Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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
Uncontaminated cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer.Could anyone show a viable mechanism or modality that would allow amino acid or DNA to exist that long?
Does the absence of amino acids in fossil bone indicate that the bone IS actually millions of years old, Jim?
Uncontaminated cancellous bone protected by a thick cortical layer.
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
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 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.
Mineralization, which happens from the outside in (replacement).Good mechanism but you missed the modality or way for this to happen.
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).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.
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.
'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...
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?