Sort Tissue

[Open Heart]

First, let me say in advance that I am NOT a creationist, so I am not grinding any axe here. I want a genuine answer from my fellow evolutionists.

In the course of conversation on another thread in this forum, I came across an article where a University Scientist discovered a triceratops skeleton that also contained soft tissue. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ That's weird--you would think it would be toast. What is the explanation for this? Is it the unique makeup of the ground in which it is buried? Is it possible in the slightest that a few survived the mass extinction? Is there some natural preservative process going on?

Always open to new data...
Open Heart

 

[Willtor]

I don't know much about fossilization, or how soft tissue could last such a long time (there was another find, a couple of years ago, of a T-Rex with soft tissue, IIRC).

But as to the second question about a population of triceratops living very much longer than scientists think: There isn't any evidence of them having done so, but it's certainly possible. Bear in mind, though, at the time of the mass extinction, these are enormous animals with little food supply. In all likelihood, what has been found in the fossil record is, in fact, a record of their extinction.

 

[Papias]

The "soft" tissue topic has been around for awhile. The main point to remember is that preservation is not a constant rate "clock", but rather is a complex set of chemical reactions that depend on local conditions. If something resists decay for a long time, say 20 years, then there is a good chance it can withstand longer times, etc.

In the case of dinosaur "soft" tissue, this was recognized from the start as being consistent with an age of over 65 million years. The "soft" tissue was only "soft" after being chemically treated in the lab. It was called "soft" because "soft tissue" is a biological term to differentiate it from "hard tissue" - bone. So the discovery is simply material that isn't bone being preserved - that's not even the first time it's been seen. Later work determined the exact chemical mechanism, though that wasn't really needed anyway. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/

In the case you cited, a technician appears to have made up a bunch of public and unsupported claims, and the news media was gullible enough to report it.

None of this is evidence of a young age for any dinosaurs. The fact that this article is over a year old with no further discussion shows that this was recognized early on as another creationist fabricated "controversy".

It's also worth noting, from a Catholic stand point, that the most recent three popes have been quite clear that the deep time history found by science is "virtually certain", and is consistent with Catholicism.

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. I found more here by googling.

 

[Open Heart]

It's also worth noting, from a Catholic stand point, that the most recent three popes have been quite clear that the deep time history found by science is "virtually certain", and is consistent with Catholicism.

Oh, like I said, I accept evolution. No problem with there. Creationism is wrongheaded. I'm simply wondering what the scientific explanation is for the soft tissue finds. I should do some googling.

 

[Papias]

OK. I hope that iron- based article helped. Not sure you'll need much more googling after that.

Best-

Papias

 

[-57]

Open Heart, you're going to realize that the "Old Earther" don't have an answer.
If you're truly interested google iDINO project...or you can even click on this link.

The soft tissue evidence completely destroys the 65+ MY old earth time line. So for you to post "Creationism is wrongheaded" I think you might want to rethink your position. Your bible is correct. Adam was formed from the dirt then Eve from Adams rib. Jesus physically rose from the dead.

 

[-57]

OK. I hope that iron- based article helped. Not sure you'll need much more googling after that.

Best-

Papias

The "Iron Based" concept has been refuted.

Creation Research Quarterly Volume 51 Spring 2015 number 4

Analysis of Preservation Motifs

Schweitzer et al. (2013a, 2013b) have proposed numerous possible explana- tions for the survival of recovered colla- gen and other soft tissue materials found in T. rex and B. canadensis including for example molecular sheltering, hydro- phobic enrichment, iron-protein block- ing, cross-linking, etc. Undoubtedly all if not most of the proposals have some merit. However, in our view, the matter of these mechanisms explaining deep time survival has not been adequately supported either empirically or by literature review. We begin by merely pointing out that the Fenton chemistry hypothesis supported by the ostrich tis- sue preservation experiment over 2 years, using hemoglobin as a preservative is simply inadequate to extrapolate and infer stabilization over 68 million years. It is unknown if environmental factors like high-low temperature cycling or dehydration might radically alter the test specimens appearance. Is a tissue specimen soaked in blood kept in a laboratory an adequate experiment to model the environmental weathering of postmortem tissue? In this vein, it is again trivially pointed out that the visual inspection method of tissue analysis is woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions concerning a molecular mechanism of stabilization. The group has access to mass spectra evaluation which could have identified footprints of hydroxyl radical presence. As we shall see, a more careful analysis of the mass spectral data related to the particular peptides and sequences shows that some doubt, if not complete rejection, of several preservation motifs is war- ranted. The particular motif that intro- duces more problems than it purportedly solves concerns Fenton chemistry iron fixation of the peptides.

The proposal is essentially hydroxyl free-radical infiltration into soft tissue. The free radicals are generated by iron- biominerals with which the tissue is combined. Success of this mechanism depends upon deployment of the free radicals through an aqueous medium in contact with the polypeptide. We hold that “chemical fingerprints” of this activity should be registered upon the peptides themselves. For example, hydrolytically sensitive amino acids (asparagine, glutamine) should have degraded and free-radical sensitive com- pounds (tyrosine) should have reacted. These observations may seem like an unnecessary if not insignificant detail to observe but recall that the specimens have been in the ground for some 68 million years. If a chemical mechanism (Fenton chemistry or iron mediated hy-droxyl radical fixation) is to be believed, its entire consequent (fugitive water and hydroxyl radicals dosing the peptide remnants) ought to have occurred. Be- low we set out upon an inspection of two general ideas concerning the presence of water and hydroxyl free radicals and their potential signature upon peptide chemistry.

 

[Goatee]

Open Heart, you're going to realize that the "Old Earther" don't have an answer.
If you're truly interested google iDINO project...or you can even click on this link.

The soft tissue evidence completely destroys the 65+ MY old earth time line. So for you to post "Creationism is wrongheaded" I think you might want to rethink your position. Your bible is correct. Adam was formed from the dirt then Eve from Adams rib. Jesus physically rose from the dead.

True about Adam and Jesus. Wrong that the earth is 6,000 years old!

Look where your link is from? Lol

 

[-57]

True about Adam and Jesus. Wrong that the earth is 6,000 years old!

Look where your link is from? Lol

It's quite apparent that the soft tissue should not have survived in all of the many instances....this clearly means the geological timeline is in gross error.
....It's kinda like telling me the ice cube laying on the 95 deg sidewalk has been there for over a year and wasn't melted by the 95 deg heat.

 

[Goatee]

Lol on the source! Lol

 

[Smidlee]

The "Iron Based" concept has been refuted.

Notice the article didn't say the iron did preserved the soft tissue for millions of years but only it may have. All that article is attempting to do is give evolutionist a little hope they were not dead wrong all this time. Also note they wasn't look for soft tissue for a long time because of the evolution dogma that these creatures has to be millions of years old. Their belief in the principle of continuity had caused them to ignore the evidence.
It's the exact same thing Miller did a few years over the Muller Cells but later revealed the creationist was right all along.

There was an interview a while back where a Christian radio station (don't remember the city) offered Mary's team $20,000 plus the cost of the test if they tested the soft tissue (using independent sources) for C14. You can tell the man on the phone was totally uncomfortable with the idea of giving "creationists" ammunition that could destroy the evolution myth. Maybe he's afraid it would cost him his job. This is because evolution vs creation is not a scientific debate after all but a religious one.

 

[Papias]

The "Iron Based" concept......

Creation Research Quarterly Volume 51 Spring 2015 number 4

Analysis of Preservation Motifs

Your post doesn't refute the possibility of iron based preservation for at least three reasons.

1. Reading it, it's one long argument from incredulity fallacy. The unknown author's argument is that she or he personally doesn't believe it, with phrases like: "inadequate to extrapolate and infer ", "woefully inadequate", etc. instead of actual data.
2. With an anonymous author, a rational person has no reason to believe this person, even if they used real information. Does this person have any chemistry knowledge? A degree? Is it a high school student? No one knows.....
3. Without an online source, we can't even tell if this was actually in a creationist magazine (not that it would help the point anyway), or if -57 simply made it up.

Notice the article didn't say the iron did preserved the soft tissue for millions of years but only it may have. .

Because that's the way research papers are usually written. Of course we can't rule out other methods of preservation as well as the iron based one. After all, if 1, 2 or 3 different mechanisms were all operative, it would still be preserved.

