Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

dad · #1 1st August 2009, 04:53 AM

Just read an article about how mass extinctions were not caused by comets/asteroids after all, at best smaller ones! The big impact on Jupiter illustrates the gravitational protection of the big planets over earth.

Also, now they say, that the dino intact protein fragments were real after all!!

"
Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

By Robert F. Service
ScienceNOW Daily News
31 July 2009
When scientists reported 2 years ago that they had discovered intact protein fragments from a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the skeptics pounced. They argued that one of the main lines of evidence, signatures of the protein fragments taken by mass spectrometry, was flawed. But now a reanalysis of that mass-spec data from an independent group of researchers backs up the original claim that dinosaur proteins have indeed survived the assault of time. In 2005, a team led by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh reported in Science that it had discovered an unusual T. rex fossil, in which some of the soft tissues, including blood vessels and other fibrous tissue, seemed to have been preserved. Two years later, Schweitzer teamed with mass-spec expert John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues to report that mass-spec studies identified seven peptide fragments that appeared to come from dinosaur collagen and that those sequences were closely related to analogous sequences from the chicken and other modern birds, as would be expected given the many lines of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs..."

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find -- Service 2009 (731): 1 -- ScienceNOW

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2009/731/1

Or, if dinos evolved from birds..! Question what you were taught, kids, the fables crumble into dust before our eyes.

plindboe · #2 1st August 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by dad

Or, if dinos evolved from birds..!

Here's the order of appearance in the fossil record:

1.Non-avian dinosaurs (~230 mya)
2.Primitive birds, with many non-avian dinosaur features (~150 mya)
3.Modern birds (~60 mya)

Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by dad

Question what you were taught

But of course. I suggest you do the same.

Originally Posted by dad

, kids, the fables crumble into dust before our eyes.

They do? I thought it was well known that there are differing opinions regarding whether an asteroid snuffed the majority of the dinosaurs, though the asteroid hypothesis has gained alot of support after the discovery of the Chicxulub crater.

The hypothesis that the big planets work as shields also has alot of support, but no one in their right mind believes that all asteroids are swallowed up by them.

I'm not sure what made you react to the dino study. Is it because it mentions skeptics that seem to have been shown wrong? Of course there are skeptics, and skeptics are proven wrong (or right) all the time in science. That's how science works and progresses. Scientists question constantly, which only inspire additional research. Without skepticism, there would be no science and no progress.

Peter

plindboe · #3 1st August 2009, 09:03 AM

Btw, it might help if you had a link to the asteroid article. It would also be a good idea to explain the basis for your claim "Extinctions not asteroid after all". Surely you haven't reached such a definite conclusion based on nothing more than some random article you once read.

Peter

uke2se · #4 1st August 2009, 09:43 AM

I don't get it. Months and months of no evidence, and suddenly Dad posts a scientific article. This should be good, right? This should finally back up something that Dad likes to assert... right? Right?

No, despite more wild assertion from Dad, the article does not back it up, and instead goes on to claim the exact opposite of what Dad wants it to claim.

What a sad let-down.

gaara4158 · #5 1st August 2009, 09:54 AM

Dad, I don't think this article says what you think it says...

dad · #6 1st August 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by plindboe

Btw, it might help if you had a link to the asteroid article. It would also be a good idea to explain the basis for your claim "Extinctions not asteroid after all". Surely you haven't reached such a definite conclusion based on nothing more than some random article you once read.

Peter

OK, here is one. It was science news of the day. As always, years after being taught fables, we find out they didn't actually know what they were talking about after all. Surprise.

I never swallowed that particular story anyhow, so it doesn't pop my balloon. Life was created. Imaging ways it may have been wafted onto the planet from somewhere else is a waste of time.

dad · #7 1st August 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

I don't get it. Months and months of no evidence, and suddenly Dad posts a scientific article. This should be good, right? This should finally back up something that Dad likes to assert... right? Right?

No, despite more wild assertion from Dad, the article does not back it up, and instead goes on to claim the exact opposite of what Dad wants it to claim.

What a sad let-down.

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

From the OP article, it sure seems to rethink the extinction claim. How nice.

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

BananaSlug · #8 1st August 2009, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by dad

OK, here is one. It was science news of the day. As always, years after being taught fables, we find out they didn't actually know what they were talking about after all. Surprise.

They are still right but the asteroid was only part of the story.

I never swallowed that particular story anyhow, so it doesn't pop my balloon. Life was created. Imaging ways it may have been wafted onto the planet from somewhere else is a waste of time.

I've never been a big fan of the "magic bullet" scenario. It was probably several factors that led to the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and the asteroid probably had a big part but wasn't the sole cause. Most of the evos here would probably agree...

gaara4158 · #9 1st August 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by dad

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

From the OP article, it sure seems to rethink the extinction claim. How nice.

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of a hypothesis. Everything is either a dogmatic claim or a wild guess with you. In science... oh god, why am I even bothering? The asteroid hypothesis was never regarded as the final answer by science... it was more of a pop culture thing perpetuated by movies and tv shows. It's important to note the difference between popular belief and actual science.

uke2se · #10 1st August 2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by dad

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

We've known this for a number of years. Fossilisation does not completely destroy soft tissue, so you can still drill into a bone and find soft tissue in the marrow. It's quite remarkable, but it does nothing to disprove the fact that dinosaurs went exint about 65 million years ago.

Originally Posted by dad

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

Yes, this is true. The thing is, noone has seriously entertained the idea that a comet caused the mass extinction event, except for creationists such as Kent Hovind.

There is a difference between comets and asteroids, you know.