The Lazarus Bacteria

[PsychoSarah]

How about you use a source not from an evolutionary supporter then and also not so blatantly biased?

Dude, scientists have more motivation to find evidence that challenges evolution than supports it. Especially evidence that would disprove it, that'd be instant fame and fortune. Plus, 0 valid motivation to hide any evidence against evolution, before you try to go all conspiracy theory on me.

Ahh, that only applies when they don’t hold your view, right?

No, I've had my butt handed to me because of peer reviewed scientific journal sources before. Just not by you, because you persistently decide not to use any. Your source isn't entirely terrible in terms of writing, but it is misleading in the conclusion. That is, it mentions a bunch of findings that actually disagree with your position, but then in the conclusion just optimistically says that thanks to these fossils, people are reconsidering their original conclusions about the age of the Earth...

All of this stuff you have to ignore:
"Interestingly, in the preparation of bone samples for their experiments they observed that removal of organics from bone is not easy, even with harsh treatment including repeated cycles of extreme heat, bleach, and enzyme treatment. Their suggestion is that when encased in dense cortical bone, labile organics can persist longer.

In their paper on preserved collagen from a Lufengosaurus bone, Lee et al. found that collagen was preserved only in the vascular canals, not in the bone matrix [17]. Given that the interior of the vascular canals often contained hematite particles, the authors suggested the collagen was preserved because it remained trapped between hematite concretions inside the vessels and the surrounding carbonated apatite minerals in the bone matrix.

Finally, some are still questioning the reliability of the results published by Mary Schweitzer and her group. For example, Buckley et al. [22] demonstrated that all the published putative dinosaur peptide sequences from T. rex and B. canadensis are matched by sequences of collagen from ostrich bone. Their suggested implication is that cross-contamination of the dinosaur samples with ostrich material in the lab cannot be ruled out."

So, some people claimed that there were dinosaur peptides that made it through the test of time... but they might actually be ostrich peptides that contaminated the sample by mistake, wow. You'll notice that the other "soft" tissues tend to be some of the more durable ones in terms of preservation, such as skin, or ones deep inside bones.

I'll give your source points in not being as terrible as AiG.

Are you challenging the finds they said were found, or just rejecting it out of hand? If you are challenging the data we can certainly cross verify that if you like.

Honestly, given that there are human bodies that preserve well for unknown reasons to the point that they can be centuries old and look like sleeping people, I don't know how the same couldn't happen to dinosaurs. Note how a key component, DNA, which can last 6.8 million years, is not found in any of these tissues, but it should be if the Earth isn't even a million years old.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No its not, because precipitated minerals in the form of veins have visible pathways leading beyond the rock they're found in. There are some inclusions that do not, in which case the inclusions actually predate the rock theyre in, however this is not the case in regards to the mineral in which the bacteria was found.

Also sometimes you have things like trace fossils, foot prints and things like that, which obviously if the footprint is in the rock, then thats the age in which it is coming from.

Whereas with fossils, typically you are splitting rock in half to reach the bone contained within them.

To make another food analogy, its the difference between an icecream sandwich and a boston creme donut.

No, no, you are splitting sedimentary rick apart to get to them, not the rock used to date them. Sedimentary rick can not be used for dating.

Let’s also be clear that the rocks the footprints are found in is also sedimentary rock, again, not the rock used to date them.

Besides lava eruptions, sedimentary rock is the only rock fossils or footprints have been found.

 

[juvenissun]

A fourth thing the paper does (and the thing that was most convincing to me) is that it points out that the original claimants did not provide support for their dating of the salt crystals. Although the formation may have some known geological identity and age associated with it, salt dissolves and crystallizes readily.

If the salt recrystallized, the bacteria would be finished. So, most likely, the recrystallization did not happen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dude, scientists have more motivation to find evidence that challenges evolution than supports it. Especially evidence that would disprove it, that'd be instant fame and fortune. Plus, 0 valid motivation to hide any evidence against evolution, before you try to go all conspiracy theory on me.

Oh please, enough with the fake wounded scientists are robots already.

They are sitting there watching finches get it on right in front of their eyes, with the dna data to show they always have been and are of mixed ancestory, and refuse to correct anything. They were never as believed reproductively isolated and Speciation never occurred. They could care less about errors and corrections, all they care about is not falsifying their theory.

