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 1 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Author Message
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Dinosaur Soft Tissue

So it's that time of the week again (sorry I missed a week or two). I've been hit with the creation claim of the week. I don't expect anyone to watch this hour long video but here it is for your perusal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm180LnRF18

It is a church sermon where Kyle Butt (from apologetics press) talks about why dinosaurs lived with humans. His actual part is more like 35 mins or so centering around the find of Mary Schweitzer (and he claims others). He also points to cave art to prove his point that humans and dinos were together. I'm more interested in the dino bones. What can you guys tell me about this and is there any merit to the claim that the bones couldn't be millions of years old? I don't mean to be lazy but the internet is full of crap and I trust you guys to point me in the right direction rather than spending hours looking at bad link after bad link.

Thanks!
"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
Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:01 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3346Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Here and here are excellent rebuttals AronRa gave to BobEnyart during their debate when BobEnyart brought up the soft tissue issue. There were several good responses given in the peanut gallery of that debate as well, but you will have to sift through that on your own. You can also type "soft tissue" on this forums search and see what you find.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:43 am
YIM WWW
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

If there are any specific claims made that weren't addressed, feel free to ask.
"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 Nov 03, 2014 10:02 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Creationist arguments around dinosaur soft tissues essentially come down to two assertions:
- radiometric dating is unreliable
- previous ideas about the maximum possible lifetime of certain structures under fossilization were absolutely correct and can't possibly be revised based on new information.

It's another variety of the "science I like is unassailable but science I don't like is wrong" argument.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:07 pm
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

I'll see what I can remember here but I won't subject myself to watching that again...

He was basically saying that science has been lying to us about humans and dinos. Specifically that science says there's no way they lived together. His argument is that they did in fact live together unlike what you are taught in school.

He clarified that a day is a day is a day. So the Bible is literally talking about a day when it says a day and there is no way for you to shoe horn evolution into the Bible by changing time frames. He was quite adamant that birds could not have evolved from dinos because they were CREATED the day before land dwelling animals. I think he repeated that two or three times.

He then went into the findings we're discussing. Saying that because there was soft tissue there's no way it is millions of years old. That what is inside the fossils is leftover tissue from the dino. Red blood cells and other stretchy stuff.

He made a claim I consider hearsay about calling up the research team and asking them about finding black carbon. If they did or didn't why didn't they test it? I probably should have paid closer attention but when someone starts a story with a buddy of mine called so and so..... I discounted what he said and don't feel like I need to address it.

At that point he tries to tie in the current bone findings with cave drawings at the Natural Bridge from the anasazi indians that look like a dino. He points to the finding of bones that match the same type dino about 45 miles away. He followed that up with another temple carving in Cambodia at the Prohm Temple.

That was the end of his info. The rest was about children pretty much. Making sure to get them while they are young and brain wash them so they won't believe what their teachers tell them. Be sure to get them some of our books on your way out.


The person I'm talking with is now trying to push the point about them not being date tested? Were they? If not why not?
"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
Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:01 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Collecmail wrote:He was basically saying that science has been lying to us about humans and dinos. Specifically that science says there's no way they lived together. His argument is that they did in fact live together unlike what you are taught in school.


Apparently, your conversation partner got his education from kids TV shows.

Image

In the real world, dinosaurs died out* roughly 65mya while humans have been around for no more than 200,000 years.

*That's non-avian dinosaurs, of course. Modern birds are the grand-children of the dinosaurs we know, in fact birds are dinosaurs. If you want to be absolutely technically correct, then humans and dinosaurs do live together... but not as in "big giant animals that could eat you" and humans.

Collecmail wrote:He clarified that a day is a day is a day. So the Bible is literally talking about a day when it says a day and there is no way for you to shoe horn evolution into the Bible by changing time frames. He was quite adamant that birds could not have evolved from dinos because they were CREATED the day before land dwelling animals. I think he repeated that two or three times.


Well, that's wrong then. I'm currently trying to find time to write a blog post on that, so if you want to wait a few months...

Collecmail wrote:He then went into the findings we're discussing. Saying that because there was soft tissue there's no way it is millions of years old. That what is inside the fossils is leftover tissue from the dino. Red blood cells and other stretchy stuff.


Only after it was treated, yeah. Also, I remember the scales being a few mm or even nm... Hardly a good T-Rex T-bone steak...

