Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Dinosaur soft tissue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dinosaur soft tissue

    Since the 1960s when the first hints of endogenous biomolecules in fossils began to appear, the idea has become increasingly hard to reject. Initially, these reports could easily be rejected as some kind of contamination.

    However, evidence for it reached a crescendo a few years ago with the work of Mary Schweitzer and her team. Her research called into question the idea that soft tissue, protein and perhaps even DNA would naturally break down on the death of an animal. This idea was based on some solid reasoning - it seemed to always to happen thanks to the short the half lives of protein and DNA, and the presence of bacteria which would consume any organics around, following an organism’s death.

    However, testing ideas that this was in fact so, and hence no soft tissue could ever be preserved, was limited, and often based on dubious presuppositions.

    So, given the discovery of soft tissue, Schweitzer and her team needed to understand how it could plausibly be preserved for millions of years.

    In this paper:-

    Originally posted by reference inside
    Mary H. Schweitzer, Wenxia Zheng, Timothy P. Cleland, Mark B. Goodwin, Elizabeth Boatman, Elizabeth Theil, Matthew A. Marcus and Sirine C. Fakra, A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time Proc. R. Soc. B 2014 281, 20132741, published 27 November 2013

    The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explai- ned by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-aFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Meso- zoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near- edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (258C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem ‘tissue fixation’ by cross-linking or peroxidation. HB-induced solution hypoxia coupled with iron chelation enhances pre- servation as follows: HB + O2 > HB - O2 > -O2 >> +O2. The well-known O2/haeme interactions in the chemistry of life, such as respiration and bioener- getics, are complemented by O2/haeme interactions in the preservation of fossil soft tissues.
    - Schweitzer et al. describe how they found a potential answer to the problem.

    The paper introduces the problem by describing the history leading up to its identification. That soft tissue structures could be preserved was found as early as the 1960s, but how this preservation could occur was never addressed by then existing models of fossilisation i.e. mineral replacement. With the identification of soft tissue structure, ideas were developed to explain its preservation such as “microbially mediated stabilization” which then went on to a process of secondary mineralization. The authors note that few of these preservation modes were actually tested experimentally.

    Then, still-soft biomaterials began to be identified in fossils, presenting an additional problem to be solved. How could the molecules be preserved and yet remain soft?

    Early explanations were that these purported soft tissues (and molecules) were little more than contaminants. However, Schweitzer et al. and others made convincing arguments that they were not contaminants but rather did belong to the fossils. Yet there were “hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation of less than 1 Myr for proteins and approximately 100000 years for DNA [26–30] (but see [31]) that are based upon degradation proxies of heat and/or pH [28,32], theore- tical models of breakdown kinetics [33,34], and, recently, extrapolation from a select and time-limited set of fossils [35].”

    So the problem was to find a process of preservation in which “soft tissues and the proteins comprising them ... persist beyond these limits, a mode of preservation sufficiently rapid to outpace decay ...”

    Schweitzer et al. proposed that iron from haemoglobin (in particular) in association with oxygen does in fact provide this stabilization.

    They tested their idea on ostrich bones.

    The paper describes why iron could be the key to stabilization, and how the source of it probably derives from the organism itself, just after death. Organisms do contain a lot of iron, and while an animal is alive, the iron needs to be bound up, lest it react unfavourably with other molecules important to the process of living. On death, naturally, iron does not need to be bound and its liberation from various molecules forms the basis of association with soft tissue preservation in fossils.

It’s one thing the researchers noted, when soft tissue is found, iron seems to be there as well.

    Once liberated, the iron, via the formation of “oxy-radicals”, facilitates “protein cross-linking [54] in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion [55,56].”

    The researchers spend a section of their paper demonstrating the link between iron and soft tissues in the fossil bones as well as in their ostrich model. Then they describe their ostrich model, and the control they used to validate the model against:-

    

“Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate (see the electronic supplementary material) to approximate post-mortem erythrocyte lysis. Control tissues were prepared identically, then incubated in either sterile dis- tilled water or phosphate buffered saline (PBS).”