There was an interview a while back where a Christian radio station (don't remember the city) offered Mary's team $20,000 plus the cost of the test if they tested the soft tissue (using independent sources) for C14.

Really? Source?

Do you have evidence that they actually got that information to Dr. Schweitzer? Do you have evidence that they actually said no?

Even if they did, one good reason is the fact that thousands of C-14 tests have been done on old samples and shown an old result. Doing another one is simply a waste of time, and worse, a waste of the scientifically important sample, since C-14 testing is destructive.

The rest of your post is empty creationist bluster and unsupported assertions. If you have anything to back any of it up, feel free to do so.

In Jesus' name-

 

[-57]

Papias, from you above response I would have to conclude that you can't demonstrate how the tissue survived for 65+ millions of years.

 

[Papias]

Papias, from you above response I would have to conclude that you can't demonstrate how the tissue survived for 65+ millions of years.

Being that I don't expect to live 65 million years, I can't demonstrate it by experiment. But of course, it was shown back in post #3 how it could have survived. [/thread]

 

[Percivale]

It's quite apparent that the soft tissue should not have survived in all of the many instances....this clearly means the geological timeline is in gross error.
....It's kinda like telling me the ice cube laying on the 95 deg sidewalk has been there for over a year and wasn't melted by the 95 deg heat.

Even if one doesn't have an explanation for this, there are so many other tests that show the earth is old, that it would be unreasonable to ignore all those and look only at this one. And besides, even if the dinosaur is young, that doesn't mean the earth is old. There are several instances of a species surviving since the mesozoic without leaving fossils--wollemi pine, coelacanth--if a few dinosaurs did too it wouldn't surprise me that much.

 

[Smidlee]

Even if one doesn't have an explanation for this, there are so many other tests that show the earth is old, that it would be unreasonable to ignore all those and look only at this one. And besides, even if the dinosaur is young, that doesn't mean the earth is old. There are several instances of a species surviving since the mesozoic without leaving fossils--wollemi pine, coelacanth--if a few dinosaurs did too it wouldn't surprise me that much.

That is the elements could be old. You are right that all fossils could be young but the elements that makes up the earth could be very old. This just goes against the principle of continuity which is the foundation evolution rest upon.

 

[Willtor]

That is the elements could be old. You are right that all fossils could be young but the elements that makes up the earth could be very old. This just goes against the principle of continuity which is the foundation evolution rest upon.

Oh, no. This is a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not a problem for a species to have lived much longer than we thought. It's the other direction that's a problem. If you have an organism that predates its evolutionary ancestors, that's disruptive.

 

[BobRyan]

First, let me say in advance that I am NOT a creationist, so I am not grinding any axe here. I want a genuine answer from my fellow evolutionists.

In the course of conversation on another thread in this forum, I came across an article where a University Scientist discovered a triceratops skeleton that also contained soft tissue. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ That's weird--you would think it would be toast. What is the explanation for this? Is it the unique makeup of the ground in which it is buried? Is it possible in the slightest that a few survived the mass extinction? Is there some natural preservative process going on?

Always open to new data...
Open Heart

There are "stories" upon "stories" in defense of blind faith evolutionism.

Othaniel Marsh told a great story about smooth transitional sequences in his horse evolution fraud - which got put on display at the Smithsonian and is still there today - now debunked as "a sequence that never happened in nature".

The same with Ernst Haeckles fraudulent presentation trying to prove that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -
now subject to world wide shame and disgrace.

The same with Osborn's fraudulent "Nebraska man" where it was his own team members that had warned against taking the tooth of the Pecary and foisting it on the public as that of "early man". And yet - Osborn "did it anyway" in support of the Scope's trial.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Open Heart]

Othaniel Marsh told a great story about smooth transitional sequences in his horse evolution fraud - which got put on display at the Smithsonian and is still there today - now debunked as "a sequence that never happened in nature".

No offense Bob, but I did make it clear in the OP that I only wanted responses from fellow evolutionists. Thanks anyhow.

 

[-57]

Being that I don't expect to live 65 million years, I can't demonstrate it by experiment. But of course, it was shown back in post #3 how it could have survived. [/thread]

So, that's your answer?
You do seem to have quite a faith in believing it's possible.
Concerning post 3....where? secondly I really don't care what the popes think.