Amino Acids/DNA in Dino bone

[Jim Larmore]

This has probably already been hashed over here but not since I've been here to my knowledge. My contention is that amino acids from dinosaur bone is evidence that the bone could not be millions of years old. Could anyone show a viable mechanism or modality that would allow amino acid or DNA to exist that long?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[IndyPirate]

This has probably already been hashed over here but not since I've been here to my knowledge. My contention is that amino acids from dinosaur bone is evidence that the bone could not be millions of years old. Could anyone show a viable mechanism or modality that would allow amino acid or DNA to exist that long?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Do you have a link from somewhere showing that amino acids/DNA have been found in fossils? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to know more about it.

 

[Jim Larmore]

Do you have a link from somewhere showing that amino acids/DNA have been found in fossils? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to know more about it.

I can't post links because since the software update I had to re-register and I don't have enough posts yet to put up links yet, ( it takes 50 posts to do that ). I suggest you google "dinosaur DNA/amino acids." That will pop up several articles on this. One of the most prestigious ones is a research team from Loma Linda University in California. Also, I just read an article on this from AIG where they show some pictures of the tissue on this. The ones who discovered this said the bones had a rotted flesh smell like docomposition. Some of the pictures show red flesh that was elastic in nature just like any flesh would be.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

I can't post links because since the software update I had to re-register and I don't have enough posts yet to put up links yet, ( it takes 50 posts to do that ). I suggest you google "dinosaur DNA/amino acids." That will pop up several articles on this. One of the most prestigious ones is a research team from Loma Linda University in California. Also, I just read an article on this from AIG where they show some pictures of the tissue on this. The ones who discovered this said the bones had a rotted flesh smell like docomposition. Some of the pictures show red flesh that was elastic in nature just like any flesh would be.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5050454&highlight=rex+blood

 

[Mallon]

Does the absence of amino acids in fossil bone indicate that the bone IS actually millions of years old, Jim?

Could anyone show a viable mechanism or modality that would allow amino acid or DNA to exist that long?

Uncontaminated cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer.

 

[Jim Larmore]

Does the absence of amino acids in fossil bone indicate that the bone IS actually millions of years old, Jim?

I know you would think so because you are married to the mainstream paradigm. However, after this find I think it's obvious that , even though rare, amino acids and DNA in bone clearly supports a much much much later formation for these fossils. When they uncovered this find they could actually smell decomp or the smell of death.

Uncontaminated cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer.

Good mechanism but you missed the modality or way for this to happen. Obviously, if a cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer wouldn't stop the transfer of minerals to calcify or fossilize the bone in normal conditions that produce fossils. Then that same mechanism could not or would not protect the amino acids and DNA in this case. The fact that we found these evidences here tells us at least two things.

1. Other fossils of the same species could not have been formed millions of years ago because amino acids and DNA found in these cases could not have survived that long.

2. Fossilization does not always follow rapid burial. In this case the bone was actually still real bone with red elastic tissue on the inside.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

I know you would think so because you are married to the mainstream paradigm. However, after this find I think it's obvious that , even though rare, amino acids and DNA in bone clearly supports a much much much later formation for these fossils. When they uncovered this find they could actually smell decomp or the smell of death.



Good mechanism but you missed the modality or way for this to happen. Obviously, if a cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer wouldn't stop the transfer of minerals to calcify or fossilize the bone in normal conditions that produce fossils. Then that same mechanism could not or would not protect the amino acids and DNA in this case. The fact that we found these evidences here tells us at least two things.

1. Other fossils of the same species could not have been formed millions of years ago because amino acids and DNA found in these cases could not have survived that long.

2. Fossilization does not always follow rapid burial. In this case the bone was actually still real bone with red elastic tissue on the inside.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim,

I understand why it is a longshot for this stuff to have survived so long. But, we all know that someone will come up with a theory for million year old dna/protein because they have to come up with a theory in order to sleep at night. Not that I dont support the creative thinking that suggests a way for this to be possible (ie, very old surviving dna/protein). However, it has to be a two way street in this. Dino blood and soft tissue must be considered as evidence for a relatively fresh kill. But, if that is not even on the table, why waste time even discussing the issue with the opposition?