    They stress the importance of haemoglobin:-



    “Haemoglobin was chosen to test its preservation properties for four reasons: (i) HB is in known to be bacteriostatic [63,64]; (ii) in the presence of dioxygen, HB produces free radicals [65]; (iii) blood vessels fill with large amounts of HB after death as red cells begin to die and lyse, thus it is naturally present in large vertebrates [45]; and (iv) haeme released from HB, when degraded, will release iron, possibly accounting for the iron particles associated with preserved soft tissues [42,66] (figure 1).”

    Schweitzer et al. then discuss their ostrich model.

    They obtained ostrich soft tissue from an ostrich farm and set up a test model and a control. The test was of:-

    “Ostrich vessels ... incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate (see the electronic supplementary material) to approximate post-mortem erythrocyte lysis.”

    - while the control was:-

    “... prepared identically, then incubated in either sterile distilled water or phosphate buffered saline (PBS).”


    Their figure 4 shows the differences between the results of the incubation of HB treated tissue, HB + O2 treated tissue and tissue incubated in water. The results are dramatic. They write:-



    “HB-treated vessels have remained intact for more than 2 years at room temperature with virtually no change, while control tissues were significantly degraded within 3 days. Indicators of tissue stability include thick vessel walls (figure 4a,b, black arrows) and visible surface structures consistent with endothelial nuclei (figure 4a,b, white arrowheads). In many cases, material could be seen inside the vessel lumen, appear- ing most often as structureless masses (figure 4a,b, asterisk). There was no difference between tissues incubated in HB/ hypoxy and HB/oxy conditions (see the electronic supplementary material), including the presence of the intravascular material, except that distinct red blood cells were also present in the HB/oxy condition (figure 4c,d, asterisk)."

    

“The range of tissue stabilities observed with differing combinations of HB and O2 were: HB + O2 > HB - O2 > -O2 >> +O2, emphasizing the importance of both HB and oxygen to tissue stabilization.”

    

And later:-

    “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24 000% over control conditions."

    While virtual stability over 2 years (at least) is nowhere near a few tens of millions of years, it certainly casts the conventional wisdom into doubt. 

They go on to discuss the results of their experiment including the role of iron in confounding efforts to sequence these biomolecules. Exactly how iron does what it does, is still a bit of a guess:-



    “The iron may be directly protecting proteins by blocking active sites recognized by enzymes of degradation (supported by the increase in antibody signal after treatment with iron chelator), or it may be providing protection indirectly by binding to oxygen, and thus preventing oxidative damage [68,69] or outcompeting bacterial mechanisms, similar to ferritins [45].”



    
However, there is now hope that the identification of soft tissue in many ancient organisms way offer new ways of studying their remains.

  • #2
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Since the 1960s when the first hints of endogenous biomolecules in fossils began to appear, the idea has become increasingly hard to reject. Initially, these reports could easily be rejected as some kind of contamination.

    However, evidence for it reached a crescendo a few years ago with the work of Mary Schweitzer and her team. Her research called into question the idea that soft tissue, protein and perhaps even DNA would naturally break down on the death of an animal. This idea was based on some solid reasoning - it seemed to always to happen thanks to the short the half lives of protein and DNA, and the presence of bacteria which would consume any organics around, following an organism’s death.

    However, testing ideas that this was in fact so, and hence no soft tissue could ever be preserved, was limited, and often based on dubious presuppositions.

    So, given the discovery of soft tissue, Schweitzer and her team needed to understand how it could plausibly be preserved for millions of years.

    In this paper:-



    - Schweitzer et al. describe how they found a potential answer to the problem.

    The paper introduces the problem by describing the history leading up to its identification. That soft tissue structures could be preserved was found as early as the 1960s, but how this preservation could occur was never addressed by then existing models of fossilisation i.e. mineral replacement. With the identification of soft tissue structure, ideas were developed to explain its preservation such as “microbially mediated stabilization” which then went on to a process of secondary mineralization. The authors note that few of these preservation modes were actually tested experimentally.