No, I've had my butt handed to me because of peer reviewed scientific journal sources before. Just not by you, because you persistently decide not to use any. Your source isn't entirely terrible in terms of writing, but it is misleading in the conclusion. That is, it mentions a bunch of findings that actually disagree with your position, but then in the conclusion just optimistically says that thanks to these fossils, people are reconsidering their original conclusions about the age of the Earth...

It cites not one that is against their conclusions. Ahh, you mean against your original belief that soft tissue could not survive millions of years and so no one ever bothered to look for it. Only by accident was it found, because they understood the impossibility of it after that long.

Then you got some hack that in perfectly controlled laboratory conditions, where they could keep temperature, humidity and atmosphere just right, claims to have discovered a way. The problem is those soft tissues were not found enclosed in iron residue....

All of this stuff you have to ignore:
"Interestingly, in the preparation of bone samples for their experiments they observed that removal of organics from bone is not easy, even with harsh treatment including repeated cycles of extreme heat, bleach, and enzyme treatment. Their suggestion is that when encased in dense cortical bone, labile organics can persist longer.

And yet despite your claims, even after those harsh cleansing steps to remove trace organic contaminated, we find them anyways.

In their paper on preserved collagen from a Lufengosaurus bone, Lee et al. found that collagen was preserved only in the vascular canals, not in the bone matrix [17]. Given that the interior of the vascular canals often contained hematite particles, the authors suggested the collagen was preserved because it remained trapped between hematite concretions inside the vessels and the surrounding carbonated apatite minerals in the bone matrix.

And yet the bone fossilized, the hardest part of an animal replaced by minerals, but the soft tissue did not. Epicycles as excuses.

Finally, some are still questioning the reliability of the results published by Mary Schweitzer and her group. For example, Buckley et al. [22] demonstrated that all the published putative dinosaur peptide sequences from T. rex and B. canadensis are matched by sequences of collagen from ostrich bone. Their suggested implication is that cross-contamination of the dinosaur samples with ostrich material in the lab cannot be ruled out."

And they retested them, under even more stringent conditions, and the results were confirmed. Notice how the detractors never bother to run tests, just run their mouths?

Now had hers been the only one since tested, not counting the pigment finds, running mouth hacks might have something to add besides hot air.

So, some people claimed that there were dinosaur peptides that made it through the test of time... but they might actually be ostrich peptides that contaminated the sample by mistake, wow. You'll notice that the other "soft" tissues tend to be some of the more durable ones in terms of preservation, such as skin, or ones deep inside bones.

Hmm, yes, even preserved melonine, imagine that. And certainly not from inside bones.... what excuse you got for skin pigments?

I'll give your source points in not being as terrible as AiG.

I’ve given your source points for using the words could and maybe.

Honestly, given that there are human bodies that preserve well for unknown reasons to the point that they can be centuries old and look like sleeping people, I don't know how the same couldn't happen to dinosaurs. Note how a key component, DNA, which can last 6.8 million years, is not found in any of these tissues, but it should be if the Earth isn't even a million years old.

Wait now, please do not mix up mummification and fossilization. Do not confuse dehydration for a few thousand years as being similar to fossilization over your claimed millions. Or are you suggesting that like mummies, those fossils are only in the 10’s of thousands of years, tops?

Who is objecting to a 4 billion year old earth? You got me confused with others. I understand you think it’s that old based upon decay rates, but I’ve yet to see time dilation calculations applied. After all, the twin aged slower due to his velocity through space.

If you want to argue against relativity too, your welcome to try.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is that like finding fossils in sediments, then using the nearby rock to date them?

No, it's not. Several problems with your reasoning, but let's just pick one. Can you show an example of large bones, even entire skeletons, precipitating through small gaps in surrounding rocks?

So you agree it wouldn’t be wise to do either.

No.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, no, you are splitting sedimentary rick apart to get to them, not the rock used to date them. Sedimentary rick can not be used for dating.

Let’s also be clear that the rocks the footprints are found in is also sedimentary rock, again, not the rock used to date them.

Besides lava eruptions, sedimentary rock is the only rock fossils or footprints have been found.

I knew their was a reason I blocked you before. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are acting like you do. Back to blocking you.

