which you are so eager to criticize, you could probably have worked through this on your own. C14 is formed when high energy photons enter the atmosphere and knock neutrons off other atoms. A neutron then collides with a N14 nucleus, knocking off a single proton. This results in the formation of C14. Uranium decay results in the release of an alpha particle and often gamma radiation (high energy photons). These gamma rays can ionize other atoms, or knock off neutrons which can then collide with nitrogen atoms. This collision knocks off a proton from the N14 to form de novo C14 in a sample. C14 contamination levels in coal and diamonds correlate with the surrounding rock's uranium-thorium decay rates.

Now that I've explained my reasoning, it's your turn. I see that you read my post and made a conscious decision to ignore the calls for your reasoning. Quoting myself from earlier:

Why did you ignore what I just posted? Since you obviously believe carbon dating the "samples" would be of value, don't you feel you have at least some obligation to reason to explain why you are rather unconcerned with the fact that organic solvents were used in the isolation / extraction process? I also like how you failed to mention how exactly they were supposed to scrap together a measurable amount of the substance when the best they could isolate was extremely diffuse scraps.

If you're going to continue touting the old conspiracy line of reasoning, you should at least go ahead and address the aforementioned and tell us all why dating the sample would be valid.​

Go ahead, Bob.

 

[bob b]

If you had even a general knowledge of the process which you are so eager to criticize, you could probably have worked through this on your own. C14 is formed when high energy photons enter the atmosphere and knock neutrons off other atoms. A neutron then collides with a N14 nucleus, knocking off a single proton. This results in the formation of C14. Uranium decay results in the release of an alpha particle and often gamma radiation (high energy photons). These gamma rays can ionize other atoms, or knock off neutrons which can then collide with nitrogen atoms. This collision knocks off a proton from the N14 to form de novo C14 in a sample. C14 contamination levels in coal and diamonds correlate with the surrounding rock's uranium-thorium decay rates.

Now that I've explained my reasoning, it's your turn. I see that you read my post and made a conscious decision to ignore the calls for your reasoning. Quoting myself from earlier:

Why did you ignore what I just posted? Since you obviously believe carbon dating the "samples" would be of value, don't you feel you have at least some obligation to reason to explain why you are rather unconcerned with the fact that organic solvents were used in the isolation / extraction process? I also like how you failed to mention how exactly they were supposed to scrap together a measurable amount of the substance when the best they could isolate was extremely diffuse scraps.

If you're going to continue touting the old conspiracy line of reasoning, you should at least go ahead and address the aforementioned and tell us all why dating the sample would be valid.​

Go ahead, Bob.

I would rather you first quote from the journal article which determined all this scientifically.

 

[CRMRC]

No offense bob, but I don't think any scientist who actually wants to publish a paper would waste space explaining such basic nuclear physics to an educated audience; there are word limits for publications. Perhaps what you are looking for is a textbook.

 

[bob b]

No offense bob, but I don't think any scientist who actually wants to publish a paper would waste space explaining such basic nuclear physics to an educated audience; there are word limits for publications. Perhaps what you are looking for is a textbook.

It isn't a question of whether the effects could occur depending upon some possible values of the parameters, but instead on whether the effects were likely to have resulted in what is hypothesized given the actual values of all the parameters for each specific case.

The reason for my request for a scientific journal article was to distinguish between a vague hypothesis about what might be possible and a more reliably established analysis based on actual field data..

 

[CRMRC]

Well what kind of article are you looking for? Something proving that a nucleus plus N-14 gives us C-14 plus a proton? I guess I am not really sure what you are looking for based upon your last post.

 

[Turbo]

(a) The rock the fossil came out of has already been dated to within reasonable certainty.

How?

(c) Carbon dating simply cannot be used or correlated with samples older than 50,000 years.

:duh: That's kind of the point, to see whether the dinosaur samples are really older than 50,000 years old, or younger. If they are in fact older, then the tests should show that they are "out of range."

(d) Carbon dating destroys samples. Even the most sensitive carbon dating systems still require somewhere between 100 micrograms and 1mg of carbon sample. Remember that the team found diffuse collagen remnants after analyzing extract from what was left of the bone marrow (some of the most collagen-dense tissue in the body). We're not talking about visible chunks of protein here, we're talking about fragments identified by mass spectrometry.
(e) The isolation and purification process that was necessary to retrieve the diffuse scraps of organic material contaminates the sample.

How about these samples? They look pretty visible to me.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/i...ssue&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en

So basically what you're asking is that scientists use a more error-prone scale on an out-of-range sample which would have to be isolated by processes that contaminate the sample, condensed into some form to meet the minimum carbon requirement which would also contaminate the sample?[/QUOTE]

 

[Johnny]

How about these samples? They look pretty visible to me.

Turned out to be non-organic. See the papers.

 

[Johnny]

I would rather you first quote from the journal article which determined all this scientifically.