When the discussion first came up, the paleontologist who discovered it was very put off by the fact that creationists were using her find to support their case. Every indication from the article I saw was that in her mind it was not a two way street. Some comments here suggested that no one had the right of anyone to even use her work for the fresh dino-kill/young earth position. The latter position is frivolous.

The discussion will not move forward by saying that dino meat "cant" be millions of years old. (And yes, I understand that there are shades of gray in terms of what is meat and what isnt.) I dont think you can tell a TE that it cant be that old.

By the same token, what this find does do is present a test for the TE. Are you going to say that a fresh kill is out of the quesiton? Lets consider index fossils. "Oh, look dino meat. That is an index fossil. The surrounding rock must be 3,000 years old (or whatever.)" However, usually the index fossil thing is not a two way street. Hopefully someone will say that, as an evolutionist, they are willing to accept that there is a possibility that this was a very recent dino kill.

 

[atomweaver]

'K, gents... Reality time; they found a few-odd incomplete protein sequences of collagen (something that has been found preserved in fossils before, just not as old) in one T-Rex fossil, found buried within hundreds of cubic feet of sandstone, rock that is about 68 million years old... Fresh kill? Dino Blood? DNA? Stop making things up/adding what isn't there.

http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html

Or better yet, go to a library and read the original;

Science 13 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 280 - 285
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137614

Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry

John M. Asara,1,2* Mary H. Schweitzer,3 Lisa M. Freimark,1 Matthew Phillips,1 Lewis C. Cantley1,4



Seriously, sometimes its like "The Telephone Game" when you guys talk science...

 

[Mallon]

I know you would think so because you are married to the mainstream paradigm. However, after this find I think it's obvious that , even though rare, amino acids and DNA in bone clearly supports a much much much later formation for these fossils. When they uncovered this find they could actually smell decomp or the smell of death.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again: Does the absence of amino acids in fossil bone indicate that the bone IS actually millions of years old?
I ask because it strikes me that neocreationists are completely unwilling to propose any scenario that might discount a young earth, lest their position becomes falsified.

Good mechanism but you missed the modality or way for this to happen.

Mineralization, which happens from the outside in (replacement).

2. Fossilization does not always follow rapid burial. In this case the bone was actually still real bone with red elastic tissue on the inside.

I hope you'll read the links atomweaver posted. The story isn't quite as fantastic as you've made it out to be. The fossil had to be demineralized first (read: the bone marrow was hard as rock until the minerals were removed).

 

[Jim Larmore]

Jim,

I understand why it is a longshot for this stuff to have survived so long. But, we all know that someone will come up with a theory for million year old dna/protein because they have to come up with a theory in order to sleep at night. Not that I dont support the creative thinking that suggests a way for this to be possible (ie, very old surviving dna/protein). However, it has to be a two way street in this. Dino blood and soft tissue must be considered as evidence for a relatively fresh kill. But, if that is not even on the table, why waste time even discussing the issue with the opposition?

When the discussion first came up, the paleontologist who discovered it was very put off by the fact that creationists were using her find to support their case. Every indication from the article I saw was that in her mind it was not a two way street. Some comments here suggested that no one had the right of anyone to even use her work for the fresh dino-kill/young earth position. The latter position is frivolous.

The discussion will not move forward by saying that dino meat "cant" be millions of years old. (And yes, I understand that there are shades of gray in terms of what is meat and what isnt.) I dont think you can tell a TE that it cant be that old.

By the same token, what this find does do is present a test for the TE. Are you going to say that a fresh kill is out of the quesiton? Lets consider index fossils. "Oh, look dino meat. That is an index fossil. The surrounding rock must be 3,000 years old (or whatever.)" However, usually the index fossil thing is not a two way street. Hopefully someone will say that, as an evolutionist, they are willing to accept that there is a possibility that this was a very recent dino kill.

THis is the first time I have seen you bend even slightly from the mainstream paradigm. I'm actually proud of your thinking on this because it shows a lot of honesty. However, here is the problem with dealing with a two way street so to speak. You either walk on one side of it or the other and standing in the middle of it can get you run over by either side. IOW, admitting a freshly killed T Rex means a few things.

1. That they somehow survived the extinction event your guys say happened some odd millions of years ago when all of the other dinos went belly up.

2. Or all T Rex's , fossilized and otherwise are a product of a recent rapid burial in the global flood and are not the product of millions of years of evolution at all.

Sorry about putting things in a numbered sequence like this. It's kind of an engineer thing.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

'K, gents... Reality time; they found a few-odd incomplete protein sequences of collagen (something that has been found preserved in fossils before, just not as old) in one T-Rex fossil, found buried within hundreds of cubic feet of sandstone, rock that is about 68 million years old... Fresh kill? Dino Blood? DNA? Stop making things up/adding what isn't there.

http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html

Or better yet, go to a library and read the original;

Science 13 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 280 - 285
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137614

Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry

John M. Asara,1,2* Mary H. Schweitzer,3 Lisa M. Freimark,1 Matthew Phillips,1 Lewis C. Cantley1,4



Seriously, sometimes its like "The Telephone Game" when you guys talk science...

You get to the library first. Then we'll talk.

Just say it: "It sure looks an awful lot fresher than seems possible. Maybe it is thousands of years old." Suck it up and be a mensch. It wont kill you. You can still have your 15 billion year old world view.

 

[Jim Larmore]

When this first happened I saw the colored pictures of the tissue given to scale. Also the bone was fresh looking bone. There is no denying the implications here. Rationalizing it away or brow beating us won't change the truth this evidence presents. As Mallon said ( very honestly I might add ), this kind of stuff cannot be accepted in todays world view. Accepting or rejecting anything does not change it's validity though.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

When this first happened I saw the colored pictures of the tissue given to scale. Also the bone was fresh looking bone. There is no denying the implications here. Rationalizing it away or brow beating us won't change the truth this evidence presents. As Mallon said ( very honestly I might add ), this kind of stuff cannot be accepted in todays world view. Accepting or rejecting anything does not change it's validity though.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

As much as I appreciate Mallon's post, as you note, I do think a few oddball surviving dinosaurs doesnt seem like much of a threat to anyone's worldview. Modern science accepts the theoretical possibility that Nessie MIGHT be a surviving pleiosaur, but that does not wreck the conventional worldview.

However, it does open up possibilities that should be unsettling to the conventional view, and about which they should be honest.

 

[atomweaver]

You get to the library first. Then we'll talk.

Just say it: "It sure looks an awful lot fresher than seems possible. Maybe it is thousands of years old." Suck it up and be a mensch. It wont kill you.

What do you mean "fresher than seems possible"? Its a 68 million year old fossil. Before it was found, we already had ~300,000 YO collagen from fossils. So the find stretched out the preservation of collagen by a while, when certain conditions occur... but so what? Absent the conditions for collagen decomp, collagen decomp won't happen just because of the passage of time, alone. *shrug*

The problem with Jim L's approach to this attempt to debunk deep time, is that it is fragmentary, where the science you attempt to refute is unified. One data point based on one find in paleontology is simply insufficient evidence to overturn the geology and chemistry used in dating rock strata... The only thing that is going to overturn current geology and/or chemistry, is geology and/or chemistry that is able to explain more of the evidence, and do so more accurately...

 

[Jim Larmore]

As much as I appreciate Mallon's post, as you note, I do think a few oddball surviving dinosaurs doesnt seem like much of a threat to anyone's worldview. Modern science accepts the theoretical possibility that Nessie MIGHT be a surviving pleiosaur, but that does not wreck the conventional worldview.

However, it does open up possibilities that should be unsettling to the conventional view, and about which they should be honest.

I agree, I think an honest open minded approach would be truely refreshing in science today. Both sides of these issues have been at times less than honest with their presentation of evidence. I'll be the first to admit that there are some things that I cannot account for/explain and seem to support the mainstream paradigm. This will most likely continue as time goes on. However, my big problem is that there are up front in your face good evidences that strongly support an alternative view but are flatly rejected by so called honest scientist. Why don't we all just say, hey,,,,,, I can't explain that at this point. It seems to show something different than what I have found in other areas.

At least that would be honest. I could respect that. Instead they either reject it off hand or impune it in some way. Talkorigins is one of the worst in this area.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jim Larmore]

What do you mean "fresher than seems possible"? Its a 68 million year old fossil. Before it was found, we already had ~300,000 YO collagen from fossils. So the find stretched out the preservation of collagen by a while, when certain conditions occur... but so what? Absent the conditions for collagen decomp, collagen decomp won't happen just because of the passage of time, alone. *shrug*

The problem with Jim L's approach to this attempt to debunk deep time, is that it is fragmentary, where the science you attempt to refute is unified. One data point based on one find in paleontology is simply insufficient evidence to overturn the geology and chemistry used in dating rock strata... The only thing that is going to overturn current geology and/or chemistry, is geology and/or chemistry that is able to explain more of the evidence, and do so more accurately...

There is no known mechanism chemical or geological to sustain any kind of biochemical for that long. Your barking at the moon here. Even those who have analyzed this can't explain the death smell and the intact DNA and amino acids they found.

Conclusions are not that hard to come up with. Even though change comes slow in science this find refutes long ages for fossils to form and millions of year old T-Rex or any other dinosaur. You can go on believing what ever you want though, that is your perogative.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

The presence of soft tissue in demineralized dinosaur bone only goes to show that we have an incomplete understanding of the fossilization process and nothing more. Jim, this view you have that "mainstream" scientists are scared to face up to the implications lest they succumb to a young earth paradigm is wrong. Scientists have never sought to date the earth on the basis of the thoroughness of fossilization. And busterdog is right in saying that living dinosaurs would pose no problem to the evolutionary paradigm (only our understanding of its history).

 

[Jim Larmore]

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again: Does the absence of amino acids in fossil bone indicate that the bone IS actually millions of years old?
I ask because it strikes me that neocreationists are completely unwilling to propose any scenario that might discount a young earth, lest their position becomes falsified.

The age of the earth itself can be very old. I have no problem with that. The life on it is a different situation. Fossils that don't contain amino acids have undergone complete replacement of all biologicals with minerals are in a steady state condition. This does not mean they are millions of years old but just that they have been in an environment that favors mineralization/fossilization. Logic tells me that all T.Rex's lived in the same time frame or era. It makes no sense to me that if a T Rex skeleton is completely fossilized and another isn't that one is millions of years old but the other is thousands of years old. The conditions that produced the fossils are independent of long ages of time. They are:

1. Rapid burial
2. Great pressure
3. Mineral rich environment
4. Low O2

Mineralization, which happens from the outside in (replacement).


I hope you'll read the links atomweaver posted. The story isn't quite as fantastic as you've made it out to be. The fossil had to be demineralized first (read: the bone marrow was hard as rock until the minerals were removed).

I read the original report when it came out a few years back. The fact that there was marrow there at all ( hard as a rock or not ) indicates a much much later than millions of years event for this animal.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jim Larmore]

The presence of soft tissue in demineralized dinosaur bone only goes to show that we have an incomplete understanding of the fossilization process and nothing more. Jim, this view you have that "mainstream" scientists are scared to face up to the implications lest they succumb to a young earth paradigm is wrong. Scientists have never sought to date the earth on the basis of the thoroughness of fossilization. And busterdog is right in saying that living dinosaurs would pose no problem to the evolutionary paradigm (only our understanding of its history).

Your too close at this point in your life to the mainstream paradigm to see this Mallon. IOW, you still don't get it and you still cannot marry what science preaches and a belief in God and His Holy word. It just won't work. Science, as a force in our culture cannot allow God and His truth to be seriously considered or it looses what it feels is progress towards true enlightenment of man's mind. Man's abilities, man's intellect.

If you seriously think that science is not afraid to face up to the implications of a young biota on earth then why not spend some serious time investigating some of the things young earth scientists are saying instead of tainting it with the mainstream's bias? Just for kicks truely investigate on your own time , if you have to, the validity of things like this find involving T.Rex DNA and amino acids. Why not try sending an article for publication to "Science or Nature" magazine that has young earth evidence in it and see how far it gets? When you do this you will see exactly how afraid science really is of facing implications.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Unfortunately, despite your misplaced misgivings, they make no difference to those people who actually work in the field, Jim. To be taken seriously, you have to know what you're talking about.