    Then, still-soft biomaterials began to be identified in fossils, presenting an additional problem to be solved. How could the molecules be preserved and yet remain soft?

    Early explanations were that these purported soft tissues (and molecules) were little more than contaminants. However, Schweitzer et al. and others made convincing arguments that they were not contaminants but rather did belong to the fossils. Yet there were “hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation of less than 1 Myr for proteins and approximately 100000 years for DNA [26–30] (but see [31]) that are based upon degradation proxies of heat and/or pH [28,32], theore- tical models of breakdown kinetics [33,34], and, recently, extrapolation from a select and time-limited set of fossils [35].”

    So the problem was to find a process of preservation in which “soft tissues and the proteins comprising them ... persist beyond these limits, a mode of preservation sufficiently rapid to outpace decay ...”

    Schweitzer et al. proposed that iron from haemoglobin (in particular) in association with oxygen does in fact provide this stabilization.

    They tested their idea on ostrich bones.

    The paper describes why iron could be the key to stabilization, and how the source of it probably derives from the organism itself, just after death. Organisms do contain a lot of iron, and while an animal is alive, the iron needs to be bound up, lest it react unfavourably with other molecules important to the process of living. On death, naturally, iron does not need to be bound and its liberation from various molecules forms the basis of association with soft tissue preservation in fossils.

It’s one thing the researchers noted, when soft tissue is found, iron seems to be there as well.

    Once liberated, the iron, via the formation of “oxy-radicals”, facilitates “protein cross-linking [54] in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion [55,56].”

    The researchers spend a section of their paper demonstrating the link between iron and soft tissues in the fossil bones as well as in their ostrich model. Then they describe their ostrich model, and the control they used to validate the model against:-

    

“Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate (see the electronic supplementary material) to approximate post-mortem erythrocyte lysis. Control tissues were prepared identically, then incubated in either sterile dis- tilled water or phosphate buffered saline (PBS).”

    They stress the importance of haemoglobin:-



    “Haemoglobin was chosen to test its preservation properties for four reasons: (i) HB is in known to be bacteriostatic [63,64]; (ii) in the presence of dioxygen, HB produces free radicals [65]; (iii) blood vessels fill with large amounts of HB after death as red cells begin to die and lyse, thus it is naturally present in large vertebrates [45]; and (iv) haeme released from HB, when degraded, will release iron, possibly accounting for the iron particles associated with preserved soft tissues [42,66] (figure 1).”

    Schweitzer et al. then discuss their ostrich model.

    They obtained ostrich soft tissue from an ostrich farm and set up a test model and a control. The test was of:-

    “Ostrich vessels ... incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate (see the electronic supplementary material) to approximate post-mortem erythrocyte lysis.”

    - while the control was:-

    “... prepared identically, then incubated in either sterile distilled water or phosphate buffered saline (PBS).”


    Their figure 4 shows the differences between the results of the incubation of HB treated tissue, HB + O2 treated tissue and tissue incubated in water. The results are dramatic. They write:-



    “HB-treated vessels have remained intact for more than 2 years at room temperature with virtually no change, while control tissues were significantly degraded within 3 days. Indicators of tissue stability include thick vessel walls (figure 4a,b, black arrows) and visible surface structures consistent with endothelial nuclei (figure 4a,b, white arrowheads). In many cases, material could be seen inside the vessel lumen, appear- ing most often as structureless masses (figure 4a,b, asterisk). There was no difference between tissues incubated in HB/ hypoxy and HB/oxy conditions (see the electronic supplementary material), including the presence of the intravascular material, except that distinct red blood cells were also present in the HB/oxy condition (figure 4c,d, asterisk)."

    

“The range of tissue stabilities observed with differing combinations of HB and O2 were: HB + O2 > HB - O2 > -O2 >> +O2, emphasizing the importance of both HB and oxygen to tissue stabilization.”

    

And later:-

    “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24 000% over control conditions."

    While virtual stability over 2 years (at least) is nowhere near a few tens of millions of years, it certainly casts the conventional wisdom into doubt. 

