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 3 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2412Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Oh, hello. Look who's turned up here then...
Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:41 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4304Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

I see Bob is back to carry on being wrong about stuff he was corrected on 2 years ago. Colour me bored.
Image
Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:49 pm
TrixiePosts: 7Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:31 pm

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

A small group of us have done two hangouts dissecting the Schweitzer papers to demonstrate the utter idiocy of creationist claims with regard to dino soft tissue. You'll find 'em on the You Tube channel of Phoneybeetlemaniacxs.

I think there's a final hangout due next week and then we plan to keep our little "journal club" going.
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:02 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Hey all, skimmed past the last page, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, however is anyone aware with this article here?

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Basically they've pretty well explained how the proteins seem to have survived these millions of years. Iron. Here's a snippet from the article:

"Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay
."

First time on the forums, so if I'm out of line please be gentle.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:35 pm
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Grumpy Santa wrote:Basically they've pretty well explained how the proteins seem to have survived these millions of years. Iron.

Hi Grumpy. Let's look at what's been discovered, and then apply a healthy dose of scepticism to that claim. The various kinds of endogenous original biological material recovered include the proteins tubulin, collagen, actin, hemoglobin, and histone, and they include osteocyte cells, apparent flexible and transparent blood vessels and red blood cells, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests. The biological material has been recovered from hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur, mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, Archaeopteryx, etc. They have been found in large and small bones, from skin, egg shells, feathers, etc. And soft tissue is apparently found regardless of the claimed age of the strata it is found in. So consider which of these findings would have their soft tissue encased in heme, and also then, which of the various actions that cause biological materials to decompose would the iron counteract? Soft tissue is destroyed by hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay, temperature changes, and molecular motion. Scepticism seems to be the order of the day here.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. For dozens of peer-reviewed sources for the above, just google: dinosaur soft tissue, and our catalog with links to the leading journals should appear toward the top of page one, at kgov.
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:35 pm
WWW
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

australopithecus wrote:I see Bob is back to carry on being wrong about stuff he was corrected on 2 years ago. Colour me bored.

Hello australopithecus. In the few years since my debate with AronRa, I think that he and everyone involved, by now, would agree with me that the many peer-reviewed papers that I quoted from were indeed claiming to have recovered dinosaur, etc., soft tissue. And the paleontological landscape has since changed, and now the question is not, Is there original biological material, but: How does that stuff last 500 million years?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. 2014, Journal of Paleontology: Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. (claimed 550Mya)
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Last edited by BobEnyart on Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:47 pm
WWW
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1190Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Hey Bob, where are the citations I asked for?

Bob, what scientific work have you done to rule out these hypothesis?

1. The Earth is really old and finding heavily degraded but not completely fossilized biological material simply means that there were better preserving conditions than previously thought.

2. The mechanisms stated by the authors who discovered these materials, as being responsible for preserving the materials for so long, are in fact capable of doing that.

How did you rule these out Bob? Surely you wouldn't be trying to jump to conclusions would you? That's not what a good, honest christian would do, right?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:02 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1190Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
australopithecus wrote:I see Bob is back to carry on being wrong about stuff he was corrected on 2 years ago. Colour me bored.

Hello australopithecus. In the few years since my debate with AronRa, I think that he and everyone involved, by now, would agree with me that the many peer-reviewed papers that I quoted from were indeed claiming to have recovered dinosaur, etc., soft tissue. And the paleontological landscape has since changed, and now the question is not, Is there original biological material, but: How does that stuff last 500 million years?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. 2014, Journal of Paleontology: Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. (claimed 550Mya)

That's not "original biological material", that is a structural imprint Bob. Do you know what the difference is?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:04 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1190Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
australopithecus wrote:I see Bob is back to carry on being wrong about stuff he was corrected on 2 years ago. Colour me bored.

Hello australopithecus. In the few years since my debate with AronRa, I think that he and everyone involved, by now, would agree with me that the many peer-reviewed papers that I quoted from were indeed claiming to have recovered dinosaur, etc., soft tissue. And the paleontological landscape has since changed, and now the question is not, Is there original biological material, but: How does that stuff last 500 million years?

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. 2014, Journal of Paleontology: Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. (claimed 550Mya)

There is a seriously disgusting and dishonest sleight of hand committed in your post here Bob.

The materials discovered in Dinosaur bones are not 550 million years old. There are two different claims in your post, but you deceptively write as if they're all the same thing.

The dinosaur materials are heavily degraded cellular materials, such as lipids, protein fragments and possibly DNA. But this is nowhere near 550 million years old, there were no Dinosaurs 550 million years ago.

