Age of fossil remains

hatsoff

New member
It's not a hoax. Organic material has been preserved in dinosaur fossils. From what I can recall, scientists have suspected this for a long time, but simply didn't want to damage the specimens to find out for sure. To my knowledge, they still limit themselves to those fossils which have been accidentally broken.

Now, I could be mistaken about the scientific community's suspicions and subsequent response, but the organic material is definitely not a hoax.
 

Real Sorceror

New member
hatsoff said:
It's not a hoax. Organic material has been preserved in dinosaur fossils. From what I can recall, scientists have suspected this for a long time, but simply didn't want to damage the specimens to find out for sure. To my knowledge, they still limit themselves to those fossils which have been accidentally broken.

Now, I could be mistaken about the scientific community's suspicions and subsequent response, but the organic material is definitely not a hoax.
What is this "organic material"? That term covers a lot of ground. Is it part of the bone? Is it the marrow?:confused:
 

zapp

New member
lots of wasted keystrokes here. Gotta go with the tools science has at the moment. DNA samples can be pulled from those remains [as has been one with human]. Carbon dating can be done and has been done. Until Carbon dating has been scientifically adjusted or disproven or something, it holds the high ground at least in terms of age.... DNA regression and calculations can be done also and will probably backup the carbon dating, but with a much much wider range of error [better with the minimums than maximums].

Scripture deals exhaustively... overwhelmingly, with one main theme: the disposition of the race of a particular man who is called Adam.... his descendants, the revealing of his God, paradise lost and paradise regained.

For decades, all science texts dealing with the universe, astrophysics, astronomy, held that since inception [by the way, no discussion is allowed of that "inception" in the scientific community.... as one secular Professor put it: "its the question that may not be asked.... not even discussed"] the universe has expanded outward from a common core point and would be spherical in shape. Just a few scant years ago the tools finally caught up with the conjecture and we found out otherwise. STILL this many years later, errant texts are still floating about in the various captive government school systems. it takes time and money to correct such a pandemic mistake.

Science is my friend. The better the tools, the better the technique, the more theists are made. Agnostics and atheists and plain ole Humanist heathen are a fairly small minority, especially in the scope of world history. The vast, vast majority [even in France!!] of people who live and who ever have lived are practical theists... animists mostly, but theists/deists/pagans nonetheless. The much greater debates to be had, especially as the new Nazi's swing the machete at ALL who will not bow to Allah.... is "Which God?"

forgive my intrusion!

oh... and sorcerer, hope you take my suggestion on another thread and read carefully Dr. Schroeder's discussion of 'evolution'.... its an eye-opener. it may help evolve you into a genuine pagan with some deities, and save you from the rancid clutch of humanism which seems to be the real religion of the vast majority of western wiccans.

t
 

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

BANNED
Banned
never mind. Why is it there is no time window in which to delete a misposting? Grrr!


edited to add:
As long as I'm grousing a bit; Zapp, that's one annoying font size you're using.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside
Scott Norris in St. Louis, Missouri
for National Geographic News

February 22, 2006
Soft-tissue dinosaur remains, first reported last year in a discovery that shocked the paleontological community, may not be all that rare, experts say.

A 2005 paper in the journal Science described what appeared to be flexible blood vessels, cells, and collagen-like bone matrix from fossils of a 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

Mary Schweitzer, the North Carolina State University paleontologist who announced the finding, said her team has now repeated that feat with more than a dozen other dinosaur specimens.

To make sense of the surprising discovery, scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works.

Schweitzer gave an update of her team's progress unraveling this mystery last Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held this year in St. Louis, Missouri.

Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.

"We propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought," Schweitzer said.

"All we have to do is look."

Seek and Ye Shall Find

The researchers have applied their original technique of dissolving away the mineral content of bones and fossils to many different specimens, from contemporary to ancient.

Until now, Schweitzer said, "the standard wisdom was that if you dissolve away the mineral [in fossils], there would be nothing left." That has been the case in about half of the specimens she has examined.

But the other half have yielded remarkably consistent results.

The same features have emerged, and they are virtually indistinguishable from tissue samples from modern species.

