Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine?!

[joinfree]

Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine! Death of Darwinism? So the Biblical Science of Creation is not pseudoscience, because it has at least one (not detracted yet - surprise!) peer-review article: Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B (2007), 274: 183-197.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

Will I mumble to you that at least the cells in the dinosaur were alive, but the brain didn't work ?!

 

[Legroom]

This is my first day here and that's bizarre! Caught my attention! Is the Royal Society creationist or scientist?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's... no, that's not a living dinosaur by any stretch and it's also not what you're trying to make it out to be.
Also, the people who dug it up weren't Creationists.

 

[PloverWing]

1) I only read the abstract, not the whole paper, but I'm not seeing where the paper said the dinosaur was alive, or that some of its individual cells were alive.

2) How does the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remains help to establish Young Earth Creationism?

 

[46AND2]

Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine! Death of Darwinism? So the Biblical Science of Creation is not pseudoscience, because it has at least one (not detracted yet - surprise!) peer-review article: Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B (2007), 274: 183-197.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

Will I mumble to you that at least the cells in the dinosaur were alive, but the brain didn't work ?!

Not creationists.
Not, in any way, alive.

You should apply for a position at Fox News. You'd fit right in.

 

[lasthero]

Without even looking at the first post, I’m going to guess it’s about the Schweitzer find.

*looks*

Yup.

Old, old news.

 

[lasthero]

1) I only read the abstract, not the whole paper, but I'm not seeing where the paper said the dinosaur was alive, or that some of its individual cells were alive.

2) How does the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remains help to establish Young Earth Creationism?

The usual implication from creationists is that it’s impossible for the cells to have survived millions of years, therefore dinosaurs can’t be millions of years old.

The scientific community - including the people who wrote this paper and made the find - disagree.

It’s worth noting that the vast majority of dinosaur fossils don’t have soft tissue in them. The more natural thing would be to question what’s different about these particular fossils, and the article - if you actually bother to read it - goes into that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Was it a turkey? Like this thread?

 

[PloverWing]

The usual implication from creationists is that it’s impossible for the cells to have survived millions of years, therefore dinosaurs can’t be millions of years old.

Thanks. I wouldn't have made that connection. The paper's authors, as you note, seem to be taking for granted the conventional scientific time scale.

It’s worth noting that the vast majority of dinosaur fossils don’t have soft tissue in them. The more natural thing would be to question what’s different about these particular fossils, and the article - if you actually bother to read it - goes into that.

In my case, it's not so much a matter of not bothering to read it, but rather being aware that this paper is way outside my area of expertise, so I'm not able to understand their research in any depth. I gather, though, that the remains of this particular T.Rex have unusual components, and I'm glad there is investigation into how this came about and what we can learn from these components.

 

[46AND2]

Thanks. I wouldn't have made that connection. The paper's authors, as you note, seem to be taking for granted the conventional scientific time scale.

That's because the "conventional scientific time scale" is based on massive amounts of measured data. The earth is billions of years old, just as surely as a typical large truck weighs thousands of pounds.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Part of the misunderstandings of this nature are due to a common misconception that a 'fossil' means all original materials have been replaced with rock minerals. However, once you understand that many fossils are actually original material, it becomes less of a problem. Although the preservation of very degradable material like proteins is very rare, it isn't impossible over geological time.

Some common examples of original material preservation are teeth and pollen. A rarer example would be the aragonite of some trilobite shells, some of which are over half a billion years old. Aragonite is a relatively unstable mineral that usually breaks down and dissolves in water not long after death.

 

[PloverWing]

That's because the "conventional scientific time scale" is based on massive amounts of measured data. The earth is billions of years old, just as surely as a typical large truck weighs thousands of pounds.

Um, yes, of course...
What, do you think I disagree with you?

 

[juvenissun]

The usual implication from creationists is that it’s impossible for the cells to have survived millions of years, therefore dinosaurs can’t be millions of years old.

What is wrong with this implication?

 

[lasthero]

What is wrong with this implication?

It makes the incorrect assumption that it’s impossible for cells to survive that long.

 

[USincognito]

Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine! Death of Darwinism? So the Biblical Science of Creation is not pseudoscience, because it has at least one (not detracted yet - surprise!) peer-review article: Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B (2007), 274: 183-197.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

Will I mumble to you that at least the cells in the dinosaur were alive, but the brain didn't work ?!

With the exception of the citation, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[USincognito]

Part of the misunderstandings of this nature are due to a common misconception that a 'fossil' means all original materials have been replaced with rock minerals. However, once you understand that many fossils are actually original material, it becomes less of a problem. Although the preservation of very degradable material like proteins is very rare, it isn't impossible over geological time.

Some common examples of original material preservation are teeth and pollen. A rarer example would be the aragonite of some trilobite shells, some of which are over half a billion years old. Aragonite is a relatively unstable mineral that usually breaks down and dissolves in water not long after death.

Also worth pointing out that most people think that body fossils are the only thing that is a fossil. They're not aware of the extensive trace fossil record.

 

[Speedwell]

What is wrong with this implication?

It also makes the assumption that the possibility of such a late survival of dinosaurs somehow invalidates the geology of an old Earth.

 

[lasthero]

It also makes the assumption that the possibility of such a late survival of dinosaurs somehow invalidates the geology of an old Earth.

I’ve never understood the creationist obsession with trying to prove dinosaurs lived with humans. Ultimately, all it would mean is that a species we thought was dead didn’t die. It wouldn’t even be the first time that’s happened.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Was it a turkey? Like this thread?

No, not a turkey. But interestingly, the structure of the collagen most closely resembled that of modern Ostrich's!

 

[joinfree]

It wouldn’t even be the first time that’s happened.

But the survival of other things over alleged "Billions of years" is clear sign of correctness of YE Creationism.