Instead, the 550 million year old materials you cite are carbogenic imprints of small shelled organisms. This is not "soft tissue", it is not DNA, or fats or anything of the sort. It is a material reminiscent of bone or nails if you want an analogy. It is like chitin, the outer shell of most insects, which is already known to preserve exceedingly well due to it's strength and resistance to corrosion.

And by the way, the rocks are 550 million years old, so this whole thing is ridiculous in the first place. So you're correct when you state the question "how does it preserve for so long?". That is the question. The question is not "is it really that old?". We already know it is beyond all rational doubt from multiple independent dating methods unrelated to biostratigraphy.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:14 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Grumpy Santa wrote:Hey all, skimmed past the last page, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, however is anyone aware with this article here?

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Basically they've pretty well explained how the proteins seem to have survived these millions of years. Iron. Here's a snippet from the article:


Awesome! Thanks for sharing and welcome to the forum.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:11 pm
YIM WWW
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:Basically they've pretty well explained how the proteins seem to have survived these millions of years. Iron.

Hi Grumpy. Let's look at what's been discovered, and then apply a healthy dose of scepticism to that claim. The various kinds of endogenous original biological material recovered include the proteins tubulin, collagen, actin, hemoglobin, and histone, and they include osteocyte cells, apparent flexible and transparent blood vessels and red blood cells, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests. The biological material has been recovered from hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur, mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, Archaeopteryx, etc. They have been found in large and small bones, from skin, egg shells, feathers, etc. And soft tissue is apparently found regardless of the claimed age of the strata it is found in. So consider which of these findings would have their soft tissue encased in heme, and also then, which of the various actions that cause biological materials to decompose would the iron counteract? Soft tissue is destroyed by hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay, temperature changes, and molecular motion. Scepticism seems to be the order of the day here.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. For dozens of peer-reviewed sources for the above, just google: dinosaur soft tissue, and our catalog with links to the leading journals should appear toward the top of page one, at kgov.


You're right. Due to an apparent complete lack of sources for your claims I'm going to have to apply a healthy dose of skepticism. I can, of course, only go with what's actually been reported.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:49 pm
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Rumraket wrote:
BobEnyart wrote: 2014, Journal of Paleontology: Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. (claimed 550Mya)

That's not "original biological material", that is a structural imprint Bob. Do you know what the difference is?
...
Instead, the 550 million year old materials you cite are carbogenic imprints of small shelled organisms. This is not "soft tissue"...

Hello Rumraket, from what you've written, I can't tell if you've read the paper, but it is worth the read. From page 227:

The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.

Rumraket, with this paper and all the journal papers that I excerpted and linked to in the debate here with Aron, I did not include any reports of mere imprints or of permineralized (formerly) soft tissue. Such reports, though important in and of themselves, are irrelevant to what has become the greatest paleontology discovery in history: original biological material including endogenous dinosaur, etc., soft tissue. And Rumraket, the "etc." there, refers to non-dinosaurian soft-tissue organisms (there are many of them) like mosasaur, Archaeopteryx, and the pre-Cambrian (strata) marine worm Sabellidites.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:52 pm
WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Grumpy Santa wrote:
BobEnyart wrote:Hi Grumpy. Let's look at what's been discovered, and then apply a healthy dose of scepticism to that claim. The various kinds of endogenous original biological material recovered include the proteins tubulin, collagen, actin, hemoglobin, and histone, and they include osteocyte cells, apparent flexible and transparent blood vessels and red blood cells, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests. The biological material has been recovered from hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur, mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, Archaeopteryx, etc. They have been found in large and small bones, from skin, egg shells, feathers, etc. And soft tissue is apparently found regardless of the claimed age of the strata it is found in. So consider which of these findings would have their soft tissue encased in heme, and also then, which of the various actions that cause biological materials to decompose would the iron counteract? Soft tissue is destroyed by hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay, temperature changes, and molecular motion. Scepticism seems to be the order of the day here.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. For dozens of peer-reviewed sources for the above, just google: dinosaur soft tissue, and our catalog with links to the leading journals should appear toward the top of page one, at kgov.


You're right. Due to an apparent complete lack of sources for your claims I'm going to have to apply a healthy dose of skepticism. I can, of course, only go with what's actually been reported.


BobEnyart already made several of these claims before in his debate with AronRa. AronRa exposed that BobEnyart was twisting his citations into saying more than they actually do. They said either that soft tissue was found or original material was discovered. None of them said both. However, that has not stopped BobEnyart from presenting them again and again to support his asinine argument that absolute dating methods are flawed.

BobEnyart wrote:Hello Rumraket, from what you've written, I can't tell if you've read the paper, but it is worth the read. From page 227:

The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.