A 300,000-year-old wooly mammoth fossil, for example, yielded flexible vessels containing what seem to be red blood cells that lack nuclei, like those of modern mammals.

The dinosaur remains include blood cell-like structures containing nuclei, like those of birds today.

To demonstrate, Schweitzer showed two microscope-generated photographs side by side.

"One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?"

Preservation Pathway

The mystery of these structures won't be solved completely until scientists understand how the tissues were preserved.

Schweitzer said a central focus of her research is to explain this phenomenon, which was once thought to be impossible.

New findings—not yet published—have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

"Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change," Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It's possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

Molecular Fossils

Like Schweitzer, Michigan State University zoologist Peggy Ostrom, who also spoke at the St. Louis meeting, is trying to tease out the molecular identity of ancient remains.

Jurassic Park notwithstanding, Ostrom believes that prehistoric proteins—not DNA—offer the greatest potential for recapturing pieces of the biological past.

Protein chains are shorter and far more stable than DNA, and their study is less fraught with risk of bad data due to contamination.

In a sense, the ancient protein molecules Ostrom works with are very much like the hard fossils traditionally studied by paleontologists.

"They have form and they have function," she said. "And they persist over time."

Ostrom reported the recovery of a complete protein sequence from a 42,000-year-old fossil horse discovered in a cave in Wyoming.

She recovered not only the beadlike string of amino acids but part of its functionally important, three-dimensional structure.

"We're working our way back in time," said Ostrom, referring both to her own work and the broader, emerging field of paleoproteomics, the study of ancient proteins.

So far, Ostrom's molecular time travel has taken her back 500,000 years—the age of musk ox bones from which she was able to excavate fragments of a protein known as osteocalcin.

For the first time, Ostrom said, "we can actually look at the real molecules that existed half a million years ago."

Such a view can open new understandings in a number of areas, from evolutionary histories to ancient food-web relationships.

Ultimately, scientists hope that more refined versions of Ostrom's biochemical techniques can help unlock the secrets of dinosaur soft tissues.

While a vast gulf of time still separates Ostrom's oldest protein sequences from Schweitzer's T. rex remains, the two researchers appear to be on convergent paths.

"Peggy's techniques are definitely applicable to our stuff," Schweitzer said.

--------------------------------
--------------------------------

The plot thickens. ;)
 

zapp

New member
Dr. Hfuhruhurr said:
never mind. Why is it there is no time window in which to delete a misposting? Grrr!


edited to add:
As long as I'm grousing a bit; Zapp, that's one annoying font size you're using.

quite sorry, mate. I'm new here... guess my grace period is up..... or I was predestined to be shot immediately~!
 

zapp

New member
touche'!

i'm off to read the text, bob
z


bob b said:
Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside
Scott Norris in St. Louis, Missouri
for National Geographic News

February 22, 2006
Soft-tissue dinosaur remains, first reported last year in a discovery that shocked the paleontological community, may not be all that rare, experts say.

A 2005 paper in the journal Science described what appeared to be flexible blood vessels, cells, and collagen-like bone matrix from fossils of a 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

Mary Schweitzer, the North Carolina State University paleontologist who announced the finding, said her team has now repeated that feat with more than a dozen other dinosaur specimens.

To make sense of the surprising discovery, scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works.

Schweitzer gave an update of her team's progress unraveling this mystery last Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held this year in St. Louis, Missouri.

Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.

"We propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought," Schweitzer said.

"All we have to do is look."

Seek and Ye Shall Find

The researchers have applied their original technique of dissolving away the mineral content of bones and fossils to many different specimens, from contemporary to ancient.

Until now, Schweitzer said, "the standard wisdom was that if you dissolve away the mineral [in fossils], there would be nothing left." That has been the case in about half of the specimens she has examined.

But the other half have yielded remarkably consistent results.

The same features have emerged, and they are virtually indistinguishable from tissue samples from modern species.

A 300,000-year-old wooly mammoth fossil, for example, yielded flexible vessels containing what seem to be red blood cells that lack nuclei, like those of modern mammals.

The dinosaur remains include blood cell-like structures containing nuclei, like those of birds today.

To demonstrate, Schweitzer showed two microscope-generated photographs side by side.

"One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?"