They go on to discuss the results of their experiment including the role of iron in confounding efforts to sequence these biomolecules. Exactly how iron does what it does, is still a bit of a guess:-



    “The iron may be directly protecting proteins by blocking active sites recognized by enzymes of degradation (supported by the increase in antibody signal after treatment with iron chelator), or it may be providing protection indirectly by binding to oxygen, and thus preventing oxidative damage [68,69] or outcompeting bacterial mechanisms, similar to ferritins [45].”



    
However, there is now hope that the identification of soft tissue in many ancient organisms way offer new ways of studying their remains.
    From above : "While virtual stability over 2 years (at least) is nowhere near a
    few tens of millions of years, it certainly casts the conventional wisdom into doubt."




    First of all, it's NOT just "a few tens of millions of years" - in some cases it's over 100 million years.

    But that's just nit picking. A couple (2) of years is on the order of 10-6 percent of the alleged total amount of time. This provides an excellent example of what I mean when I have referred to pseudo-science (such as Evolution) as "unrestrained extrapolation". In typical operational science, if any scientist were to extrapolate from 2 years to 100 million years --- or from 2 grams to 110 TONS (which is the same ratio) or from 2 degrees F to 100 million degrees F or ... you get the picture --- that scientist would have his/her credentials revoked. Heck, he/she would never have been awarded the credentials to begin with!

    But in order to rescue Evolution and gigayears these people are given Carte Blanche to do whatever they wish! Then the results get published in "reputable scientific journals" so that an authoritative voice is accorded to them. Don't you dare then dispute these claims - if you do, you are labeled as "anti-science".

    Roland, the entire thing is a sham and anyone swallowing this stupidity is a fool.
    Try a bit of CRITICAL thinking (instead of blindly following) and you'll agree.
    Knowing you as I do, my words will SWOOSH a mile over your head.
    I'm writing this for those that still have eyes to see.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      But that's just nit picking. A couple (2) of years is on the order of 10-6 percent of the alleged total amount of time. This provides an excellent example of what I mean when I have referred to pseudo-science (such as Evolution) as "unrestrained extrapolation". In typical operational science, if any scientist were to extrapolate from 2 years to 100 million years --- or from 2 grams to 110 TONS (which is the same ratio) or from 2 degrees F to 100 million degrees F or ... you get the picture --- that scientist would have his/her credentials revoked. Heck, he/she would never have been awarded the credentials to begin with!
      That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

      Roy
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

      Comment


      • #4
        Since the 1960s ...
        Interesting. Thanks.

        Roy
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

          Roy
          You cannot possibly be that stupid ... or that dishonest ... or both.
          Then again, on second thought ...

          Read the published works on the Moon's recession and it's all there in black and white.
          Your attempt to equate the two is exposed as illegitimate, R-R-R-Roy

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #6
            See new thread.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

              Roy
              Now he hasn't. You're just a jerk [like him] with nothing better to do. [edit: I thought Roy was talking about secular scientific organizations.]
              Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-22-2014, 02:20 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                Now he hasn't. You're just a jerk [like him] with nothing better to do.






                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  You cannot possibly be that stupid ... or that dishonest ... or both.
                  Then again, on second thought ...

                  Read the published works on the Moon's recession and it's all there in black and white.
                  Your attempt to equate the two is exposed as illegitimate, R-R-R-Roy

                  Jorge
                  Well, you should know -- you're the TWeb expert on and prime example of both.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Well, you should know -- you're the TWeb expert on and prime example of both.

                    K54
                    Then why bother with him? I mean even in the creationist organizations, he has the status of peeon.
                    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-22-2014, 02:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      .... as "unrestrained extrapolation".
                      

Well I don’t think that Schweitzer believes this proves the case. However, as she and her fellow researchers point out, it certainly tips conventional wisdom on its head.

                      The existence of this soft tissue, coupled with all the evidence for an ancient earth, forced them to look hard at the presupposition that it all had to have gone well before a million years was up.

They noted the association between iron and soft tissue and it led them to explore the connection.



                      So they might be onto something here.