Rumraket, with this paper and all the journal papers that I excerpted and linked to in the debate here with Aron, I did not include any reports of mere imprints or of permineralized (formerly) soft tissue. Such reports, though important in and of themselves, are irrelevant to what has become the greatest paleontology discovery in history: original biological material including endogenous dinosaur, etc., soft tissue. And Rumraket, the "etc." there, refers to non-dinosaurian soft-tissue organisms (there are many of them) like mosasaur, Archaeopteryx, and the pre-Cambrian (strata) marine worm Sabellidites.

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio


:facepalm:

On the last page of this thread, a paleontologist explained this to you:

Isotelus wrote:Hi Bob,

Funny you should mention this. I had written a lengthy blog post about Sabellidites in the summer, but never completed it; indeed, it might never be. That being the case, I'll post an excerpt here, at least for the forum's sake (it also plays off Rumraket's response rather nicely):

The key point here is recognizing the fact that fossilization does not necessarily require alteration. Note that this does not mean a given fossil remains unchanged; only that certain mineral components and their chemical composition may not be significantly replaced or transformed over time, even as other, more susceptible substances degrade and are replaced or lost entirely. The fossilization of teeth is such an example, recalling that teeth are composed of considerable amounts of hydroxyapatite, a very hard mineral type of calcium apatite. As a result, both enamel and dentine are very resistant materials that can remain unaltered even over large periods of time (although they can change colour when exposed to certain conditions, such as increased heat). However, unmineralized organic material can similarity escape deterioration and/or replacement if it is sufficiently resistant and was preserved in optimal circumstances.

In the case of S. cambriensis, the fibres of the wall comprised of chitin and were enclosed in a proteinaceous matrix, which formed a durable and resilient structure (Moczydlowska et al., 2014):

They were originally soft and plastic as has been demonstrated by their post-mortem ductile deformation and the occasional preservation of twisted tubes without breakage. The tubes were sufficiently robust and thick-walled (Fig. 1.7) to be preserved in such a way and then extracted from the sediment without disintegrating.


With the use of new technology and improved sampling methods, new studies are beginning to show that chitin may still be detectable even after very long periods of time (Cody et al., 2011; Ehrlich et al. 2013). At its most basic, it is a strong, stable, and insoluble polymer sugar in crystalline form that is often incorporated as a structural component. The resistance of the organic material in the wall of Sabellidites was such that it withstood potentially destructive applications of the extremely potent hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, and nitric acids, as well as oxidation baths in hydrogen peroxide and Schultze reagent (Moczydlowska et al., 2014). This indicated its resilience against burial and associated diagenetic processes, including exposure to water and mineral solutions. As evidence that degradation had occurred, the paper reported that kerogen was extracted from the sample containing the fossils, which resulted from the decay and deterioration of organic matter. Running samples through a Raman Index of Preservation (RIP) test resulted in a value of about 9, indicating a low level of metamorphic alteration.

The reasons given for the level of preservation present also certainly require consideration, as it is disingenuous to accept and tout one aspect of a scientific paper while either neglecting and/or dismissing others. It is also important to note that while the organic tube was preserved, the worms themselves were clearly not. In this way at least, the implication of such superb preservation is inconsistent with the state of the actual specimen. The environmental and depositional factors resulting in the fossilization of Sabellidites were also clearly noted in the paper. It is arguably common knowledge and intuitive that the highest degrees of fossilization are favoured by factors such as low-energy environments, lack of scavengers, etc. The Sabellidites fossils were found in a unit comprising of very fine-grained marine shales, mudstones, and siltstones, indicating deposition in a low-energy basinal setting protected from wave action. This allowed for the accumulation of bacterial colonies on the sediment surface that actually facilitated anaerobic conditions during burial, which functioned to protect Sabellidites from early diagenesis (Moczydlowska et al., 2014). In environments such as these, destructive processes such as reworking and decomposition are known to be effectively diminished. This particular process was actually common in the Ediacaran, although in the case of Sabellidites, much more than a simple cast was preserved. Tectonic activity over time was also negligible such that the rock layers and their constituent fossils remained relatively undisturbed. The environmental factors governing the preservation of the organic tube of S. cambriensis are evidently very well-understood, rather easily explainable, and actually simple to comprehend. As such, there is no valid basis to assert that doubt must be placed on the age of these specimens, especially if the degree of preservation has been exaggerated. To further support this point, numerous other studies are being published that attest to other biochemical means by which chitin can preserve over long periods of time, and such processes may eventually prove to be more common than originally thought (Cody et al., 2011; Weaver et al. 2011; Ehrlich et al., 2014).

References

Cody, G.D., Gupta, N.S., Briggs, D.G., Kilcoyne, L.D., Summons, R.E., Kenig, F., Plothick, R.E., Scott, A. 2011. Molecular signature of chitin-protein complex in Paleozoic. Geology, 39:255–258.

Ehrlich, H., et al. 2014. Discovery of 505-million-year old chitin in the basal demosponge Vauxia gracilenta. Scientific Reports 3: 1-6.

Moczydlowska, M., Estall, F., Foucher, F. 2014. Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. Journal of Paleontology. 88 (2): 224-239.

Weaver, P. G. et al. 2011. Characterization of Organics Consistent with β-Chitin Preserved in the Late Eocene Cuttlefish Mississaepia mississippiensis. PLoS ONE 6 (11): 1-9.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:58 pm
YIM WWW
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Thanks for writing hwin. With all that info from Isotelus, can you now help me correct Rumraket and let him know that with these worms, the researchers are not reporting only imprints, but non-permineralized soft tissue. And regarding this:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:On the last page of this thread, a paleontologist explained this to you:
Isotelus wrote:...while the organic tube was preserved, the worms themselves were clearly not.

Hwin, do you see a difference between Isotelus' claim above, that only the "tube was preserved" (which of course is significant enough) with what the authors of the paper themselves wrote:

The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics. [emphasis added]

- Bob Enyart

p.s. Before this pre-Cambrian find, on air and in print, Real Science Radio predicted rsr.org/predictions that original biological material and soft tissue would be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. I think our extended list of peer-reviewed finds at tiny.cc/ICRs-soft-tissue-list confirm that prediction.
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:11 pm
WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Before you run off for an undisclosed amount of time again, it would behoove you to answer this simple question:

Inferno wrote:As indeed it already has. As one of the articles Bob Enyart cites:

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.


How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!


BobEnyart wrote:Thanks for writing hwin. With all that info from Isotelus, can you now help me correct Rumraket and let him know that with these worms, the researchers are not reporting only imprints, but non-permineralized soft tissue.


Rumraket is wrong. These are more than just imprints, they are well preserved chitin.

BobEnyart wrote: And regarding this:
Isotelus wrote:...while the organic tube was preserved, the worms themselves were clearly not.

Hwin, do you see a difference between Isotelus' claim above, that only the "tube was preserved" (which of course is significant enough) but compare that to wha the authors of the paper themselves wrote:

The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue AND the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.
(emphasis, including all caps, added)

- Bob Enyart


If I were to venture a guess at Isotelus’s thinking, it would be that the outer “skin” of the Sabellidites was preserved and not the rest of the animal. Thus, her stating that the tubes were preserved, while the worms themselves were not is more a matter of semantics in my eyes. I further base this on the quote she used which reads, “The tubes were sufficiently robust and thick-walled (Fig. 1.7) to be preserved in such a way and then extracted from the sediment without disintegrating.” I wish she were here to give her own insight on this, but I can only venture a guess because the article is behind a paywall. Thus, I am unable to read it for myself. Remember, the real point of you using this article is that you are still trying to claim that they discovered soft tissue, the amount and type appears to be irrelevant. Thus, please do not get sidetrack with semantics.

However, you went on to miss the whole point Isotelus was making. That is these specimens are spectacularly preserved allowing harder materials, such as chitin, to preserve for long passed what would normally be expected for biological matter. So, to ask another question that will be ignored by BobEnyart, why are these spectacular examples of fossilization the exception and not the rule? Why is special preservation needed in order to have specimens like this?


BobEnyart wrote:p.s. Before this pre-Cambrian find, on air and in print, Real Science Radio predicted rsr.org/predictions that original biological material and soft tissue would be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. I think our extended list of peer-reviewed finds at tiny.cc/ICRs-soft-tissue-list confirm that prediction.


None of that throws any doubt onto our understanding of absolute dating methods, that would only show that our ideas of fossilization were wrong. Again, if you want to throw doubt on absolute dating, you are going to have to take it head on. However, congratulations on the prediction, are you receiving a metal for it?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:27 pm
YIM WWW
BobEnyartUser avatarPosts: 45Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:19 amLocation: Denver, Colorado, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Before you run off for an undisclosed amount of time again, it would behoove you to answer this simple question:
...both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

hwin, if the similarities between dinos and chickens required the existence of a common ancestor, then the extraordinary similarities in the whale and bat genetic sequences would require the existence of a common echolocating ancestor. Yet as I'm sure you're aware (from rsr.org/genomes and cell.com)

Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects, we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How does that fit with your creationism, Bob...?

