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

[juvenissun]

Of course not. Like dinosaur remnants, coal is not alive. However both were living things, so we are not surprised that they were once made of living cells.

You pretend that the article in the OP does not exist, don't you?

 

[juvenissun]

I don’t see much point. You clearly don’t understand it.

I guess you do understand it. However, you are afraid of discussing it, aren't you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You pretend that the article in the OP does not exist, don't you?

EDIT: I was wrong. But Juvenissun is not correct either.

 

[Radagast]

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

Not living.

And not Creationists.

 

[Radagast]

They didn't find cells though.

Yes they did. I quote: "osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data."

For links to related work, see: Mary Higby Schweitzer - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes they did. I quote: "osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data."

I should not argue online when I am in need of sleep and this proves it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

1. Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
   
   
2. The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
   
   
3. An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
   
   
4. Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.

CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood

 

[Steve Petersen]

1. The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
   
   
2. The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
   
   
3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.

CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

 

[lasthero]

I guess you do understand it. However, you are afraid of discussing it, aren't you?

No more than I'm afraid to discuss advanced mathematics with a four year old.

 

[lasthero]

1. The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
   
   
2. The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
   
   
3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.

CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

Good post. A shame all of this will be ignored, even by the creationists in this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Good post. A shame all of this will be ignored, even by the creationists in this thread.

I keep challenging you and see how far can you run:

Name ONE which is ignored by me, a creationist.

 

[lasthero]

I keep challenging you and see how far can you run:

It's cute that you think you can goad me. For a 'scientist', you come off like a child.

Name ONE which is ignored by me, a creationist.

You did notice the post I was replying to, right? It's all right there. Have fun.

 

[juvenissun]

You did notice the post I was replying to, right? It's all right there. Have fun.

No, I did not. Please spell it out clearly. I don't think I ignored anything.

 

[lasthero]

No, I did not. Please spell it out clearly. I don't think I ignored anything.

I mean...you are. You demonstrably are.

It's all right there. I can't spell it out any more clearly than that. It's been posted multiple times.

 

[lasthero]

DP

 

[essentialsaltes]

You pretend that the article in the OP does not exist, don't you?

No, I love the article. It begins "Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone".

The dingus was originally hard as a rock (because it was a rock - mineralized at any rate). It was not alive. It was, like coal, something which had been alive. But isn't any longer. But like coal, it looks like something that was once alive. Because, like coal, it was once alive.

 

[joinfree]

DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.
CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

1. Deliberate lie to promote Darwinism - was present in History of Science,
2. The dating technics are wrong (look Dr. Kent Howind lectures)

 

[Shemjaza]

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

It's millions, not billions. Proponents of evolution have never denied that well adapted species can go through very limited changes over long periods of time. Take crocodiles and turtles, their ancestors who lived along side the dinosaurs would be recognisable today.

Why have we never found a cow or bear with its bones turned to stone?

However, the same rocks that hold preserved dinosaurs of many shapes and sizes have absolutely no apes, horses, deer, dogs, cats or cows.

The evidence of paleontology strongly supports both deep time and evolution and stands against YEC.

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 ?!

I think the honest thing to do would be to update your original post with corrections to the false statements you made.

 

[46AND2]

1. Deliberate lie to promote Darwinism - was present in History of Science,
2. The dating technics are wrong (look Dr. Kent Howind lectures)

Kent Hovind is a joke and a con. I have looked at his lectures and actually checked his sources. Guess what, his sources don't say what he claims they do. If all you have are his arguments against radiometric dating, you have less than nothing.

 

[Shemjaza]

1. Deliberate lie to promote Darwinism - was present in History of Science,

Any evidence of the this conspiracy?

2. The dating technics are wrong (look Dr. Kent Howind lectures)

Mr Kent Hovind does not present factual versions of science. He has no actual experience in science and isn't willing to change presentations when mistakes are pointed out.