Evidence for a Young Earth & that Man lived with Dinosaurs

[MrsFoundit]

Thanks to further research the process is now much better understood.

What exactly is it about the process that scientists now understand ?

 

[-57]

Didn’t scientists discover a reason for soft tissue in dinosaur bones? Like iron that preserved it or something else?

No, the iron process has been disproven.

 

[Job 33:6]

What exactly is it about the process that scientists now understand ?

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained | Live Science

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

---------------

Studies have suggested that DNA can last millions of years.

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last? | Live Science

The simple and obvious response to young earthers is that if dinosaurs were truly alive just a few thousand years ago, one would expect all fossils to consist of soft material and even DNA. On the contrary, these fossils are the exception.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Not so sure about that iron explanation,

"For now, scientists are still trying to figure out how these protein fragments really managed to last so long in the first place. And the next challenge, Maidment said, will likely be figuring out how to safely extract these collagen remnants so they can be studied in even greater detail."

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-dinosaur-scientists-collagen-million-year-old-bone.html

And another possibility, is actually no multi-million year old soft tissue at all,

"We found non-radiocarbon dead organic carbon, recent amino acids, and DNA in the bone -- that's indicative that the bone is hosting a modern microbial community and providing refuge," Saitta says. He thinks, as others have previously suggested, that the modern microbes and their secretions, called biofilm, are likely what other researchers have seen in fossils and reported as dinosaur soft tissues. "I suspect that if we began to do this kind of analysis with other specimens, it would begin to explain some of the so-called dinosaur soft tissue discoveries," he says.

Dinosaur bones are home to microscopic life: Scientists didn't find ancient DNA or proteins in fossils, but they did find lots of strange microbes

 

[Job 33:6]

Not so sure about that iron explanation,

"For now, scientists are still trying to figure out how these protein fragments really managed to last so long in the first place. And the next challenge, Maidment said, will likely be figuring out how to safely extract these collagen remnants so they can be studied in even greater detail."

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-dinosaur-scientists-collagen-million-year-old-bone.html

And another possibility, is actually no multi-million year old soft tissue at all,

"We found non-radiocarbon dead organic carbon, recent amino acids, and DNA in the bone -- that's indicative that the bone is hosting a modern microbial community and providing refuge," Saitta says. He thinks, as others have previously suggested, that the modern microbes and their secretions, called biofilm, are likely what other researchers have seen in fossils and reported as dinosaur soft tissues. "I suspect that if we began to do this kind of analysis with other specimens, it would begin to explain some of the so-called dinosaur soft tissue discoveries," he says.

Dinosaur bones are home to microscopic life: Scientists didn't find ancient DNA or proteins in fossils, but they did find lots of strange microbes

From your own links:

"It's possible that this iron may have acted as an antioxidant, the authors wrote, preventing the proteins from decaying further."

"Bad news, Jurassic Park fans -- the odds of scientists cloning a dinosaur from ancient DNA are pretty much zero. That's because DNA breaks down over time and isn't stable enough to stay intact for millions of years. "

Modern bacteria in dinosaur bones doesn't mean that the bones themselves are modern. It just means that bacteria has made it's its way into those particular bones, just as bacteria infiltrates many other bones of many different ages.

And to clarify, no dinosaur DNA has been discovered. Rather the above quotes are referring to bacterial DNA. Which again repeats my prior response that if dinosaur bones were really just a few thousand years old, it would be quite easy to extract DNA from them, just as we extract DNA from any other 3000 year old mummy or mammoth or sabertooth or neanderthal (each of the three latter dating back over 10,000 years) etc.

Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry

Genome of nearly 5000-year-old woman links modern Indians to ancient civilization | Science | AAAS

Mammoth DNA Briefly 'Woke Up' Inside Mouse Eggs. But Cloning Mammoths Is Still a Pipe Dream.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-10-ancient-dna-view-saber-toothed-cats.amp

Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human Genomes Is Not Silent

We have gathered DNA from many prehistoric life forms. But dinosaurs are over 65 million years old. Far older than the prehistoric life forms in which we've collected DNA.

The fact that we are even having this conversation rather than going to visit a real life Jurassic Park is a testament to the truth of an ancient earth.

And beyond that, we have countless fossils from the Paleozoic, numbering in the trillions. But we do not have DNA from those either, as they are really little different than stone.

Whether you are behind research on ideal preservation, or you back research supporting the presence of modern bacteria in dinosaur fossils, neither of which justified young earth beliefs. Though both are supported by research, in regards to their own particular fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Not so sure about that iron explanation,"

And it's not really about what either of us "feels", it is about what simply is.

Our understanding of an old earth is extensively expansive. And logically, these findings remain consistent with old earth sciences. Contrary to what Creationists would like it to mean.

Young earthers used to attempt to use things like drop stones as evidence for a global flood. This was back in the 1800s. They've long since lost their way, though they never ceased grappling for any potential straw that they can.

Flood geology - Wikipedia

But when we compare these half boiled and logically inconsistent YEC arguments with arguments and logic of the founding fathers of geology, there is simply no contest.

An example being Hutton's age old angular unconformity.

Siccar Point - Wikipedia

Which I tend to rehash as follows:

I'm New York there is an angular unconformity between the shawangunk and the Martinsburg formations. Silurian and ordovician, respectively.

These formations are Paleozoic and stratigraphically, relatively deep in the geologic column.

And what we find is an unconformity that in some places, has been overturned twice. Meaning that what we have is the deposition of the shawangunk, then it's lithification. The formation is turned vertical as a solid unit by orogenic processes. Is eroded at grade. The Martinsburg is further deposited on top, then lithified, then the whole formation turns over again putting the shawangunk back to horizontal and the Martinsburg vertical.

Further we have lithified ichnofossils, skolithos, in the shawangunk supporting further passage of time, and we even have fault gouge, or ground up rock between the two formations which forms when two bodies of solid rock grind against one another.

Such a formation cannot logically exist as a product of a flood nor could it form in a few thousand years. And this is essentially what James Hutton, the father of modern geology recognized back in the late 1700-early 1800s.

The same logical deduction remains some 250 years later, still unaddressed by flood YECs.

Martinsburg Formation - Wikipedia

Shawangunk Formation - Wikipedia

The Shawangunk Formation (Upper Ordovician(?) to Middle Silurian) in eastern Pennsylvania

Unconformity at the Base of the Silurian in Southeastern Pennsylvania | GSA Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld

 

[Job 33:6]

And one last post on the above,

Some YECs have attempted to argue that perhaps the global flood wasn't actually global and that perhaps periodic giant waves passed through. And that perhaps one wave might make one formation, then orogenesis lifts it up, then another wave makes another formation etc.

Aside from there being fossil tracks and burrows in these formations and fault gouge as a product of dense and heavy stone grinding against another body of rock, in orogenic environments we also have sheared fossils and cataclastic deformation. Fossils that undergo ductile deformation as a product of being placed under extreme heat and pressure.

Google Image Result for https://slideplayer.com/slide/3908640/13/images/40/Digital+restoration+of+single+deformed+trilobite.jpg

Fault breccia - Wikipedia
Fault gouge - Wikipedia

Cataclastic rock - Wikipedia

These aren't formations laid down in a flood instantaneously. They are dense bodies or rock, forming in succession, moving slowly between formation of one another in a step by step fashion. Breaking, twisting and turning as hardened bodies, at independent points of time.

Sometimes faults and tectonic motion even reverses direction and propogated through neighboring bodies. But superpositionally, these events are independent and take time to unfold.
Google Image Result for https://www.christianforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fintheplaygroundofgiants.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FFigure-1.8-Development-of-the-Butte-Fault-System.jpg&hash=ade93d5c8933d87de92ccfb3153c84a7


We can even use stereonets to "rewind time" to replay through mapping how mountains formed. Tracks that are upside down can be re-oriented back to their original position, piece by piece, we can re-create mountain formation with use of widely known and accepted geophysics and kinematics.

Rocks bend and break at specific temperatures and pressures. Temperatures equivelant to those found in the earth and pressures equivelant to those observed in modern day mountain building tectonics. We have things like regional metamorphosis as well.

7.3 Plate Tectonics and Metamorphism – Physical Geology. (figures 7.19 and 7.20).

Through a young earth view, none of the above makes any sense. Animals walking around and making nests and burrowing in 800 degree temperatures and under pressures only observed underground? Fault gouge and cataclastic deformation suggesting lithification prior to deformation.

We look back at the angular unconformity of new York and we can logically relate to what Hutton observed in the 1700s.

All of the above is easily explained and understood with millions of years of step-by step-by step of millions of independent events processes.

But to a young earther, there simply isn't enough time to logically explain even the smallest fractions of the geologic column, let alone all of earth history. And Hutton knew this and with this, published "the theory of earth" and presented uniformitarian theory.

 

[-57]

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained | Live Science

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.

---------------

Studies have suggested that DNA can last millions of years.

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last? | Live Science

The simple and obvious response to young earthers is that if dinosaurs were truly alive just a few thousand years ago, one would expect all fossils to consist of soft material and even DNA. On the contrary, these fossils are the exception.

Iron has been dismissed long ago...watch why....skip to 36:23

Here's another video slightly better in the explanation..start around 16:00

The video tells of what Mary S had to do in order to help along the iron. The iron idea has been debunked for several years.

 

[MrsFoundit]

And it's not really about what either of us "feels", it is about what simply is.

My post does not mention feels at all.

 

[MrsFoundit]

This was back in the 1800s.

The relevance of an argument from back in the 1800s to soft tissue in dinosaur fossils please?

 

[Job 33:6]

The relevance of an argument from back in the 1800s to soft tissue in dinosaur fossils please?

The relevance is that the logic of the founding fathers holds true till this very day. And it is with this logic and evidence that up front, we can easily differentiate between soft tissue as a product of ideal preservation versus soft tissue of a 3000 year old T-Rex.

 

[Job 33:6]

Iron has been dismissed long ago...watch why....skip to 36:23

Here's another video slightly better in the explanation..start around 16:00

The video tells of what Mary S had to do in order to help along the iron. The iron idea has been debunked for several years.

Let me know when you have a bit more than religious YouTube videos.

 

[-57]

Let me know when you have a bit more than religious YouTube videos.

Soooooooooooo, you were told what MS did with the bird....it all seemed pretty natural to me....don't you think?

And here you call it a religious video?

It sounds like you lost the iron argument.....would you now like to present another theory of how the biomaterial survived?