Collecmail wrote:He made a claim I consider hearsay about calling up the research team and asking them about finding black carbon. If they did or didn't why didn't they test it? I probably should have paid closer attention but when someone starts a story with a buddy of mine called so and so..... I discounted what he said and don't feel like I need to address it.


Never heard that, it sounds completely made up. Also, there's no carbon to date after 65million years.

Collecmail wrote:At that point he tries to tie in the current bone findings with cave drawings at the Natural Bridge from the anasazi indians that look like a dino. He points to the finding of bones that match the same type dino about 45 miles away. He followed that up with another temple carving in Cambodia at the Prohm Temple.


The Cambodia-drawings Aron dealt with in one of his videos, it looks remarkably like a pig and nothing like the stegosaurus people imagine it to be.
The other one I have never heard of.

Collecmail wrote:The person I'm talking with is now trying to push the point about them not being date tested? Were they? If not why not?


No. At least, they weren't carbon dated. Creationists are obsessed with carbon dating stuff that has no FU*KING carbon in it! That's the problem with creationists: They have no idea about how science works, so they'll spew out nonsense and hope nobody will notice.

Also, here's potholer54's video:
Soft tissue debunked
"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 Nov 03, 2014 8:33 pm
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

It's the YesYouNeedJesus/Bob Enyart approach again. http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9321

Kyle Butt is just a Duffy clone.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:23 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2392Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Inferno wrote:Creationists are obsessed with carbon dating stuff that has no FU*KING carbon in it!


I always liked Potholer, but he's wrong in that particular video, because you'd expect to find carbon in most fossils. Here's a palaeobotanist talking about it elsewhere:

susu.exp wrote:Of all the possible responses this is one of the most silly. A lot of fossils, if not most, contain carbon. Most of the limestone on earth consists of the fossils of calceous nonoplancton and is entirely CaCO3, there are large reef deposits again consisting mostly of Claciumcarbonate. Then there are coal deposits - containing large numbers of fossil plants that (depending on the degree they´ve been subject to pressure and heat) can be almost pure graphite (elementary carbon). Carbon almost certainly makes it to the top 4 elements fossils consist of (next to Calcium, Oxygen and Silicium). The stable isotopes of carbon C12 and C13 found in fossils are very important for paleoclimate studies, using common fossils awith overlapping ranges allows to control for the possibility that some organisms don´t build their shells from an unbiased sample of carbon from the air/ocean.
C14 is absent in most fossils, because it´s short half life means that after half a million years at the latest it´s usually gone completely. However, we call the remains of an organism fossil if it´s been dead for at least 10ka. That´s less than two half lifes of C14 and young fossils can be C14 dated (in fact, that´s young fossils that provide the callibration - INTCAL09 goes back 50ka and is based on for instance tree ring samples and coral cores).

Maybe you confuse this with the general lack of organic substances in fossils. But remember organis substances are all chemical substances that include carbon, unless it´s CO2, CO32- or elementary - the later two are very common in fossils...



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... ml#p715156
Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:46 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Fair enough, both Potholer and I should have made that more clear: There is insufficient C14 in fossils older than 50,000 years to properly date them. Dinosaur fossils are 65my+ old, so there's no FU*KING carbon (by which I mean C14) in them.
"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 Nov 03, 2014 11:13 pm
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Here is what he says now:

So they found this organic material but there was nothing to test to determine the age or did they decide to not test the age of the material in question? If not, why not? They just found material that contradicts every conclusion of standard dating methods but they only investigated from the previously established conclusions based on experimentation in which they sought to conclude a hypothesis that simply doesn't fit what we know. There are a lot fewer hoops to jump through to believe we walked with dinos.
"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
Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:40 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3346Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Collecemall wrote:Here is what he says now:

So they found this organic material but there was nothing to test to determine the age or did they decide to not test the age of the material in question? If not, why not? They just found material that contradicts every conclusion of standard dating methods but they only investigated from the previously established conclusions based on experimentation in which they sought to conclude a hypothesis that simply doesn't fit what we know. There are a lot fewer hoops to jump through to believe we walked with dinos.


To be perfectly honest, you can nip this in the bud by just asking your opponent to cite a proper source for his claim. This is an extraordinary claim, thus needs extraordinary evidence. That means a YouTube video featuring some preacher does not count. That also does not mean quotes from scientists. That means actual peer-reviewed articles talking about exactly what he is claiming.

I also want this to be perfectly clear, some organic material was discovered in some fossils, but none of that can be considered blood cells.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:07 am
YIM WWW
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

I didn't really think she would reply but I emailed Mary Schweitzer. Not only did she reply she did so within mins. So a big thank you to her. Following is what I asked and her reply.

Collecemall wrote:I have friends trying to say that your finding of soft tissues in T Rex fossils means they can't be millions of years old. Is there a reason you can't or don't do carbon/radiometric testing on these?


Mary Schwitzer wrote:your friends are wrong. Here is something i wrote to someone with similar comments about our work...and its implications:

First we had to show that those tissues were original to the dinosaur, and not some contaminant. I believe that our research and data DO show that. So, IF you have original soft tissues, you have at least two alternatives. Given that "everyone" assumes organics can't last for 65 million years, either 1. dinos are not as old as we think or 2. we don't understand how organic remains like bones, cells, or proteins, enter and become part of the rock record. IF the only data we had were our soft tissues and 'conventional wisdom', both of these would be equally viable. However, these are NOT the only data we have. Data from astronomy, astrophysics, geology, molecular biology, morphology, physics, sedimentology, geochemistry, etc., ALL state that the world is really old, and dinosaurs fit late in earth history. Moreover, all data from all these disciplines say essentially the same thing, that the universe is about 16 BILLION years old, our earth is about 4.6 Billion years old. Using the tools of science that are well tested and long-established, which have withstood many challenges, the dinosaurs that we have extensively analyzed can be places at ~67 and ~80 million years, respectively. I am perfectly ok with that. So,.that leaves the alternative hypothesis, that we don't understand how organic materials interact with their environments to persist for millions of years. And that is the direction we have taken in our labs. The goal of science SHOULD be to disprove, not to prove. If you have alternative hypotheses, you work to disprove them. The one left standing is the one you go with til more data come along.

w/r/t radiometric dating, there are a lot of problems with the methods. 14C, the most common method, is notoriously inaccurate as you approach the limits of its viability. but, we HAVE used this method on our material, and no detectable 14C was found, to the best recollection i have.

that means that it is older than the limits of that method.
"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
Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:35 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Interesting, I didn't know they had actually tried to C14-date it. Normally they wouldn't have bothered, I guess they caved in to creationist enquiries. With predictable results.
"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
Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:04 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1178Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Collecemall wrote:Here is what he says now:

So they found this organic material but there was nothing to test to determine the age or did they decide to not test the age of the material in question? If not, why not? They just found material that contradicts every conclusion of standard dating methods

Except that it only POTENTIALLY contradicts it.

There's another hypothesis that needs reevaluation in light of this finding:
Is it true that organic tissue cannot possible survive, albeit into some extremely degraded form, for tens of millions of years under no circumstances?

It seems quite a lot more likely, just on the face of it, that organic tissue can indeed, under some very special circumstances, survive for a very long time without degrading completely.

The people jumping to conclusions (omg all dating methods ever are wrong) are not properly considering the implications of this. Old materials have implications for multiple hypotheses, falsifying one does not entail failsifying another. They're not mutually contradictory.

Curious how this question is never pondered in any creationist source. Hey, could we be wrong about how long these things can survive in rare cases with the right conditions?

No, that question simply doesn't exist in their minds. It's straight to "all of history is wrong". Therefore magic talking snakes etc.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:59 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2392Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Inferno wrote:Interesting, I didn't know they had actually tried to C14-date it. Normally they wouldn't have bothered, I guess they caved in to creationist enquiries. With predictable results.


I'm not sure that's true. In this instance, finding soft tissue, the first thing you think of is that it can't be that old, because that contradicts what we think we know about preservation of soft tissue, so the first thing to do is to rule out a young age, to ensure that you really have got something interesting. 14C would have been first on my list of tests in such a scenario.

I don't think this was motivated by anything other than ensuring that all the boxes were ticked, like any good scientist should do when faced with anomalous material.
Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:00 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1178Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

hackenslash wrote:
Inferno wrote:Interesting, I didn't know they had actually tried to C14-date it. Normally they wouldn't have bothered, I guess they caved in to creationist enquiries. With predictable results.


I'm not sure that's true. In this instance, finding soft tissue, the first thing you think of is that it can't be that old, because that contradicts what we think we know about preservation of soft tissue, so the first thing to do is to rule out a young age, to ensure that you really have got something interesting. 14C would have been first on my list of tests in such a scenario.

I don't think this was motivated by anything other than ensuring that all the boxes were ticked, like any good scientist should do when faced with anomalous material.

I read the paper (or at least one of them) where they carbon tested the material. They didn't do it to see if they could "date" it using carbon dating, they carbon tested to see if the carbon date they got was a date consistent with contamination from an extant source. If the carbon date had been "1950 or sooner" (or something like this), it would have told them that the organic material was most probably from contamination.

The "date" they got was something on the order of 28.000 years or more, which rules out the hypothesis that all of the organic material is from the present (a researcher spilling chicken soup into the sample or w/e). That doesn't mean the material is 28.000 years old of course, because it could easily be older (as the limit for 14C dating is around 50-70 kyr) but have subsequently been contaminated by modern 14C sources - giving it the appearance of a slightly younger date.

If a creationist accepts the 28.000 year value as the true date of the bone(because the idiot doesn't understand the above points), it's still 5 times older than they think the entire fucking universe is. Either way, they lose.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:10 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1178Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Collecemall wrote:I didn't really think she would reply but I emailed Mary Schweitzer. Not only did she reply she did so within mins. So a big thank you to her. Following is what I asked and her reply.

Collecemall wrote:I have friends trying to say that your finding of soft tissues in T Rex fossils means they can't be millions of years old. Is there a reason you can't or don't do carbon/radiometric testing on these?


Mary Schwitzer wrote:your friends are wrong. Here is something i wrote to someone with similar comments about our work...and its implications:

First we had to show that those tissues were original to the dinosaur, and not some contaminant. I believe that our research and data DO show that. So, IF you have original soft tissues, you have at least two alternatives. Given that "everyone" assumes organics can't last for 65 million years, either 1. dinos are not as old as we think or 2. we don't understand how organic remains like bones, cells, or proteins, enter and become part of the rock record. IF the only data we had were our soft tissues and 'conventional wisdom', both of these would be equally viable. However, these are NOT the only data we have. Data from astronomy, astrophysics, geology, molecular biology, morphology, physics, sedimentology, geochemistry, etc., ALL state that the world is really old, and dinosaurs fit late in earth history. Moreover, all data from all these disciplines say essentially the same thing, that the universe is about 16 BILLION years old, our earth is about 4.6 Billion years old. Using the tools of science that are well tested and long-established, which have withstood many challenges, the dinosaurs that we have extensively analyzed can be places at ~67 and ~80 million years, respectively. I am perfectly ok with that. So,.that leaves the alternative hypothesis, that we don't understand how organic materials interact with their environments to persist for millions of years. And that is the direction we have taken in our labs. The goal of science SHOULD be to disprove, not to prove. If you have alternative hypotheses, you work to disprove them. The one left standing is the one you go with til more data come along.

w/r/t radiometric dating, there are a lot of problems with the methods. 14C, the most common method, is notoriously inaccurate as you approach the limits of its viability. but, we HAVE used this method on our material, and no detectable 14C was found, to the best recollection i have.

that means that it is older than the limits of that method.

Oh, didn't spot this before, this supports everything I said. :lol:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:17 pm
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

I think the part that tickles me most is a creationist asking for carbon dating. I guess when science is convenient they don't mind using it?

Thanks to everyone for their replies. I'm going to guess as per usual this ends our conversation with my friend.
"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
Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:08 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

There's more to add onto this. If we consider that the structures found in T.rex are totally unambiguously blood cells, vessels, proteins, etc., the fact remains that in all cases they are essentially identical to those of modern birds, particularly the ostrich and chicken. This means you have multiple lines of evidence independently verifying the close relationship between birds and dinosaurs, which is bad news for your friend regardless of the nature of the material in question.

Equally important, it was only a matter of time until scientists starting publishing on how it is possible for soft tissues to be preserved over long periods of time. Open access, a la Mary Schweitzer and co: A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time

Ergo, not only are we finding soft tissue can preserve to a certain degree over long periods of time, but we're beginning to look into and understand how. If it wasn't game over for your friend before, it certainly is now.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:17 pm
CollecemallPosts: 352Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

I also found this if anyone else is interested: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... Challenges


They have the paper Isotelus posted as well.
"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
Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:35 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
 [ 145 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AronRa and 7 guests