                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      But in order to rescue Evolution and gigayears these people are given Carte Blanche to do whatever they wish!
                      No they were not. They had noted the association between iron and soft tissue and that’s what led them down this path. So they did have a vey good reason to do what they did. And in the paper, they provide more good reasons for looking at iron and oxygen.

                      And it looks as if they could be onto something.

                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      Roland, the entire thing is a sham and anyone swallowing this stupidity is a fool.
                      Try a bit of CRITICAL thinking (instead of blindly following) and you'll agree.
                      Knowing you as I do, my words will SWOOSH a mile over your head.
                      I'm writing this for those that still have eyes to see.
                      Thanks for the advice Jorge, but it’s sometimes good to be a fool. We fools do understand something of what we talk about and we are capable of backing our arguments. You could learn an awful lot from us.


                      Tell me Jorge

                      Do you think that:-

                      1) The iron can act as a preserver - either directly or indirectly? And,

                      
2) The source of the iron was from the dead animal in the case of the fossil?

                      Last edited by rwatts; 06-23-2014, 04:11 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Interesting. Thanks.

                        Roy
                        That is one thing good about trying to converse with fence posts. It forces me to look at the scientific literature and sometimes I can understand it, sort of. Besides the introductions and conclusions make for great reading.

                        Mind you, not that the fence posts take any notice when I write up what I have found out. But I often enjoy learning about these things.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                          

Well I don’t think that Schweitzer believes this proves the case. However, as she and her fellow researchers point out, it certainly tips conventional wisdom on its head.

                          The existence of this soft tissue, coupled with all the evidence for an ancient earth, forced them to look hard at the presupposition that it all had to have gone well before a million years was up.

They noted the association between iron and soft tissue and it led them to explore the connection.



                          So they might be onto something here.
                          An important part of science is, of course, making sound logical inferences. Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

                          If you answer "yes" (as I expect), then applying the same liberal 'logic' F. Crick was also probably "on to something" when he proposed extraterrestrials as the source of the DNA on Earth. Sure, if that's how you wish to conduct your science then be my guest. Just don't involve me with it, okay?


                          No they were not. They had noted the association between iron and soft tissue and that’s what led them down this path. So they did have a vey good reason to do what they did. And in the paper, they provide more good reasons for looking at iron and oxygen.

                          And it looks as if they could be onto something.
                          Sure, Roland, sure. Like I said, you go ahead and practice that kind of
                          "science" and let me practice my kind, okay?

                          You apparently don't know the meaning of "unrestrained extrapolation".
                          Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
                          grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
                          logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years? Are
                          you freagin' kidding!!! Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
                          in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
                          physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.



                          Thanks for the advice Jorge, but it’s sometimes good to be a fool. We fools do understand something of what we talk about and we are capable of backing our arguments. You could learn an awful lot from us.


                          Tell me Jorge

                          Do you think that:-

                          1) The iron can act as a preserver - either directly or indirectly? And,

                          
2) The source of the iron was from the dead animal in the case of the fossil?

                          Yes, it is possible. Can that "preserver" preserve over tens of millions of years?
                          ABSOLUTELY NOT! Basic chemistry and thermodynamics says NO. An organic molecule
                          with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.
                          Don't take my word for it - go to your local university and ask a chemistry professor.

                          Sorry, Roland - these people and yourself are grasping at imaginary straws for the
                          sole purpose of preserving certain 'Sacred Beliefs' of a Materialistic religion.
                          You can call that "science" if you wish, but count me out. And for that I will
                          be labeled "anti-science" ... go figure.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            An important part of science is, of course, making sound logical inferences. Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

                            If you answer "yes" (as I expect), then applying the same liberal 'logic' F. Crick was also probably "on to something" when he proposed extraterrestrials as the source of the DNA on Earth. Sure, if that's how you wish to conduct your science then be my guest. Just don't involve me with it, okay?




                            Sure, Roland, sure. Like I said, you go ahead and practice that kind of
                            "science" and let me practice my kind, okay?

                            You apparently don't know the meaning of "unrestrained extrapolation".
                            Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
                            grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
                            logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years? Are
                            you freagin' kidding!!! Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
                            in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
                            physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.





                            Yes, it is possible. Can that "preserver" preserve over tens of millions of years?
                            ABSOLUTELY NOT! Basic chemistry and thermodynamics says NO. An organic molecule
                            with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.
                            Don't take my word for it - go to your local university and ask a chemistry professor.

                            Sorry, Roland - these people and yourself are grasping at imaginary straws for the
                            sole purpose of preserving certain 'Sacred Beliefs' of a Materialistic religion.
                            You can call that "science" if you wish, but count me out. And for that I will
                            be labeled "anti-science" ... go figure.

                            Jorge
                            As always with Jorge, ideology trumps data.

                            He's nothing if not consistent in his blind adherence to unsupportable ideology -- which he can't even support unambiguously with Scripture!

                            To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, "There are fools, damn fools, and Jorge."

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge
                              Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.
                              Thank you Jorge. 

Indeed I will stand by my claim because their research certainly questions conventional wisdom.


                              Originally posted by Jorge
                              Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
                              grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
                              logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years?
                              Well that’s the 64 million dollar question. What they do note is that after 2 years (to date) they found virtually no change whereas the control was massively deteriorated, in part thanks to bacterial attack.



                              In the context of bacterial attack the authors write:-

                              Originally posted by Schweitzer et al
                              Although the exact mechanism of microbial inhibition by HB is not known, it has been noted in earlier works [63,64]. The iron may be directly protecting proteins by blocking active sites recognized by enzymes of degradation (supported by the increase in antibody signal after treatment with iron chela- tor), or it may be providing protection indirectly by binding to oxygen, and thus preventing oxidative damage [68,69] or outcompeting bacterial mechanisms, similar to ferritins [45].
                              To break down, chemicals need to be either inherently unstable, or they need to be “attacked” by other chemicals. If iron and/or oxygen are doing things such as “blocking active sites”, then one path to degradation at least, has been removed.

They do have additional support for the idea that HB itself can last for a very long time:-
                              Originally posted by Schweitzer et al
                              Here, we observe the intimate association between iron (goethite) particles and soft tissues recovered from dinosaurs. In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network [70,71]; after death, HB could cause localized, haeme-based radical cross-linking in dinosaur tissues. Moreover, HB-derived haeme, previously identified in dinosaur bone [72], has recently been identified in Miocene mosquitoes, supporting the durability of this prosthetic unit [73].
                              There are additional ideas:-

                              Originally posted by Schweitzer et al
                              Goethite-like iron particles similar to those observed in these fossil soft tissues have been identified in modern tissues and are possibly derived from HB through formation of ferritin protein-caged iron biominerals [44,75 – 79] during degradation. Ferritins are stable proteins that retain activity post-mortem. They are capable of scavenging iron released from less stable proteins and converting it to biominerals such as goethite, depositing it as crystals of relatively uniform size, in surround- ing tissues. These iron nanoparticles may have stabilized cell architecture and may even be responsible for preserving intra- cellular components chemically consistent with DNA [22] through iron-mediated DNA – protein cross-links [80].
                              So while there remains a humungous difference between a few years preservation and millions of years preservation, for the reasons given, they may well have found a part of the answer.

                              At the very least it turns conventional wisdom on its head.

                              If it really is so that protein half life and microbial activity mean that dinosaur soft tissue proves a recent flood, then this means of tissue fixation shows that estimated protein half-life, under some circumstance, have been waaaaaaaaaaaay underestimated.

                              Imagine increasing protein half-life from say 10 years to 2,400 years, or from 100 years to 24,000 years?

                              Originally posted by Jorge
                              An organic molecule with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.
                              Conventional wisdom was that it could not remain intact for 2 years, even. The control model showed massive decay. The HB model showed virtually no decay.

                              If the iron particles were not associated with those tissues then you might have a point. But they remain associated with those tissues.

                              Originally posted by Jorge
                              Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
                              in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
                              physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.
                              

Yes it is worth debating. So what are you getting at here?
                              Last edited by rwatts; 06-23-2014, 05:01 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              35 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              237 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X