Perfectly. Whereas Darwinists use similarity to claim common ancestry when convenient, and when not convenient, they simply interpret even the most extraordinary similarity as convergent evolution.
Taking on all atheists over at rsr.org/atheists.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:01 pm
WWW
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:hwin, if the similarities between dinos and chickens required the existence of a common ancestor, then the extraordinary similarities in the whale and bat genetic sequences would require the existence of a common echolocating ancestor. Yet as I'm sure you're aware (from rsr.org/genomes and cell.com)

Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects, we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin.


I actually dissected that particular claim at length in the debate here. I even went so far to contact the author (quote in the debate) who agreed that her paper had been quoted out of context and misrepresented.

Bob, if you want to talk about echolocation, I am only too happy to school you on the subject.

For now, how about you stick to soft tissue?
"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
Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:13 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Before you run off for an undisclosed amount of time again, it would behoove you to answer this simple question:
...both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

hwin, if the similarities between dinos and chickens required the existence of a common ancestor, then the extraordinary similarities in the whale and bat genetic sequences would require the existence of a common echolocating ancestor. Yet as I'm sure you're aware (from rsr.org/genomes and cell.com)

Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects, we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin.


Does your ignorance know no bounds? I think I am just going to quote Inferno once again, since he dealt with this same argument from another creationist (as he already pointed out).

Inferno wrote:
Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins (2010) wrote:To test whether convergent changes in bat Prestin genes have also occurred in echolocating whales, we sequenced the entire gene in a range of echolocating toothed whales and non-echolocating baleen whales, as well as additional bats (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Data available on-line with this issue). Trees based on nucleotide alignments from this larger dataset strongly supported the accepted species tree topology, albeit with the clustering of echolocating bats reported earlier [3]. However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats (node posterior probability = 0.99 or 0.94 depending on the analysis), members of which emit Doppler-sensitive signals dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component [6] ( Figure 1A). Intriguingly, the addition of the sperm whale, which appears to echolocate at much lower frequencies [7], was seen to decrease support for this convergent signal, leading to the cetaceans and bats both forming monophyletic groups. The extent of sequence convergence between bats and whales was thus not sufficient to unite these clades when non-dolphin odontocetes were included in the analysis.


Do you understand your mistake, can we move on?

It's even more fun that you accuse me of not reading the article when you make a grave mistake:
However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats.


You quote the passage that disproves what you claim, yet you fail to register that. Reading comprehension fail if ever there was one.

Now as I said, you can have the same amino acid sequence even if the underlying genetic code is different (I even showed that using the BLASTed sequences) and you can have very similar amino acids forming basically identical proteins, which is what they found. Don't let the pop-science articles cloud your judgement on this.


It is as if all the creationists go to the same place to get the same arguments. One wonders when they will come up with something new. BobEnyart, I guess it is safe to assume that you also do not know the difference between proteins and DNA.

BobEnyart wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:How does that fit with your creationism, Bob...?

Perfectly. Whereas Darwinists use similarity to claim common ancestry when convenient, and when not convenient, they simply interpret even the most extraordinary similarity as convergent evolution.


Image



Thus, I must ask again:

Inferno wrote:As indeed it already has. As one of the articles Bob Enyart cites:

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.


How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!


I guess I will also just quote these questions again:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:However, you went on to miss the whole point Isotelus was making. That is these specimens are spectacularly preserved allowing harder materials, such as chitin, to preserve for long passed what would normally be expected for biological matter. So, to ask another question that will be ignored by BobEnyart, why are these spectacular examples of fossilization the exception and not the rule? Why is special preservation needed in order to have specimens like this?


BobEnyart, please stop gleaning my posts.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:37 pm
YIM WWW
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1190Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

BobEnyart wrote:Thanks for writing hwin. With all that info from Isotelus, can you now help me correct Rumraket and let him know that with these worms, the researchers are not reporting only imprints, but non-permineralized soft tissue. And regarding this:

I stand corrected, thanks to Isoletus for his corrections.

I was thrown off by my own misunderstanding of the term soft-tissue and only had access to the abstract of the paper, it seemed odd to me that anyone would consider chitin soft, since it isn't. But I guess that's just the professional terminology for you.

My mistake. Carry on. :oops:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:29 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1190Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

But I must repeat my question, because you have not attempted to answer it.

What scientific work have you done to rule out these hypothesis?

1. The Earth is really old and finding heavily degraded but not completely fossilized biological material simply means that there were better preserving conditions than previously thought.

2. The mechanisms stated by the authors who discovered these materials, as being responsible for preserving the materials for so long, are in fact capable of doing that.

How did you rule these out Bob?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:32 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests