Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Author Message
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4277Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Elshamah wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Then why hasn't it been banned yet?

This isn't a bot, I assure you. He's not nearly that intelligent, for a start.

If you want some howlers, his posting career as Jireh at Ratskep was almost worthy of the legendary JP22!

Well worth a search.


i like it when atheists desperately try to discredit me. Thats a good sign.


No one is banning you if you don't break the rules, so hop off your martyrbike for a second, yeah?
Image
Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:05 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

So I emailed Mary to get some clarification on if she C14 dated her fossil. Quite interesting. It also shows Bob's claim of "They refused to date them because they don't want to disprove evolution" is complete bullshit.



Itsdemtitans wrote:Have you tested the samples for Carbon 14? I know it's an inappropriate method for fossils in most cases, but I keep hearing creationists saying your team was "afraid to test for Carbon 14."



Mary Schwietzer wrote:i did not. first again, i didn't have access to that, but also, we use a buffer containing carbon compounds to demineralize the bone and liberate the vessels and cells, so i can promise you we would get a recent data for 14C tests on the soft tissues. However, i did have a colleague test a whole bone extract, ground up untreated. the bone was 14C dead, as expected. i am certainly not 'afraid' to test for it, but in addition to knowing that i use a carbon containing buffer for all that we do, i also know the vagaries of 14C dating, and the closer in age you get to the limit beyond which 14C is completely lost, the more inaccurate the dates are. and i know of studies where 3 different labs have dated the same sample and gotten three different dates. so, i wouldn't trust it anyway.


So, the soft tissue was contaminated anyways so any 14C date would be useless. But the fossil itself had no 14C.

So it's at least 50,000 years old.
Last edited by itsdemtitans on Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:34 am
CollecemallPosts: 332Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Appears she is consistent then as I did the same and she gave the same basic answer.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:24 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Collecemall wrote:Appears she is consistent then as I did the same and she gave the same basic answer.


Why wouldn't she be?
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Wed Jul 15, 2015 5:34 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:41 am
YIM WWW
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

Isotelus wrote:Thank you for your post Bob, and thank you for admitting your mistake. Because of that I don't see it as a waste of time. ...

Now, that being said, I would ask that he also consider my corrections on his website concerning Pelecanimimus and Archaeopteryx. I'll throw in my previous posts about those when I get a chance.


Isotelus, my deadlines are fast and furious, and I don't know how I'd find the time to review what you have, but yes, it's been on my mind that I'd like to see your info on these.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio http://rsr.org
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Last edited by BobEnyart on Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:32 pm
WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
Isotelus wrote:Thank you for your post Bob, and thank you for admitting your mistake. Because of that I don't see it as a waste of time. ...

Now, that being said, I would ask that he also consider my corrections on his website concerning Pelecanimimus and Archaeopteryx. I'll throw in my previous posts about those when I get a chance.


Isotelus, my deadlines are fast and furious, and I don't know how I'd find the time to review what you have, but yes, it's been on my mind that I'd like to see your info on these.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio [url]rsr.org[/url]


Can I ask you why your show is called "Real Science Radio", emphasis on real. Is there such a thing as fake science?
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:55 pm
WWW
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1176Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

DutchLiam84 wrote:
Can I ask you why your show is called "Real Science Radio", emphasis on real. Is there such a thing as fake science?


Not to mention that he's a science denialist.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:01 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2914Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Greetings,

It gives it an air of authority.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:01 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

DutchLiam84 wrote:Can I ask you why your show is called "Real Science Radio", emphasis on real. Is there such a thing as fake science?


Well, there are pseudosciences, such as homeopathy, phrenology, and creationism (just to name a few).

If I could venture a guess, it has to do with BobEnyart subconsciously knowing what he is promoting is not real science, thus he has to bolster it at every step. That is why the stuff I promote and do for a living is just called science. I already know it is real science, thus no bolstering of it needed.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:57 am
YIM WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
DutchLiam84 wrote:Can I ask you why your show is called "Real Science Radio", emphasis on real. Is there such a thing as fake science?


Well, there are pseudosciences, such as homeopathy, phrenology, and creationism (just to name a few).

If I could venture a guess, it has to do with BobEnyart subconsciously knowing what he is promoting is not real science, thus he has to bolster it at every step. That is why the stuff I promote and do for a living is just called science. I already know it is real science, thus no bolstering of it needed.

I find homeopathy, phrenology, and creationism "fake science" in the same way I think an apple is a "fake banana", if you catch my drift.

My hypothesis is that Bob calls science that agrees with his preconceived bias "real science", anything that contradicts the Bible is "fake science".

And again, I still have no clue how the presence of soft tissue is evidence against evolution. Best case scenario for him is that paleontologists are wrong about decay rates and the extinction date of the larger dinosaurs.

I think it's the old "if one thing is wrong then EVERYTHING IS WRONG"-argument, you know that "argument" that creationists never apply to the Bible. They have ridiculous standards for science but practically none for their Bible when it comes to evidence.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:45 am
WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Good watch!

Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:43 pm
WWW
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Yeah I don't get the whole "these bones must be young therefore the earth is young" canard.

The hell creek formation is an ancient formation of Cretaceous rocks still exposed to the surface, and it isn't uncommon for no new layers to form in certain areas. Only in a few sedimentary basins is the whole geologic column visible. I don't think it'd be impossible to have dinosaurs living in these areas of ancient rock well past 65mya, then die a lot later than we think and still be incorporated into the rock record due to being buried in a landslide or something. Might make us have to be cautious with using certain fossils as index fossils but the point is even if you could show some fossils are young that has no bearing on the age of the rocks themselves. No more than me burying my dog in Cretaceous sediment means my dog's bones are 65my old or the sediment was formed the second I buried the dog.
Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:03 am
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
Isotelus wrote:Thank you for your post Bob, and thank you for admitting your mistake. Because of that I don't see it as a waste of time. ...

Now, that being said, I would ask that he also consider my corrections on his website concerning Pelecanimimus and Archaeopteryx. I'll throw in my previous posts about those when I get a chance.


Isotelus, my deadlines are fast and furious, and I don't know how I'd find the time to review what you have, but yes, it's been on my mind that I'd like to see your info on these.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio http://rsr.org


What in particular is on your mind? For Pelecanimimus I was responding a while back to this quote:
The dinosaurs and other Mesozoic creatures that have yielded endogenous biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaurs], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx.


The soft tissue was replaced by iron carbonate in some areas, and as phosphatized microbrial mats in others. In both cases the soft tissue is mineralized; i.e. not original. Concerning Archaeopteryx, I'm guessing you have the feather tissue remnants vs. impressions in mind?

itsdemtitans wrote:Yeah I don't get the whole "these bones must be young therefore the earth is young" canard.

The hell creek formation is an ancient formation of Cretaceous rocks still exposed to the surface, and it isn't uncommon for no new layers to form in certain areas. Only in a few sedimentary basins is the whole geologic column visible. I don't think it'd be impossible to have dinosaurs living in these areas of ancient rock well past 65mya, then die a lot later than we think and still be incorporated into the rock record due to being buried in a landslide or something. Might make us have to be cautious with using certain fossils as index fossils but the point is even if you could show some fossils are young that has no bearing on the age of the rocks themselves. No more than me burying my dog in Cretaceous sediment means my dog's bones are 65my old or the sediment was formed the second I buried the dog.


Indeed! It's entirely possible that at least some dinosaurs survived past the KPg boundary, and definitely, there are natural processes that can mess around with that sort of thing. That being said, the Hell Creek formation actually extends past the Cretaceous and into the early Paleogene. Younger sediments were almost certainly deposited over top but these were removed during the last major glaciation. More of this record exists farther north in Alberta in the Scollard (Cretaceous/Paleocene) and Paskapoo (Paleocene) formations. In the Paleocene sequences here and in the Hell Creek there are a good number of well-preserved fossil plants and animals that survived the KPg, but no dinosaurs. In the rare instances where a dinosaur bone was found in an apparently younger layer, there's usually been good evidence of reworking from an older unit. At least for now, non-avian dinosaurs seem to be strictly Mesozoic.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:14 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue

Isotelus wrote:
Indeed! It's entirely possible that at least some dinosaurs survived past the KPg boundary, and definitely, there are natural processes that can mess around with that sort of thing. That being said, the Hell Creek formation actually extends past the Cretaceous and into the early Paleogene. Younger sediments were almost certainly deposited over top but these were removed during the last major glaciation. More of this record exists farther north in Alberta in the Scollard (Cretaceous/Paleocene) and Paskapoo (Paleocene) formations. In the Paleocene sequences here and in the Hell Creek there are a good number of well-preserved fossil plants and animals that survived the KPg, but no dinosaurs. In the rare instances where a dinosaur bone was found in an apparently younger layer, there's usually been good evidence of reworking from an older unit. At least for now, non-avian dinosaurs seem to be strictly Mesozoic.


Ah well, thank you for correcting me on that.
Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:21 am
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

So this paper was published very recently. I was able to read it and thought I'd give a (very) brief summary here.

The authors used a variety of techniques to independently confirm that purported soft tissue structures found a few years earlier in a Brachylophosaurus canadensis specimen are not a result of mircobial biofilms. And yes, they showed pretty darn well that those are remnants of blood vessels! Not completely preserved mind you; they're still degraded. We've suspected for a while that at least some of these fossils are preserving soft tissues without substantial mineralization, and this is significant as it establishes that these techniques work and perhaps can shed further light on exactly how these things are preserving. I suspect some creationists will tout it as the death-knell in the soft tissue debate; this is bona fide endogenous soft tissue; the earth is young, bla bla. If they do, then let's hope they don't omit a key part of this paper, and that's the fact that those peptide sequences detected in the dinosaur are essentially identical to those in modern archosaurs. i.e. crocs and birds. They also constructed a tree using myosin that, in spite of it being a conversative sequence, recovered Brachylophosaurus in a basal position between alligators and birds--precisely as we would predict based on our understanding of Archosauria as a whole...and our understanding of evolution. How will creationists handle that aspect of the study? I guess we'll find out (though I have my own suspicions)?

If anyone has any other questions about the paper, let me know, seeing as I'm not sure many people here can get a hold of it.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:27 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Nice. Here's the figure of the tree, if anyone's intrested:
Image
Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:57 pm
ElshamahPosts: 392Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:32 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Recently a new paper has been published in regard of soft tissue in dinos.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675
Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:52 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Elshamah wrote:Recently a new paper has been published in regard of soft tissue in dinos.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675

You mean the one Isotelus linked two posts above?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:46 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 517Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Elshamah wrote:Recently a new paper has been published in regard of soft tissue in dinos.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00675


You couldn't be bothered to read a couple posts up to see this already linked? I guess I should be surprised that you didn't just copy paste the article as your own work.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:11 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests