Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[-57]

Well I'm here too and I would love your elaboration, because I don't know that answer.

Soft tissue can't survive for 65+ MY's

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do tell me, where has it been demonstrated?

We have the record that the river left by erosion. We have the record of the uplift of the area. To go into all of the events would require more than one source. But instead of me bringing up sources that you either will not read or will not understand why don't we continue to correct your many mistakes here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soft tissue can't survive for 65+ MY's

But it didn't. It was dead for the whole 65+ million years. Perhaps you want to try again with more proper phrasing.


And a blanket denial is not evidence in any way at all.

 

[-57]

Well I'm here too and I would love your elaboration, because I don't know that answer.

This thread...start at post 8

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread...start at post 8

That is not evidence, that is just a link to another thread where you lost the argument again. So it seems that by doing so you are admitting that you are wrong. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.

 

[-57]

But it didn't. It was dead for the whole 65+ million years. Perhaps you want to try again with more proper phrasing.


And a blanket denial is not evidence in any way at all.

For an experiment to really explain an effect lasting for millions of years, shouldn’t it gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last? Only then could researchers directly compare that maximum time with fossils’ evolutionary ages. Schweitzer’s report did not show these kinds of results.

The scientific community has long shown its desperation to defend mainstream fossil ages against the short shelf-life of soft-tissue fossils. Will they now call upon blood iron to have preserved fossils in a way that these results don’t justify?

Iron does appear to preserve tissues, even keeping blood vessels intact at room temperature for two years. Could iron keep soft tissues intact for millions of years? At least four reasons show why the study’s results, amazing though they are, answer with a clear “No.”

First, “Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate,” according to the study authors. Their procedure involved extracting and purifying iron from blood. But ancient dinosaur and other fossils did not have the advantage of scientists treating their carcasses with a blood-soup concentrate.

Second, many of the still-fresh fossil biochemicals described in the literature do not show evidence of nearby iron. For example, researchers have encountered bone cells called osteocytes locked inside dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops horn core. These cells have fine, threadlike extensions that penetrate the bone’s mineral matrix through tiny tunnels called canaliculi. Could concentrated blood penetrate and preserve those almost inaccessible bone cells?

Schweitzer and her coauthors think so. They wrote, “In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB [hemoglobin] flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network.” Yet, the study authors did not demonstrate this supposed access, they merely asserted it.

For example, have experiments shown that canaliculi can wick blood puree, despite having tiny diameters on the order of 0.0004 millimeters? Also, how could iron-rich preservative “have access to” tiny tunnels already clogged with osteocytes? Other examples of original soft tissues without these iron particles include mummified dinosaur and lizard skin.

Third, for experimental control, the Royal Society authors kept ostrich vessels in water to watch them rot. Does this resemble the burial conditions of dinosaurs, which are mostly dry today and have been primarily dry perhaps since the day of burial? Water accelerates tissue decay by providing for microbes and by facilitating degradative chemistry. So by adding water, these scientists may have rigged their “control” sample to show a higher-than-expected decay rate difference.

The researchers then compared their hemoglobin-soaked samples to the watered-down samples and wrote, “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24000% over control conditions.” If both their control and test models used unrealistic conditions, then they dulled the edge of their entire argument.

Fourth, just because this iron increases the “resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion” does not necessarily mean that it increases resistance of these “fixed” biomolecules to degrading chemical reactions. In other words, these authors have again shown that iron inhibits microbes, but they did not show that it inhibits the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions known to relentlessly convert tissues into dust.

Plus, though they showed how iron ups resistance to microbes for two years, they did not show that it does so for millions of years. Getting these tissues to resist enzymes and microbes is the lowest hurdle. These results fail to demonstrate the next step—getting tissues to resist the laws of chemistry for unimaginable time spans.

While the study does show that iron helps preserve soft tissues, the results fall far short of the authors’ claim that this explains soft tissue persisting for millions of years. Concentrated blood and extra water may not approximate real conditions, iron is not always present with known original tissue fossils, and the scientists did not produce a useful time-to-dust estimate for their iron-encrusted tissues.

By showing that iron particles stuck to dinosaur blood vessels look similar to those attached to ostrich vessels, this research may explain how soft tissues have resisted disintegration for longer-than-expected intervals—for example, thousands of years.

 

[Reasoning]

This thread...start at post 8

Ok there it is explained why you are wrong. But I get it now thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Soft dino tissue has demonstrated that you are incorrect.

The dinosaur bones with preserved soft tissue were found under rock with a 40K/40Ar ratio consistent with 65 million years of radioactive decay. I am correct.

How is a flood able to sort animals and rocks so that we always find this relationship?

 

[-57]

• Soft tissue has been presenting problem for old earth dates for quite a while.
• Still Soft after Half a Billion Years?
• Bloody Mosquito Fossil Supports Recent Creation
• Scientists Broom Challenging Discoveries Beneath 'Contamination' Rug
• The Incredible, Edible '190 Million-Year-Old Egg'
• Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation
• Dinosaur Bone Tissue Study Refutes Critics
• Bone DNA Decays Too Fast for Evolution
• Fresh Fossil Squid Ink 160 Million Years Old?
• Are Iceman Blood Cells Really the Oldest?
• Researchers Find Fossil Salamanders' Last Meals
• 2011 Another Frustrating Year for Evolution
• Over 100 Frozen Original Mammoth Proteins Found
• Evolution Can't Explain Organic Fossils
• Skin Sample Is Two Million Years Old?
• Trace Metals Study Confirms Fossil Has Original Feathers
• Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
• Paleozoic Scorpion Exoskeleton Gainsays Assigned Age
• Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Paleontology
• The Mysteries of Stunning Soft Tissue Fossil Finds
• 'Remarkably Preserved' Shrimp Is 350 Million Years Old?
• Cache of Amber in India Looks Young
• How Long Can Cartilage Last?
• Giant Penguin Feather Poses Problem for Long Ages
• Teen Finds Lobster Fossil with Original Shell
• '80 Million-Year-Old' Mosasaur Fossil Has Soft Retina and Blood Residue
• Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
• A New Evolutionary Link? Australopithecus sediba Has All the Wrong Signs
• Feathered Dinosaur Debate Exhibits Young Earth Evidence
• Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock
• Intact DNA Discovered in Ancient Salt Deposits
• Fresh Salamander Tissue Found in Solid Rock
• A Global Catastrophic Event Wiped Out Ancient Forests
• Fresh Fossil Feather Nanostructures
• Fresh Jurassic Squid Ink
• '45-Million-Year-Old' Brewer's Yeast Still Works
• Mummified Dinosaur Skin Looks Young

 

[-57]

Ok there it is explained why you are wrong. But I get it now thanks.

You can also check out this thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

For an experiment to really explain an effect lasting for millions of years, shouldn’t it gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last?

Shouldn't creationists have done these experiments before they proclaimed that soft tissue can not be preserved for 65 million years?

Only then could researchers directly compare that maximum time with fossils’ evolutionary ages.

It isn't an "evolutionary age". It is a geologic age. The age of the fossil is determined by the geology, not evolution.

The scientific community has long shown its desperation to defend mainstream fossil ages against the short shelf-life of soft-tissue fossils.

There is nothing to defend. Your claim that soft tissue can not be preserved for 65 million years is completely unfounded. Until you bring some evidence to back your assertion, there is nothing to defend.

The age of the fossil is well established by geology. The facts demonstrate that those features can be preserved for 65 million years.

 

[Loudmouth]

• Soft tissue has been presenting problem for old earth dates for quite a while.
• Still Soft after Half a Billion Years?
• Bloody Mosquito Fossil Supports Recent Creation
• Scientists Broom Challenging Discoveries Beneath 'Contamination' Rug
• The Incredible, Edible '190 Million-Year-Old Egg'
• Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation
• Dinosaur Bone Tissue Study Refutes Critics
• Bone DNA Decays Too Fast for Evolution
• Fresh Fossil Squid Ink 160 Million Years Old?
• Are Iceman Blood Cells Really the Oldest?
• Researchers Find Fossil Salamanders' Last Meals
• 2011 Another Frustrating Year for Evolution
• Over 100 Frozen Original Mammoth Proteins Found
• Evolution Can't Explain Organic Fossils
• Skin Sample Is Two Million Years Old?
• Trace Metals Study Confirms Fossil Has Original Feathers
• Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
• Paleozoic Scorpion Exoskeleton Gainsays Assigned Age
• Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Paleontology
• The Mysteries of Stunning Soft Tissue Fossil Finds
• 'Remarkably Preserved' Shrimp Is 350 Million Years Old?
• Cache of Amber in India Looks Young
• How Long Can Cartilage Last?
• Giant Penguin Feather Poses Problem for Long Ages
• Teen Finds Lobster Fossil with Original Shell
• '80 Million-Year-Old' Mosasaur Fossil Has Soft Retina and Blood Residue
• Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
• A New Evolutionary Link? Australopithecus sediba Has All the Wrong Signs
• Feathered Dinosaur Debate Exhibits Young Earth Evidence
• Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock
• Intact DNA Discovered in Ancient Salt Deposits
• Fresh Salamander Tissue Found in Solid Rock
• A Global Catastrophic Event Wiped Out Ancient Forests
• Fresh Fossil Feather Nanostructures
• Fresh Jurassic Squid Ink
• '45-Million-Year-Old' Brewer's Yeast Still Works
• Mummified Dinosaur Skin Looks Young

All of which demonstrates that soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years.

 

[Reasoning]

You can also check out this thread.

You are coming up with the same video that has been discussed, and the conclusion was that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For an experiment to really explain an effect lasting for millions of years, shouldn’t it gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last? Only then could researchers directly compare that maximum time with fossils’ evolutionary ages. Schweitzer’s report did not show these kinds of results.

No, it may not be possible to say what the upper limit is.

The scientific community has long shown its desperation to defend mainstream fossil ages against the short shelf-life of soft-tissue fossils. Will they now call upon blood iron to have preserved fossils in a way that these results don’t justify?

Don't be silly. And you should not tell untruths about others. There is no desperation. What you need to learn is how scientists knew that the dinosaur fossils were millions of years old before radiometric dating was available. There is no desperation from scientists. They are not creationists, they do not need to lie to defend their views.

Iron does appear to preserve tissues, even keeping blood vessels intact at room temperature for two years. Could iron keep soft tissues intact for millions of years? At least four reasons show why the study’s results, amazing though they are, answer with a clear “No.”

Once more you are back to a statement not backed up by evidence.

First, “Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate,” according to the study authors. Their procedure involved extracting and purifying iron from blood. But ancient dinosaur and other fossils did not have the advantage of scientists treating their carcasses with a blood-soup concentrate.

Wow! Amazing ignorance. They were simulating what it would have been like inside the dinosaur body immediately after death. So yes, that "soup" did exist.

Second, many of the still-fresh fossil biochemicals described in the literature do not show evidence of nearby iron. For example, researchers have encountered bone cells called osteocytes locked inside dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops horn core. These cells have fine, threadlike extensions that penetrate the bone’s mineral matrix through tiny tunnels called canaliculi. Could concentrated blood penetrate and preserve those almost inaccessible bone cells?

And those are not the tissues we are discussing. The name of those tissues should have given you a clue. Here is one more clue: Osteocytes are not soft tissues.

Schweitzer and her coauthors think so. They wrote, “In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB [hemoglobin] flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network.” Yet, the study authors did not demonstrate this supposed access, they merely asserted it.

You used a cut and paste from a creationist article without linking it. Creationists articles are almost always extremely dishonest and full of lies. Why did you not link to your source? That is rule number one here. At any rate the topic was "soft tissues".

For example, have experiments shown that canaliculi can wick blood puree, despite having tiny diameters on the order of 0.0004 millimeters? Also, how could iron-rich preservative “have access to” tiny tunnels already clogged with osteocytes? Other examples of original soft tissues without these iron particles include mummified dinosaur and lizard skin.

And once again, osteocytes are not soft tissues.

Third, for experimental control, the Royal Society authors kept ostrich vessels in water to watch them rot. Does this resemble the burial conditions of dinosaurs, which are mostly dry today and have been primarily dry perhaps since the day of burial? Water accelerates tissue decay by providing for microbes and by facilitating degradative chemistry. So by adding water, these scientists may have rigged their “control” sample to show a higher-than-expected decay rate difference.

Nope, and now you have shot yourself in the foot. They are only mostly dry today. The claim is over a 65 million year period and you can be sure that there have been multiple different environments over that period of time.

The researchers then compared their hemoglobin-soaked samples to the watered-down samples and wrote, “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24000% over control conditions.” If both their control and test models used unrealistic conditions, then they dulled the edge of their entire argument.

Why would you think that they would use unrealistic conditions? After all as I already stated, they are not creationists.

Fourth, just because this iron increases the “resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion” does not necessarily mean that it increases resistance of these “fixed” biomolecules to degrading chemical reactions. In other words, these authors have again shown that iron inhibits microbes, but they did not show that it inhibits the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions known to relentlessly convert tissues into dust.

Granted, there is more work to be done. But the major claims of causes of degradation have been dealt with. Deep inside a dinosaur bone it would not be exposed to those elements that you just mentioned, or at least not exposed too much.

Plus, though they showed how iron ups resistance to microbes for two years, they did not show that it does so for millions of years. Getting these tissues to resist enzymes and microbes is the lowest hurdle. These results fail to demonstrate the next step—getting tissues to resist the laws of chemistry for unimaginable time spans.

What "laws of chemistry"? You need to be specific.

While the study does show that iron helps preserve soft tissues, the results fall far short of the authors’ claim that this explains soft tissue persisting for millions of years. Concentrated blood and extra water may not approximate real conditions, iron is not always present with known original tissue fossils, and the scientists did not produce a useful time-to-dust estimate for their iron-encrusted tissues.

Your silly denial does not make it so.

By showing that iron particles stuck to dinosaur blood vessels look similar to those attached to ostrich vessels, this research may explain how soft tissues have resisted disintegration for longer-than-expected intervals—for example, thousands of years.

I take it that you cut and pasted this from that other argument that you mentioned earlier and lost. Do I really need to go back and to copy and paste all of the rebuttals to this nonsense of yours? Or can you be honest enough to admit that you lost and we can go on from there?

 

[fargonic]

No one ever said the walls were liquid mud....my post said they were not rock. There is plenty of evidence where sapping was involved.

If the rocks were lithified after the erosion they would likely look VERY different from what we see today.

Interstingly the way the rocks RESIST erosion is very telling. Shales (which were formerly fine-grained muds) create angled slopes, while resistant LIMESTONE (also probably originally a mud) form cliffs with steep faces.

If these rocks were only soft sediment at the time of erosion they would not weather like this. Especially the resistant limestones.

 

[-57]

All of which demonstrates that soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years.

You need to start applying common sense. It's like you telling me an ice cube can lie on a hot sidewalk in the summer for hours.

 

[-57]

You are coming up with the same video that has been discussed, and the conclusion was that you were wrong.

I understand that you being an atheist NEED me to be wrong to support your religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need to start applying common sense.

I have applied common sense. Fossils that are millions of years old have preserved structures. This means that those structures can be preserved for millions of years old. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

It's like you telling me an ice cube can lie on a hot sidewalk in the summer for hours.

No, it isn't.

You still can't explain why we consistently find dinosaur fossils below rocks that are 65 million years old. You have absolutely zero mechanisms that can explain this relationship between rocks and fossils. The only viable conclusion is that those fossils are 65 million years old.

 

[-57]

If the rocks were lithified after the erosion they would likely look VERY different from what we see today.

Interstingly the way the rocks RESIST erosion is very telling. Shales (which were formerly fine-grained muds) create angled slopes, while resistant LIMESTONE (also probably originally a mud) form cliffs with steep faces.

If these rocks were only soft sediment at the time of erosion they would not weather like this. Especially the resistant limestones.

Once again...the strata wasn't mud when it was eroded. Got it?

 

[-57]

I have applied common sense. Fossils that are millions of years old have preserved structures. This means that those structures can be preserved for millions of years old. Seems pretty straightforward to me.



No, it isn't.

You still can't explain why we consistently find dinosaur fossils below rocks that are 65 million years old. You have absolutely zero mechanisms that can explain this relationship between rocks and fossils. The only viable conclusion is that those fossils are 65 million years old.

Soft tissue says they can't be that old.