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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Once again (678th time!) your tactic of attacking-vilifying the man that opposes your ideological agenda shines clear for all to see. This isn't about "me". I couldn't care less about people submitting to my beliefs. TRUTH is all that matters here and you would do well to remember that.
    Let's see how this works:

    Jorge: "You are a stupid idiot with not an ounce of intellectual integrity. You and all your ideological comrades are the enemies of the truth"

    Accused: "You fail to meet your own requirements <here>"

    Jorge: "Stop vilifying me!!!!"


    Jorge English Dictionary:


    Vilify: To point out any obvious flaw in Jorge or one of Jorge's arguments.

    Intellectual Integrity: To see things as Jorge sees them

    Enemy of the truth: Anyone that would pose arguments contrary to Jorge's conclusions but beyond Jorge's ability to create a cogent reply

    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest


    Jorge: The one true arbiter of truth and/or interpretations of Genesis 1-11

    God: Synonym - See 'Jorge'






    Jim

    ETA: Of course, the comments in 'jest' mode would, in fact, vilify Jorge - IF they were not in jest of course. The rest, not so much. Sorry Jorge. Only you can make it any different.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-24-2014, 09:22 AM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #32
      Jorge spouts yet another zinger. "It's evolutionists that are on the defensive, not Biblical Scientific Creationists" (paraphrased)

      This in spite that BSCs take the smallest tidbits of data that might support their position (whatever that may be since they don't have a "creation" model) and try to force fit them into their ideology. And this while ignoring the 99.999% of the data that fit into Deep Time/Evolution model in a consilient manner.

      Jorge is the master of

      1) Unbridled hubris

      2) Projection

      3) Ipse dixit

      4) Saying nothing better than anyone (here referencing the notion of vacuous proof)

      K54

      P.S. Hey kids, did he ever attempt to answer why proteins which denature and decay in two days can be preserved for over 4000 years but not 100 million?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Jorge spouts yet another zinger. "It's evolutionists that are on the defensive, not Biblical Scientific Creationists" (paraphrased)

        This in spite that BSCs take the smallest tidbits of data that might support their position (whatever that may be since they don't have a "creation" model) and try to force fit them into their ideology. And this while ignoring the 99.999% of the data that fit into Deep Time/Evolution model in a consilient manner.

        Jorge is the master of

        1) Unbridled hubris

        2) Projection

        3) Ipse dixit

        4) Saying nothing better than anyone (here referencing the notion of vacuous proof)

        K54

        P.S. Hey kids, did he ever attempt to answer why proteins which denature and decay in two days can be preserved for over 4000 years but not 100 million?
        Between your post and O-Mudd's just before, I feel ........

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Between your post and O-Mudd's just before, I feel ........

          Jorge
          How would soft dinosaur tissue last 4000 years if it normally decays in 2 days?

          K54

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            How would soft dinosaur tissue last 4000 years if it normally decays in 2 days?

            K54
            You're baiting me, no more. Even one as ignorant as yourself should know that just about all things (milk, eggs, etc.) can have their normal lifetimes extended via a number of methods. I have no doubt that under certain conditions (whatever those may be) we can extend the life of soft tissue / red blood cells / DNA for much, much longer than under "normal" conditions (i.e., completely exposed to the environment).

            That said, it is fundamental PHYSICS (/ chemistry) that tell us that soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA cannot remain intact for tens of millions of years. That is why when this evidence appeared NO ONE would believe it ... This is why they all began searching for the answer to, "How was this possible?" ... This is why they began concocting every rescuing hypothesis that they could imagine ... This is why such efforts continue to this very day!

            Whatever they came up with, they COULD NOT allow the evidence to lead them to thousands instead of tens of millions of years. The "Holy Foot cannot be allowed in the door."

            That isn't science, Santa, it's religion disguised as science.
            Get a clue. LORD knows I've been trying to give you one.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              That said, it is fundamental PHYSICS (/ chemistry) that tell us that soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA cannot remain intact for tens of millions of years. That is why when this evidence appeared NO ONE would believe it ... This is why they all began searching for the answer to, "How was this possible?" ... This is why they began concocting every rescuing hypothesis that they could imagine ... This is why such efforts continue to this very day!
              That's one interpretation.

              Here is another.

              It is presupposed that fundamental PHYSICS (/ chemistry) that tell us that soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA cannot remain intact for tens of millions of years. That is why when this evidence appeared NO ONE would believe it ... Hence conventional wisdom could be wrong, and this needed to be checked. They noted that iron was associated with the preservation and began to wonder if it might have something to do with it.

              So they tested their idea and in the process are turning conventional wisdom on its head. Certainly the old presuppositions cannot have been entirely correct. Iron, from blood, and oxygen, appear to stabilise proteins that would otherwise break down. The haemoglobin from blood also prevents microbial attack.

              Under normal conditions using an ostrich model control, they find massive breakdown after only a few days. Compared to this, using an ostrich model bathed in haemoglobin and open to oxygen, they find virtually no breakdown after two years. Conventional ideas state that this simply cannot happen. Thus for example under these conditions, protein half-lifes may be extended from a few years or a hundred years or so, to thousands or tens of thousands of years.

              So they may be on their way to offering a partial solution to the problem.


              Originally posted by Jorge
              This is why they began concocting every rescuing hypothesis that they could imagine ....
              They imagined it, now they are testing it.

              You remain in rant mode Jorge.
              Last edited by rwatts; 06-24-2014, 04:39 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                So, we now have dino soft tissue. How much longer 'til Jurassic Park becomes reality and I can buy me a pet T-Rex?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  So they tested their idea and in the process are turning conventional wisdom on its head.
                  I may be reading this wrong, but this claim doesn't seem to be supported by your citations. Conventional wisdom seems to be perfectly correct, as their control samples indicate. If anything, we need to say that conventional wisdom makes certain environmental assumptions which, if modified in certain speciic ways, are no longer correct.

                  I think most conventional wisdoms, in all of science and the history of science, rest on analogous assumptions about sets of conditions. Conventional wisdom as I understand it does not say that DNA molecules CANNOT remain largely intact for more than X years, but rather that under all heretofore examined circumstances, this has been the practical limit. But all scientific theories (the "conventional wisdoms" of the day) are always hostage to tomorrow's observations, properly verified. If extended sequences of DNA are actually discovered which are incontrovertibly 10s of millions of years old, then there must be SOME preservation mechanism.

                  In other words, conventional wisdom as I undertstand it is always hedged with "pending further discovery."

                  I don't think even Mary Schweitzer is predicting any "Jurassic Park" developments.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by phank View Post
                    I may be reading this wrong, but this claim doesn't seem to be supported by your citations. Conventional wisdom seems to be perfectly correct, as their control samples indicate. If anything, we need to say that conventional wisdom makes certain environmental assumptions which, if modified in certain speciic ways, are no longer correct.

                    I think most conventional wisdoms, in all of science and the history of science, rest on analogous assumptions about sets of conditions. Conventional wisdom as I understand it does not say that DNA molecules CANNOT remain largely intact for more than X years, but rather that under all heretofore examined circumstances, this has been the practical limit. But all scientific theories (the "conventional wisdoms" of the day) are always hostage to tomorrow's observations, properly verified. If extended sequences of DNA are actually discovered which are incontrovertibly 10s of millions of years old, then there must be SOME preservation mechanism.

                    In other words, conventional wisdom as I undertstand it is always hedged with "pending further discovery."

                    I don't think even Mary Schweitzer is predicting any "Jurassic Park" developments.
                    I tend to think you are over-reaching here. Conventional wisdom WAS there would be no soft tissue. Conventional wisdom WAS proteins could not survive that long. There is nothing wrong with saying that. It is true. And there is nothing to be gained by trying to protect 'Conventional wisdom' from having been wrong. To do science well, we have to be able to admit and analyze the failings that come. One such failing is presumption. If we pretend presumption didn't get in the way, then we haven't learned.


                    Jim
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by phank View Post
                      I may be reading this wrong, but this claim doesn't seem to be supported by your citations. Conventional wisdom seems to be perfectly correct, as their control samples indicate. If anything, we need to say that conventional wisdom makes certain environmental assumptions which, if modified in certain speciic ways, are no longer correct.

                      I think most conventional wisdoms, in all of science and the history of science, rest on analogous assumptions about sets of conditions. Conventional wisdom as I understand it does not say that DNA molecules CANNOT remain largely intact for more than X years, but rather that under all heretofore examined circumstances, this has been the practical limit. But all scientific theories (the "conventional wisdoms" of the day) are always hostage to tomorrow's observations, properly verified. If extended sequences of DNA are actually discovered which are incontrovertibly 10s of millions of years old, then there must be SOME preservation mechanism.

                      In other words, conventional wisdom as I undertstand it is always hedged with "pending further discovery."

                      I don't think even Mary Schweitzer is predicting any "Jurassic Park" developments.
                      I understand what you are getting at phank. It depends on what is meant by "conventional wisdom".

                      Conventional wisdom was that, thanks to protein half life and microbial activity, no soft tissue and/or protein could remain beyond a few hundred thousand to a million years.

                      However, Schweitzer's research showed that, given certain cirsumstances, protein half-life can be extended enormously and microbial activity nullified.