Preservation Pathway

The mystery of these structures won't be solved completely until scientists understand how the tissues were preserved.

Schweitzer said a central focus of her research is to explain this phenomenon, which was once thought to be impossible.

New findings—not yet published—have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

"Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change," Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It's possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

Molecular Fossils

Like Schweitzer, Michigan State University zoologist Peggy Ostrom, who also spoke at the St. Louis meeting, is trying to tease out the molecular identity of ancient remains.

Jurassic Park notwithstanding, Ostrom believes that prehistoric proteins—not DNA—offer the greatest potential for recapturing pieces of the biological past.

Protein chains are shorter and far more stable than DNA, and their study is less fraught with risk of bad data due to contamination.

In a sense, the ancient protein molecules Ostrom works with are very much like the hard fossils traditionally studied by paleontologists.

"They have form and they have function," she said. "And they persist over time."

Ostrom reported the recovery of a complete protein sequence from a 42,000-year-old fossil horse discovered in a cave in Wyoming.

She recovered not only the beadlike string of amino acids but part of its functionally important, three-dimensional structure.

"We're working our way back in time," said Ostrom, referring both to her own work and the broader, emerging field of paleoproteomics, the study of ancient proteins.

So far, Ostrom's molecular time travel has taken her back 500,000 years—the age of musk ox bones from which she was able to excavate fragments of a protein known as osteocalcin.

For the first time, Ostrom said, "we can actually look at the real molecules that existed half a million years ago."

Such a view can open new understandings in a number of areas, from evolutionary histories to ancient food-web relationships.

Ultimately, scientists hope that more refined versions of Ostrom's biochemical techniques can help unlock the secrets of dinosaur soft tissues.

While a vast gulf of time still separates Ostrom's oldest protein sequences from Schweitzer's T. rex remains, the two researchers appear to be on convergent paths.

"Peggy's techniques are definitely applicable to our stuff," Schweitzer said.

--------------------------------
--------------------------------

The plot thickens. ;)
 

eisenreich

New member
bob b said:
Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside
Scott Norris in St. Louis, Missouri
for National Geographic News
First, I'd prefer to read directly from the scholarly works written by Schweitzer and Horner themselves, rather than popular science magazines with a bias towards sensationalism. Second, Schweitzer is not the YEC savior that you make her out to be:

"Early student work by Schweitzer, and coauthored by Horner, was grossly distorted by creationists. Popular press announcements by Schweitzer were very bold and provocative with hints of dinosaur DNA and linkage to the Crichton/Spielberg "Jurassic Park" series of books and movies. Young Earth Creationists immediately leapt on Schweitzer's claims of "fresh-looking" tissue as proof that the Universe is merely thousands of years old. Schweitzer then spent most of a decade backing away from her earliest claims, and denying that there was any point in confronting creationists' distortion of her work."

"One small, and hopeful change from Schweitzer's similar 1990s "discovery" is that this time both she and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth." [source]
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
eisenreich said:
both she and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth." [source]

It would be career suicide for Schweitzer to further antagonize her boss, "Dinosaur Jack" Horner, and the entire evolutionist community.

But the evidence remains standing and the clear implications are staring everyone in their collective faces. :readthis:

So much for the myth of "unbiased" science. :chuckle:
 

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
It would be career suicide for Schweitzer to further antagonize her boss, "Dinosaur Jack" Horner, and the entire evolutionist community.

But the evidence remains standing and the clear implications are staring everyone in their collective faces. :readthis:

So much for the myth of "unbiased" science. :chuckle:

Okay, so now it's back to conspiracy theories again. No scientist would dare disagree with conventional wisdom! That's "career suicide"!

I guess only Christian scientists know what's going on. Must be divine inspiration or something.

In the mean time, we can all just look at the facts for themselves, which clearly show the earth to be less than 7,000 years old. Organic material simply can't survive longer than that, and nuts to any scientist who claims otherwise!
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
hatsoff said:
Okay, so now it's back to conspiracy theories again. No scientist would dare disagree with conventional wisdom! That's "career suicide"!

I guess only Christian scientists know what's going on. Must be divine inspiration or something.

In the mean time, we can all just look at the facts for themselves, which clearly show the earth to be less than 7,000 years old. Organic material simply can't survive longer than that, and nuts to any scientist who claims otherwise!

It's more than just "organic material".

If it had been merely that nobody would have been "surprised", and certainly it would not have been worthy enough to be published in a scientific journal.
 

zapp

New member
Only tangentally related, but to me the interesting science is in DNA studies on hominid remains. There is a serious "fly in the ointment" in how they work the formulae for estimating date ranges, in that the formulation requires a constant to be inserted that relates the data to a supposedly "known" diversity-rate or something like that... the gist being that the ASSUMED separation of "man" from ape [the timeperiod] is a required input. But all that aside, even if you don't like the constantly SHRINKING timescale for modern man, which is now down to something like 29,000 years, you might take encouragement in the seemingly total separation from good 'ole uncle Neanderthal. The odds are very very slim now that anyone can make a science case that Neanderthal gave rise to modern man. It just isn't evidential in the DNA work that has been done to date [which fact has the Darwin-Jihadists scrambling like mad to repair the breach]

z
 

Real Sorceror

New member
zapp said:
But all that aside, even if you don't like the constantly SHRINKING timescale for modern man, which is now down to something like 29,000 years, you might take encouragement in the seemingly total separation from good 'ole uncle Neanderthal. The odds are very very slim now that anyone can make a science case that Neanderthal gave rise to modern man. It just isn't evidential in the DNA work that has been done to date [which fact has the Darwin-Jihadists scrambling like mad to repair the breach]
I find this interesting as well! :think:
It would seem Neanderthals where an entirely race of homonids and where not really our ancesters. I wonder how the fundies will view a second sentient race. It kinda makes us humans look less special.:think:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
zapp said:
Only tangentally related, but to me the interesting science is in DNA studies on hominid remains. There is a serious "fly in the ointment" in how they work the formulae for estimating date ranges, in that the formulation requires a constant to be inserted that relates the data to a supposedly "known" diversity-rate or something like that... the gist being that the ASSUMED separation of "man" from ape [the timeperiod] is a required input. But all that aside, even if you don't like the constantly SHRINKING timescale for modern man, which is now down to something like 29,000 years, you might take encouragement in the seemingly total separation from good 'ole uncle Neanderthal. The odds are very very slim now that anyone can make a science case that Neanderthal gave rise to modern man. It just isn't evidential in the DNA work that has been done to date [which fact has the Darwin-Jihadists scrambling like mad to repair the breach]

z

I would be interested in knowing how much Neanderthal DNA has actually been obtained and how it was extracted. Any links would be appreciated.

There is nothing like actually looking at the data instead of taking someone else's word for it.

---------

Update: I found an article from last week's Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...6frBxITV50_20060819.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
 
Last edited:

zapp

New member
bob b said:
I would be interested in knowing how much Neanderthal DNA has actually been obtained and how it was extracted. Any links would be appreciated.

There is nothing like actually looking at the data instead of taking someone else's word for it.

one of the following has a good descrip of the methodology, bob. [the first one in the lineup here is that bastion of Christian right thinkcraft: the san francisco Chronicle :) :) ]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/10/MN40985.DTL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0514_030514_neandertalDNA_2.html

though the following is a sectarian pub, the article cites a plethora of secular science... see the References at end of article for a bunch of sources
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

this concerns a German entrepreneurial venture to attack exactly your issue, Bob
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-07-20T190632Z_01_N20233729_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-NEANDERTHAL.XML&pageNumber=1&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1&sz=13

one more: hot off the Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/caveman.html?pg=1&topic=caveman&topic_set=

my concern of course is that the Darwihidicists are so vehement in their opposition to ANY research that appears to crease the facade, the longer the data sits out there for examination, the more likely it is that the NEXT research project will be one of guile intended to undo the damage done. If the Cro-Mag/Modern hominid is now unplugged from N., then they're back to mere speculation about which ape we suddenly stepped away from [you know, that sudden "leap" that is now inserted into the theory].

I still think the panspermia guys have a leg up in this... if they could just find a few more planetary moons with water on them... and maybe some ancient signs of development. [i'm serious... not a jab at all.]
 
Last edited:
Top