 

[sfs]

If the salt recrystallized, the bacteria would be finished.

Why?

 

[Jimmy D]

They are sitting there watching finches get it on right in front of their eyes, with the dna data to show they always have been and are of mixed ancestory, and refuse to correct anything.

Who said certain species of finch couldn't hybridize? It's fully expected in such cases of adaptive radiation. Citation please.

They were never as believed reproductively isolated and Speciation never occurred

Again, you obviously don't know what "reproductively isolated" means. Your whole sorry argument is based on accusing people of ignoring scientific definitions yet you do it yourself so frequently.

They could care less about errors and corrections, all they care about is not falsifying their theory.

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the salt recrystallized, the bacteria would be finished. So, most likely, the recrystallization did not happen.

You don't even know what you're saying. If the brine inclusion (with bacteria) came from a recrystallization, that means there was no bacteria in the original salt. If the bacteria can be captured in a crystallization event 250 million years ago, they can also be captured in a more recent one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it's not. Several problems with your reasoning, but let's just pick one. Can you show an example of large bones, even entire skeletons, precipitating through small gaps in surrounding rocks?

Con you show me a fossil encased in sedimentary rock encased in non-sedimentary rock?

No.

I’ll take this as the given answer to the above question, your redundant response need not be repeated.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I knew their was a reason I blocked you before. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are acting like you do. Back to blocking you.

Whatever excuse you need to justify in your own mind not being able to respond.

If prayers are answered I’ll stay blocked and not have to listen to your excuses. But seems your word couldn’t be trusted last time either....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who said certain species of finch couldn't hybridize? It's fully expected in such cases of adaptive radiation. Citation please.

Your own source uses mules which are incapable of interbreeding as their one and only source for separate species.

I told you I would meet you half way in your own beliefs, to which you never responded. If interbreeding does not necessarily mean same species, then lack of interbreeding does not necessarily mean separate species.

I’m quite willing to entertain your claims, the question is are you willing to accept what that claim entails? I doubt it.

Again, you obviously don't know what "reproductively isolated" means. Your whole sorry argument is based on accusing people of ignoring scientific definitions yet you do it yourself so frequently.

Name one?????

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

See above, name one I have ignored? Certainly if I do it all the time it should be easy to actually name one instead of make bald faced claims. At least I showed you your own definition of subspecies. As well as your own definition of Allopatric Speciation. Neither of which you or them follow. I don’t think you can without it contradicting other well established definitions. I think you are all talk and no show.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh please, enough with the fake wounded scientists are robots already.

They are sitting there watching finches get it on right in front of their eyes, with the dna data to show they always have been and are of mixed ancestory, and refuse to correct anything.

1. they don't hybridize frequently enough for the populations to merge, and the hybrids have extremely reduced reproductive success. For this reason, they are not considered the same species, and even the 1 source you have that suggests that there is a lot of hybridization comes from a guy that thinks there are even MORE distinct species among the finches. You don't have a leg to stand on.
2. No one has ever denied hybridization happens, you just can't comprehend that in the wild, different species sometimes hybridize. So sorry the high school definition of species is but a shadow of the actual application and you can't get over it.

They were never as believed reproductively isolated and Speciation never occurred. They could care less about errors and corrections, all they care about is not falsifying their theory.

Lol, why would these finches all being the same species disprove evolution?

It cites not one that is against their conclusions. Ahh, you mean against your original belief that soft tissue could not survive millions of years and so no one ever bothered to look for it. Only by accident was it found, because they understood the impossibility of it after that long.

Lol, so why weren't creationist fossil hunters the first to find it? You're implying that YECs should have been looking for it, so why didn't they find it first?

Then you got some hack that in perfectly controlled laboratory conditions, where they could keep temperature, humidity and atmosphere just right, claims to have discovered a way. The problem is those soft tissues were not found enclosed in iron residue....

Source? Also, are you forgetting what one of the functions of bone marrow is? The production of red blood cells. What's in red blood cells? Iron.

And yet despite your claims, even after those harsh cleansing steps to remove trace organic contaminated, we find them anyways.

-_- the T. rex tissue was found because those steps caused the tissue to fall out of the fossil, so... your point? It's not like all fossils have this tissue in them.

And yet the bone fossilized, the hardest part of an animal replaced by minerals, but the soft tissue did not. Epicycles as excuses.

The tissue could have been protected within the bones, you know. And bones consist largely of minerals to begin with.

And they retested them, under even more stringent conditions, and the results were confirmed. Notice how the detractors never bother to run tests, just run their mouths?

Source?

Now had hers been the only one since tested, not counting the pigment finds, running mouth hacks might have something to add besides hot air.

I think there are maybe 5 finds of soft tissue found within the bones?

Hmm, yes, even preserved melonine, imagine that. And certainly not from inside bones.... what excuse you got for skin pigments?

Why should I have an excuse?
Pigments are proteins, and I find this article to be interesting Twisted structure preserved dinosaur proteins : Nature News

I’ve given your source points for using the words could and maybe.

-_- all scientific sources should use words like that, because science doesn't do absolutes. It's always possible for a scientific conclusions to be wrong, no matter how much evidence supports it.

Wait now, please do not mix up mummification and fossilization. Do not confuse dehydration for a few thousand years as being similar to fossilization over your claimed millions. Or are you suggesting that like mummies, those fossils are only in the 10’s of thousands of years, tops?

No, I was just saying that our understanding of the preservation and fossilization of tissues is rather incomplete, and finds like this suggest that trying to rely on that limited understanding to date a fossil would be erroneous.

I sincerely wish that DNA had been preserved in these, that would be so cool. One of the worst things about fossils is that only relatively young ones have it.

Who is objecting to a 4 billion year old earth? You got me confused with others. I understand you think it’s that old based upon decay rates, but I’ve yet to see time dilation calculations applied. After all, the twin aged slower due to his velocity through space.

Sorry dude, hard to keep track of the various details between different positions sometimes. Also, time dilation as it relates to the plant compared with the universe at large is so tiny as to be practically irrelevant, and even if the planet was, say, 10,000 years old from the perspective of some point within the universe, from our perspective, 4.5 billion years have passed regardless.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Con you show me a fossil encased in sedimentary rock encased in non-sedimentary rock?

Why should I? It's your claim. I even questioned whether you thought it is possible. Notice how you didn't answer the question but instead asked me to show how it is possible?

I’ll take this as the given answer to the above question, your redundant response need not be repeated.

Sure. Taking things out of context is standard practice for creationists.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

Don't know. Because knows nothing about the bacteria. Just a common sense.

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

You don't even know what you're saying. If the brine inclusion (with bacteria) came from a recrystallization, that means there was no bacteria in the original salt. If the bacteria can be captured in a crystallization event 250 million years ago, they can also be captured in a more recent one.

I don't. Tell me what kind of bacteria can survive a full or over saturated salt solution, under an elevated temperature and pressure.

 

[sfs]

Don't know. Because knows nothing about the bacteria. Just a common sense.

Why not?

Most people have some kind of reason for making a claim.

 

[sfs]

I don't. Tell me what kind of bacteria can survive a full or over saturated salt solution, under an elevated temperature and pressure.

The kind of bacteria that you'll find in inclusions in salt crystals. How else do you think they got there and stayed alive there, regardless of when they arrived?

 

[juvenissun]

The kind of bacteria that you'll find in inclusions in salt crystals. How else do you think they got there and stayed alive there, regardless of when they arrived?

It is a liquid inclusion. That is why I said if the salt recrystallized, the bacterial would die. Because the bacteria would be separated from the fluid. And I think it would be rare for a million-year-old salt crystal to avoid recrystallization.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No, no, you are splitting sedimentary rick apart to get to them, not the rock used to date them. Sedimentary rick can not be used for dating.

Let’s also be clear that the rocks the footprints are found in is also sedimentary rock, again, not the rock used to date them.

Besides lava eruptions, sedimentary rock is the only rock fossils or footprints have been found.

I'll be back to follow up some of the threads that I haven't had time to continue in the last few days.

In the meantime I'll point out that while sedimentary rock itself cannot be used for dating, igneous rock (such as volcanic as deposits) that brackets sedimentary rock can be dated. As you say. Put the two together, and we get dates for the sedimentary rocks that the fossils and footprints are found in.

So, what is it that you are trying to say. Because to me it looks as if you are saying that sedimentary rocks cannot be dated. They can be, just not directly.