                      Schweitzer et al. were convinced that they had real soft tissue on their hand, many tens of millions of years old, and so they had to find out how this could plausibly come about, given the existing "conventional wisdom".
                      Last edited by rwatts; 06-24-2014, 08:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
                        So, we now have dino soft tissue. How much longer 'til Jurassic Park becomes reality and I can buy me a pet T-Rex?
                        Well given the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, you could always go to the local pet shop and buy a budgie.

                        (A lot more work needs to be done yet to fully explain how soft tissue can remain for so long. This is staggering stuff, but they might be on the way to explaining how it could in fact be so.)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          But parakeets can't scare away would-be intruders the way a T-Rex could.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
                            But parakeets can't scare away would-be intruders the way a T-Rex could.
                            Ah.

                            They need teeth. So I'd whack some false teeth in them if I were you. That could do it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                              Ah.

                              They need teeth. So I'd whack some false teeth in them if I were you. That could do it.
                              Too much work. Birds already have the genetic mechanisms in place to make teeth, they just haven't been expressed for millions of years. Find a way to reactivate those genes like these guys did.

                              The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant

                              Summary

                              Modern birds do not have teeth. Rather, they develop a specialized keratinized structure, called the rhamphotheca, that covers the mandible, maxillae, and premaxillae. Although recombination studies have shown that the avian epidermis can respond to tooth-inductive cues from mouse or lizard oral mesenchyme and participate in tooth formation 1 and 2, attempts to initiate tooth development de novo in birds have failed. Here, we describe the formation of teeth in the talpid2 chicken mutant, including the developmental processes and early molecular changes associated with the formation of teeth. Additionally, we show recapitulation of the early events seen in talpid2 after in vivo activation of β-catenin in wild-type embryos. We compare the formation of teeth in the talpid2 mutant with that in the alligator and show the formation of decidedly archosaurian (crocodilian) first-generation teeth in an avian embryo. The formation of teeth in the mutant is coupled with alterations in the specification of the oral/aboral boundary of the jaw. We propose an epigenetic model of the developmental modification of dentition in avian evolution; in this model, changes in the relative position of a lateral signaling center over competent odontogenic mesenchyme led to loss of teeth in avians while maintaining tooth developmental potential

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                You're baiting me, no more. Even one as ignorant as yourself should know that just about all things (milk, eggs, etc.) can have their normal lifetimes extended via a number of methods. I have no doubt that under certain conditions (whatever those may be) we can extend the life of soft tissue / red blood cells / DNA for much, much longer than under "normal" conditions (i.e., completely exposed to the environment).

                                That said, it is fundamental PHYSICS (/ chemistry) that tell us that soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA cannot remain intact for tens of millions of years. That is why when this evidence appeared NO ONE would believe it ... This is why they all began searching for the answer to, "How was this possible?" ... This is why they began concocting every rescuing hypothesis that they could imagine ... This is why such efforts continue to this very day!

                                Whatever they came up with, they COULD NOT allow the evidence to lead them to thousands instead of tens of millions of years. The "Holy Foot cannot be allowed in the door."

                                That isn't science, Santa, it's religion disguised as science.
                                Get a clue. LORD knows I've been trying to give you one.

                                Jorge
                                Sorry Jorge. You can't equate religious belief with the 'belief' that the universe is billions of years old. Religous faith is just that: faith. Belief that may rest in part on evidence but the core of which involves "evidence of things not seen". The reasons scientists don't instantly abandon a billion year age of the Earth or million year ages for dinosaur bones because they find soft tissue in a dinosaur bone is the weight of the EVIDENCE. There is SO MUCH evidence the Earth is billions of years old and the dinosaur bones are millions of years old AND there is sufficient uncertainty concerning what conditions might preserve proteins millions of years that the age of the bone does not come under serious doubt.


                                But it is a puzzle how this stuff survived, so research is done to attempt to determine how it might have survived so long. It would take a lot of research dead ends on that front, coupled with new evidence the bones where young that was of a more positive nature to be able to offer a serious counter to the existing evidence for the million year age of the bones.

                                So take a step back and try to comprehend the difference between faith in God or faith in the spiritual which is unseen, unmeasurable by physical means, and 'scientific belief' which is backed by huge amounts of data and research. They can't be equated. They are very different things. It takes significant NEW and PHYSICAL evidence to alter scientific belief Jorge (because ostensibly the current scientific 'belief' is the best scientific explanation for the data which is currently available). Until the kinds of research this OP discusses are exhausted AND have come up empty (which clearly they are not), this evidence can't be considered a serious challenge to the current estimated age of the dinosaur bones.


                                Jim
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-25-2014, 07:54 AM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X