Rose, H J and Jones, G A, 1984, A new kind of natural radioactivity: Nature, v 307, p 245-247.

From a systematic study of the properties of nuclei heavier than lead, we have concluded that, in one or two cases, radioactive decay by emission of a particle heavier than the alpha-particle might be observable in competition with the latter. We have observed such decay in 223Ra which occurs in the natural radioactive series emanating from 235U. Two 'by-pass' modes seem likely: emission of 14C, to 209Pb, with a Q-value of 32 MeV; and of 12C, to 211Pb, with a Q-value of 28 MeV. (Emissions of 13C and 15C from the same nucleus have a priori emission rates similar to that of 12C, but the emission of alpha-like nuclei seems more likely.) In this study we have used a solid-state counter telescope to identify the charge of the particle emitted, and, for greater convenience, a source of 227Ac (half life 21 yr), with which the lower members of the series, including 223Ra, are in secular equilibrium. We have observed particles identifiable as carbon ions and, from their energy and emission rate, they are 14C rather than other carbon isotopes. The branching ratio for emission of 14C nuclei relative to alpha-particles from 223Ra is 8.5 plusminus 2.5x10-10, corresponding to a reduced width (preformation probability) smaller by a factor of approx 10^5 to 10^6.​

Your turn, Bob. This is my third time asking you to answer my question. You told me you'd answer once I posted the journal article supporting my position. That's done now, what will be your excuse this time? Here are the questions again:

Why did you ignore what I just posted? Since you obviously believe carbon dating the "samples" would be of value, don't you feel you have at least some obligation to reason to explain why you are rather unconcerned with the fact that organic solvents were used in the isolation / extraction process? I also like how you failed to mention how exactly they were supposed to scrap together a measurable amount of the substance when the best they could isolate was extremely diffuse scraps.

If you're going to continue touting the old conspiracy line of reasoning, you should at least go ahead and address the aforementioned and tell us all why dating the sample would be valid.​

 

[bob b]

Rose, H J and Jones, G A, 1984, A new kind of natural radioactivity: Nature, v 307, p 245-247.

From a systematic study of the properties of nuclei heavier than lead, we have concluded that, in one or two cases, radioactive decay by emission of a particle heavier than the alpha-particle might be observable in competition with the latter. We have observed such decay in 223Ra which occurs in the natural radioactive series emanating from 235U. Two 'by-pass' modes seem likely: emission of 14C, to 209Pb, with a Q-value of 32 MeV; and of 12C, to 211Pb, with a Q-value of 28 MeV. (Emissions of 13C and 15C from the same nucleus have a priori emission rates similar to that of 12C, but the emission of alpha-like nuclei seems more likely.) In this study we have used a solid-state counter telescope to identify the charge of the particle emitted, and, for greater convenience, a source of 227Ac (half life 21 yr), with which the lower members of the series, including 223Ra, are in secular equilibrium. We have observed particles identifiable as carbon ions and, from their energy and emission rate, they are 14C rather than other carbon isotopes. The branching ratio for emission of 14C nuclei relative to alpha-particles from 223Ra is 8.5 plusminus 2.5x10-10, corresponding to a reduced width (preformation probability) smaller by a factor of approx 10^5 to 10^6.​

Your turn, Bob. This is my third time asking you to answer my question. You told me you'd answer once I posted the journal article supporting my position. That's done now, what will be your excuse this time? Here are the questions again:

Why did you ignore what I just posted? Since you obviously believe carbon dating the "samples" would be of value, don't you feel you have at least some obligation to reason to explain why you are rather unconcerned with the fact that organic solvents were used in the isolation / extraction process? I also like how you failed to mention how exactly they were supposed to scrap together a measurable amount of the substance when the best they could isolate was extremely diffuse scraps.
​

I would agree with your comment that the particular sample may be undatable via C14 dating for the reasons mentioned.

And I agree that it is a possibility that some samples of coal may have been contaminated by radioactive rock.

However you seemed to imply that all known samples which showed residual C14 when none should theoretically be there have been explained scientifically. So I was more interested in a journal article which had investigated this in detail and authoritatively setled the issue.

Any introduction of C-14 into a sample from its initial state would have to consider the rate of such introduction as balanced by the rate of C-14 decay, since the assumption is that long periods of time were available for the stabilization of the resulting ratios. There is no substitute for actual data in cases like this.

 

[Johnny]

The real reason [they don't carbon date the sample] is probably that the test might prove the sample was young, and hence invite intense scrutiny and criticism from "true believer" evolutionists.

I would agree with your comment that the particular sample may be undatable via C14 dating for the reasons mentioned.

My how the tune has changed.

 

[bob b]

My how the tune has changed.

I'm wondering if their testing treatments used up all of the T-Rex bone or whether they treated only part of it for their study. If some untreated material remains perhaps that can be used for carbon dating.

Perhaps there is some way to find out.