Tyrannosaurus Rex And Mastodon Protein Fragments Discovered, Sequenced

[bob b]

Bull- do you have any idea how ecstatic any paleobioligist would be get their mitts a relatively recent dinosaur or mastadon sample? You think they'd hide it? They would crow so loud you could hear it one the moon, you buffoon. Don't try to ascribe motivations to a class of people you apparently don't understand (scientists). It's not a conspiracy- take a paper bag, breathe into it, repeat.

They have already ballyhooed their sample "to the moon".

However, they would naturally never admit, even to themselves, that people like Ken Ham might actually be right about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans even though all the myths about this are spread widely around the world.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

They have already ballyhooed their sample "to the moon".

However, they would naturally never admit, even to themselves, that people like Ken Ham might actually be right about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans even though all the myths about this are spread widely around the world.

Because there is no evidence whatsoever to back this assertion up. :duh:

 

[Johnny]

However, they would naturally never admit, even to themselves, that people like Ken Ham might actually be right about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans even though all the myths about this are spread widely around the world.

Says you. It helps you justify the idea in your own mind that there's some sort of cover-up going on. In the science world, not many people give two hoots what the creationists are doing / thinking / saying. Only recently has the battle-cry gone out, and even then it's really a small minority of scientists taking on the creationists. By far the vast majority of scientists go on about their way in their labs, giving no more thought to the creationists than you give to the boogyman before you go to sleep at night.

Let me emphasize what PlastikBuddha has already said. The paleontologist who finds a young dinosaur will be one happy paleontologist. You'd be guaranteed funding and publications.

 

[Johnny]

So, don't you agree that it would be better for scientists to wait to get more data before running off at the mouth about "new processes" that would muliply the previous preservation limit by a factor of a thousand?

Not in the least bit. Despite being a self-proclaimed science lover, you bumble around like you're completely unfamiliar with the topic when it suits your needs (in this case you want to paint the hypothesis as "running off at the mouth" without any data). Had you read the paper, you would have noticed that the find provided a lot of new data that was needed to guide them in the right direction with the various hypothesis of preservation. Now, with this specimen, they have a working hypothesis that can be tested against future finds.

That's how science moves.

 

[Roxanne]

Tyrannosaurus Rex And Mastodon Protein Fragments Discovered, Sequenced

The results from your parents' genomes came in from the lab, bob?

 

[Ktoyou]

68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex? That had to be a big one!

 

[bob b]

Let me emphasize what PlastikBuddha has already said. The paleontologist who finds a young dinosaur will be one happy paleontologist. You'd be guaranteed funding and publications.

Wrong. He would be shunned as some sort of nut.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Wrong. He would be shunned as some sort of nut.

If he had an actual dinosaur he would the most popular scientist ever. Where do you get this streak of paranoia?

 

[Andre1983]

Wrong. He would be shunned as some sort of nut.

Not if he has evidence...

If he said "an angel came down with a live dinosaur and said it came from an obscure island in the spirit realm, but that it was originally born on a real world island in modern days, and then disappeared again with the angel up into the firmanent"...

*Then* he would be concidered a nut.

Not if he has evidence.

 

[bob b]

If he had an actual dinosaur he would the most popular scientist ever.

True, but we were talking about a paleontologist. They work with fossils.

If someone had a living dinosaur then it would instantly be classed as another "living fossil", of which there are many.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

True, but we were talking about a paleontologist. They work with fossils.

If someone had a living dinosaur then it would instantly be classed as another "living fossil", of which there are many.

Yes, there are many living fossils. What of it?

 

[bob b]

Yes, there are many living fossils. What of it?

That was the original point I made.

Why assume there must be an unknown process of preservation that goes 1000 times beyond what was previously thought?

Why not just continue to investigate and withhold theories until there is some evidence?

 

[Johnny]

Why assume there must be an unknown process of preservation that goes 1000 times beyond what was previously thought?

Because of the certainty of the dinosaurs age.

Duh.

 

[bob b]

Because of the certainty of the dinosaurs age.
Duh.

Why the certainty of the age?

 

[Turbo]

Because of the certainty of the dinosaurs age.

Duh.

If they're so confident, why are they unwilling to carbon date the tissue samples?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If they're so confident, why are they unwilling to carbon date the tissue samples?

Because it would waste irreplacable tissue on a test that would prove nothing?

 

[Johnny]

If they're so confident, why are they unwilling to carbon date the tissue samples?

(a) The rock the fossil came out of has already been dated to within reasonable certainty.
(b) Carbon dating is more prone to contamination than other radiodating methods.
(c) Carbon dating simply cannot be used or correlated with samples older than 50,000 years.
(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.

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?

 

[bob b]

If they're so confident, why are they unwilling to carbon date the tissue samples?

The real reason is probably that the test might prove the sample was young, and hence invite intense scrutiny and criticism from "true believer" evolutionists.

It is known that coal samples frequently date young via C-14 dating. So do diamonds.

 

[CRMRC]

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?

Also, I hope my level of interest in this discussion is high enough to warrant my posting in it.

 

[Johnny]

The real reason is probably that the test might prove the sample was young, and hence invite intense scrutiny and criticism from "true believer" evolutionists.

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.

It is known that coal samples frequently date young via C-14 dating. So do diamonds.

You forgot to mention that when C14 is actually found in coal/diamonds it's found in direct proportion to the C14 production by the radioactive rocks surrounding the samples! Gee, what a coincidence! What implications could that possibly have?

Not that I expect you to actually explain why that observation isn't a problem for you. I know full well in 3 months time you will whip out the exact same argument, perhaps hoping that I or someone else won't come in and mention those little inconvenient truths. But I feel at least obligated to respond to your claims once again.