PureX
Well-known member
THAT goes without saying! :Wamba:
toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Alate_One
Well-known member
There are groups of scientists that haven't admitted that and continue to assert the "tissue" is biofilm.
I think that if an organism is sufficiently sealed in rock there's no reason that traces of organic material couldn't survive millions of years. If a substance is dry and sealed, unless it was subjected to heat or pressure, why should it change?
I think this is a case of scientists assuming things cannot happen, probably primarily due to the lack of equipment and methods necessary to detect organic material being left behind.
Molecular fossils
But considering the observation that amber preserves organic material quite well and has been known for some time, we shouldn't be that surprised that preservation for millions of years in other forms of fossilization is possible.
It's ridiculous for YECers to assert "because we found X scientists didn't expect" then all of the other data from entirely different sources that show the earth is ancient must be wrong. Science doesn't work that way.
jeffblue101
New member
More like find x contradicts evolutionary dating.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Thanks for proving my point to Granite.
Gonna hedge your bets either way, huh? Did you see that video I posted?
I love how everytime a piece of evidence falsifies evolution and millions of years, evolutionists simply modify the theory to accommodate it. Eventually, you'll modify yourselves right out of a theory, but at the rate we're going, that's gonna be a long time coming.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Why, because YOU and a bunch of YECers say so?
Alate_One
Well-known member
I'm no paleontologist but in my searches on this subject it keeps coming back to the same group of scientists (Jack Horner's group). I am always suspicious of any "revolutionary" finding that only seems to be supported by papers from the same group of people.
I have seen papers from other groups showing traces of organic materials on fossils which were detected by newer scanning machines, which I think is plausible. I'm not so sure about what Horner's group is asserting.
And no haven't taken the time with your video as of yet. When it's titled with a baseless assertion, it's not likely to be worth watching.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Them's the facts, Alate_One. We're just pointing out the obvious implications.
You really ought to watch the video. Mary Schweitzer is such a nice lady.
| Alate_One didn't like my title | |
We love you, Mary!
When a new discovery provides data that doesn't fit the model, the right move is to look at minor changes to the model that would allow the new data to fit. Only a fool would discard the entire model without first trying to alter it.
Many of you make the mistake of treating each new piece of the puzzle as if it is the only piece that matters. We must keep a wider perspective and see each new discovery in context. What is more likely? That we have misunderstood some aspect of fossilization or that we have missunderstood the numerous underpinnings of an old earth model? Can't fault people for first assuming the most likely explanation. Well, clearly you can...but you shouldn't!
Many of you make the mistake of treating each new piece of the puzzle as if it is the only piece that matters. We must keep a wider perspective and see each new discovery in context. What is more likely? That we have misunderstood some aspect of fossilization or that we have missunderstood the numerous underpinnings of an old earth model? Can't fault people for first assuming the most likely explanation. Well, clearly you can...but you shouldn't!
But there are two models, not one.
A. Creation, young earth, universal flood.
B. Evolution, old earth, many floods.
--Dave
Flipper
New member
That would mean actually making a useful contribution to science which, tbh, hasn't happened a whole lot in the last 100 years.
I was responding to the criticism I have seen in this thread toward the response these scientists had to the new data. It is expected that these scientists will try to fit their observations into the currently accepted model. There are not two currently accepted models, despite efforts by some to fabricate a statistically significant controversy among the sufficiently educated.
I think it fair to say the Young Earth fails as a scientific model. However, I also think it is a perfectly rational interpretation of scripture.
It is popular now to think that faith and reason can be folded together in a unifying worldview, but watch it play out and one sees it always comes at the cost of distorting one or both.
Well, no they don't. Those that try to push evolutionism in place of God's creation as history, said that fossils show that they lived million and millions of years ago. Now that it isn't a fossil, it no longer matters?
Anyway, I think it is great. As I said before, if Jack Horner wants to try and build a T-Rex, lets do it. Of course, I don't think he will ever try. When they don't look like birds, he will look stupid.
some other dude
New member
Where are you going to put it? If they try to make it chicken sized, it will probably grossly deformed and not survive. That is how mutations work. When they do happen from one reason or another, the end result is de-evolution.
some other dude
New member
No, I want a big one. Ride it to work, teach it to hunt evolutionists, like that. 
I say turn them loose in Africa on one of those hunting game reserves. Give the crocs and lions something to compete with for the wildebeest and buffalo. Elephants have taken things like 416 rigby to the noggin and turned around and retreated. The T-Rex won't retreat. If he does, Speilberg has some explaining to do.
The real kicker is what they did with the dinosaur heme they found. They injected it into a rabbit, which made antibodies against it. Then they tested the antibodies with hemoglobin of living animals.
Turns out it was most like that of birds and mammals rather than like that of living reptiles. Which is what evolutionary theory predicts.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 June 10; 94(12): 6291–6296.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse,§ Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Surprise.
Turns out it was most like that of birds and mammals rather than like that of living reptiles. Which is what evolutionary theory predicts.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 June 10; 94(12): 6291–6296.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse,§ Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Surprise.
Yes, they do. Creationists trumpeted this as "proof" of a young earth. The tissue is anything but.
Well this is stupefying and profound, as usual.
I read the cover story in Wired about Horner's hope to recreate a dino; fascinating stuff. He sounds dead serious to me.
Not that I'm aware of, no.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-12/...r-pet-dinosaur-dinosaur-project?_s=PM:OPINION
Even if he did before, that's not what he's saying now.
Jack, if you want a refresher in geology, go down to your local library. This elephant's child routine creationists pull is puerile, idiotic, and a time waster. (In related studies, kids: The sky is blue. Discuss.)
Yes, you are. You're ignorant and don't know what you're talking about.
:first:
:first:
:first: