Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[dad]

Just read an article about how mass extinctions were not caused by comets/asteroids after all, at best smaller ones! The big impact on Jupiter illustrates the gravitational protection of the big planets over earth.

Also, now they say, that the dino intact protein fragments were real after all!!

"
Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

By Robert F. Service
ScienceNOW Daily News
31 July 2009
When scientists reported 2 years ago that they had discovered intact protein fragments from a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the skeptics pounced. They argued that one of the main lines of evidence, signatures of the protein fragments taken by mass spectrometry, was flawed. But now a reanalysis of that mass-spec data from an independent group of researchers backs up the original claim that dinosaur proteins have indeed survived the assault of time. In 2005, a team led by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh reported in Science that it had discovered an unusual T. rex fossil, in which some of the soft tissues, including blood vessels and other fibrous tissue, seemed to have been preserved. Two years later, Schweitzer teamed with mass-spec expert John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues to report that mass-spec studies identified seven peptide fragments that appeared to come from dinosaur collagen and that those sequences were closely related to analogous sequences from the chicken and other modern birds, as would be expected given the many lines of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs..."

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find -- Service 2009 (731): 1 -- ScienceNOW



http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/731/1


Or, if dinos evolved from birds..! Question what you were taught, kids, the fables crumble into dust before our eyes.

 

[plindboe]

Or, if dinos evolved from birds..!

Here's the order of appearance in the fossil record:

1.Non-avian dinosaurs (~230 mya)
2.Primitive birds, with many non-avian dinosaur features (~150 mya)
3.Modern birds (~60 mya)

Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Question what you were taught

But of course. I suggest you do the same.

, kids, the fables crumble into dust before our eyes.

They do? I thought it was well known that there are differing opinions regarding whether an asteroid snuffed the majority of the dinosaurs, though the asteroid hypothesis has gained alot of support after the discovery of the Chicxulub crater.

The hypothesis that the big planets work as shields also has alot of support, but no one in their right mind believes that all asteroids are swallowed up by them.

I'm not sure what made you react to the dino study. Is it because it mentions skeptics that seem to have been shown wrong? Of course there are skeptics, and skeptics are proven wrong (or right) all the time in science. That's how science works and progresses. Scientists question constantly, which only inspire additional research. Without skepticism, there would be no science and no progress.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

Btw, it might help if you had a link to the asteroid article. It would also be a good idea to explain the basis for your claim "Extinctions not asteroid after all". Surely you haven't reached such a definite conclusion based on nothing more than some random article you once read.

Peter

 

[uke2se]

I don't get it. Months and months of no evidence, and suddenly Dad posts a scientific article. This should be good, right? This should finally back up something that Dad likes to assert... right? Right?

No, despite more wild assertion from Dad, the article does not back it up, and instead goes on to claim the exact opposite of what Dad wants it to claim.

What a sad let-down.

 

[gaara4158]

Dad, I don't think this article says what you think it says...

 

[dad]

Btw, it might help if you had a link to the asteroid article. It would also be a good idea to explain the basis for your claim "Extinctions not asteroid after all". Surely you haven't reached such a definite conclusion based on nothing more than some random article you once read.

Peter

OK, here is one. It was science news of the day. As always, years after being taught fables, we find out they didn't actually know what they were talking about after all. Surprise.

I never swallowed that particular story anyhow, so it doesn't pop my balloon. Life was created. Imaging ways it may have been wafted onto the planet from somewhere else is a waste of time.

 

[dad]

I don't get it. Months and months of no evidence, and suddenly Dad posts a scientific article. This should be good, right? This should finally back up something that Dad likes to assert... right? Right?

No, despite more wild assertion from Dad, the article does not back it up, and instead goes on to claim the exact opposite of what Dad wants it to claim.

What a sad let-down.

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

From the OP article, it sure seems to rethink the extinction claim. How nice.

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

 

[BananaSlug]

OK, here is one. It was science news of the day. As always, years after being taught fables, we find out they didn't actually know what they were talking about after all. Surprise.

They are still right but the asteroid was only part of the story.

I never swallowed that particular story anyhow, so it doesn't pop my balloon. Life was created. Imaging ways it may have been wafted onto the planet from somewhere else is a waste of time.

I've never been a big fan of the "magic bullet" scenario. It was probably several factors that led to the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and the asteroid probably had a big part but wasn't the sole cause. Most of the evos here would probably agree...

 

[gaara4158]

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

From the OP article, it sure seems to rethink the extinction claim. How nice.

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of a hypothesis. Everything is either a dogmatic claim or a wild guess with you. In science... oh god, why am I even bothering? The asteroid hypothesis was never regarded as the final answer by science... it was more of a pop culture thing perpetuated by movies and tv shows. It's important to note the difference between popular belief and actual science.

 

[uke2se]

The article I linked to in the last post, was from yesterday's news is about a new look at dino protein, that is in supposedly old bones. Am I missing something? If it is true, how may millions of years do you imagine this stuff would last? Do tell. It goes to mocking the dates that are pushed on folks. Ridiculous.

We've known this for a number of years. Fossilisation does not completely destroy soft tissue, so you can still drill into a bone and find soft tissue in the marrow. It's quite remarkable, but it does nothing to disprove the fact that dinosaurs went exint about 65 million years ago.

"New University of Washington research indicates it is highly unlikely that comets have caused any mass extinctions or have been responsible for more than one minor extinction event"

Yes, this is true. The thing is, noone has seriously entertained the idea that a comet caused the mass extinction event, except for creationists such as Kent Hovind.

There is a difference between comets and asteroids, you know.

 

[uke2se]

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of a hypothesis. Everything is either a dogmatic claim or a wild guess with you. In science... oh god, why am I even bothering? The asteroid hypothesis was never regarded as the final answer by science... it was more of a pop culture thing perpetuated by movies and tv shows. It's important to note the difference between popular belief and actual science.

Dad is talking about comets, as he apparently doesn't know the difference. The KT-event is very likely to have been caused, at least in part, by the impact of an asteroid.

 

[gaara4158]

Dad is talking about comets, as he apparently doesn't know the difference. The KT-event is very likely to have been caused, at least in part, by the impact of an asteroid.

To people like Dad, comets, asteroids, meteors, and meteorites are all the same. I've seen these kinds of errors so often I just ignore them now. It's kind of funny to watch him use such a tragically understocked knowledge of science in an attempt to show it up. It's like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out because hey, water does the trick, so all liquids must do it.

 

[plindboe]

OK, here is one. It was science news of the day. As always, years after being taught fables, we find out they didn't actually know what they were talking about after all. Surprise.

I never swallowed that particular story anyhow, so it doesn't pop my balloon.

I found the article, thank you.

I've never really heard the claim that most extinctions were caused by comets, so it doesn't pop any balloon here either.

Btw, are you aware, as the other posters point out, that comets and asteroids aren't the same? Comets come from the Oort Cloud and are basically big dirty snowballs. They're the ones with a tail. The article is talking about comets starting their journey from the Oort Cloud, and estimate a maximum of three comets hitting Earth in the last 500 million years.

Asteroids, without tails, can arise from the Main Asteroid Belt or the Kuiper Belt:

The Oort Cloud is much further away (note the logarithmic scale):

Life was created. Imaging ways it may have been wafted onto the planet from somewhere else is a waste of time.

Panspermia now? I thought you were talking about extinctions?

Peter

 

[Washington]

Never mind. My mistake.

 

[dad]

They are still right but the asteroid was only part of the story.



I've never been a big fan of the "magic bullet" scenario. It was probably several factors that led to the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and the asteroid probably had a big part but wasn't the sole cause. Most of the evos here would probably agree...

No problem, since science doesn't know, and changes it's tune endlessly, on what it thought it knew, we can just settle it by putting it to a vote.

 

[gaara4158]

No problem, since science doesn't know, and changes it's tune endlessly, on what it thought it knew, we can just settle it by putting it to a vote.

Like I said, it's all black and white with you. Either they know everything or they know nothing, there's no possibility that they're partially right but always learning, no siree.

 

[dad]

I found the article, thank you.

I've never really heard the claim that most extinctions were caused by comets, so it doesn't pop any balloon here either.

Btw, are you aware, as the other posters point out, that comets and asteroids aren't the same? Comets come from the Oort Cloud and are basically big dirty snowballs. They're the ones with a tail. The article is talking about comets starting their journey from the Oort Cloud, and estimate a maximum of three comets hitting Earth in the last 500 million years.

Asteroids, without tails, can arise from the Main Asteroid Belt or the Kuiper Belt:




The Oort Cloud is much further away (note the logarithmic scale):






Panspermia now? I thought you were talking about extinctions?

Peter

OK, after a closer look at it, only comets were the focus on that one. Not asteroids.

""We show that Jupiter and Saturn are not perfect and some of the comets from the inner Oort Cloud are able to leak through. But most don't," Kaib said."

They envision that the Oort Cloud was formed by present nature forces, deep in imagined time. Then they note that it is hard for stuff to get to earth. It occurs to me, that if much of the impacts were returning debris from the flood time, there is no need to break through from deep space. Indeed, the reverse might need to be looked at, that the cloud came from here? If that was the case, and the universe was in the former state, breaking out would be a breeze.


So how about the dino protein?

 

[dad]

Like I said, it's all black and white with you. Either they know everything or they know nothing, there's no possibility that they're partially right but always learning, no siree.

No I agree, they are ever learning..just never able to arrive at the truth. Because they omit the Great Cause from all effects we see. They also assume a present state, and mentally travel to a non existent, invented past, so they will never really get it.

 

[dad]

To people like Dad, comets, asteroids, meteors, and meteorites are all the same. I've seen these kinds of errors so often I just ignore them now. It's kind of funny to watch him use such a tragically understocked knowledge of science in an attempt to show it up. It's like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out because hey, water does the trick, so all liquids must do it.

No, you are right. I had thought the article was also about asteroids. It lessens the point that it deals in just comets, but is still interesting.

 

[dad]

Dad is talking about comets, as he apparently doesn't know the difference. The KT-event is very likely to have been caused, at least in part, by the impact of an asteroid.

Yes, I addressed the asteroid issue. The article was abouut comets, my bad. Or at least partial bad.

On the KT layer, you say "likely" "at least in part". It is just as likely that the iridium came up from down under the earth, and maybe also down from above in the flood?