What about the DNA evidence?

[lasthero]

But as
60 Minutes
shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

If memory serves, that 60 Minutes special is about the same instance with the material in the T-Rex bone.

Please explain how you're getting this:

strata tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: As below, and in this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates top the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.

From this:

Moreover, the fibrils differ significantly in spectral signature from those of potential modern bacterial contaminants, such as biofilms and collagen-like proteins. Thus, the preservation of primary soft tissues and biomolecules is not limited to large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs in relatively small-sized skeletal elements deposited in marine sediments.

I'm no expert, but it seems like they're arguing that, under certain circumstances, collagen can be preserved for abnormally long stretches of time.

Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring previous claims by young-earth creationists

Here's a funny thought - if YECs are so convinced that there are all these dinosaur bones that have all this soft tissue and that they've been right all along, why aren't they the ones going out and trying to find these things. You ever notice that? You don't hear about YECs actually finding this stuff, it's actual scientists in the actual field doing the actual work...and then YECs come along and hijack it. Come to think of it, what's stopping a YEC from just buying a fossil, cutting the thing open, and showing the world there's soft tissue inside? I know at least a few of them, like Ken Ham, have actual museums and fossils on display, and even if they didn't, they could probably afford to get at least one or two dinosaur bones. So why don't YECs do that, hm? Why do they sit on their thumbs and wait for actual scientists to do the work for them?


It's extremely telling that the only peer-reviewed work in your entire post came from people who are distinctly not creationists.

Regardless, I note that the peer-reviewed literature for this hadrosaur find is conspicuously absent. Link?

Oh, and about the archeopteryx find, you seem to have missed this part:

RSR: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue

Not feathers. The remnants of feathers. Not soft tissue. The remnants of soft tissue. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not going to waste my time going through a wall of cut and paste from a crazy, talk radio host's Creationist website.
Bob Enyart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find and post original sources (or even excise and post them from Enyart's links).

eta - Mosasaur find addressed here:
The Shipwreck of Time: Extraordinary Mosasaur Fossil Reveals Creationist Can't Read

I dont know who he is, So i include several links as part of this subject
including
Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
HowStuffWorks "How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?"
Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells : Nature News & Comment

and you home in on that rather than answer the question. The site i sent had all the links on it anyway if you checked including new science.com.

 

[USincognito]

I dont know who he is, So i include several links as part of this subject including

Yes. In post #151 less than 4 hours ago. Anyone who is reading the thread has seen them so there's no need to include them again. I pointed out by copying a paragraph from page 2 of the Smithsonian Mag article where she is disheartened by Creationists hijacking and misappropriating her discovery.

And you're an antipodean, right? I figured you weren't that familiar with him. I only know about him from some of the crazy stuff he's been responsible for.

and you home in on that rather than answer the question. The site i sent had all the links on it anyway if you checked including new science.com.

No, what I did was say I didn't want to wade through a wall of text cut and pasted from Enyart's page. I asked for original sources and should have said that decent second hand sources would work as well.

eta - This appears to be the original paper of the Archaeopteryx X-ray analysis. Nothing about soft tissue preservation, but an evaluation of chemical signatures of what once were soft tissues.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9060.full

 

[stevevw]

Yes. In post #151 less than 4 hours ago. Anyone who is reading the thread has seen them so there's no need to include them again. I pointed out by copying a paragraph from page 2 of the Smithsonian Mag article where she is disheartened by Creationists hijacking and misappropriating her discovery.

And you're an antipodean, right? I figured you weren't that familiar with him. I only know about him from some of the crazy stuff he's been responsible for.



No, what I did was say I didn't want to wade through a wall of text cut and pasted from Enyart's page. I asked for original sources and should have said that decent second hand sources would work as well.

eta - This appears to be the original paper of the Archaeopteryx X-ray analysis. Nothing about soft tissue preservation, but an evaluation of chemical signatures of what once were soft tissues.
Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully revealed via synchrotron imaging

So i have included a few different sources who all say they have found soft tissue. Was soft tissue found or not. You are saying the explanation is that it was encased somehow and preserved it for 65 million years but this has not been proven yet, it is only speculated.

This is a sensitive topic for scientists so they have to tread carefully as most thought it completely impossible for blood cells to survive that long.

 

[stevevw]

So i have included a few different sources who all say they have found soft tissue. Was soft tissue found or not. You are saying the explanation is that it was encased somehow and preserved it for 65 million years but this has not been proven yet, it is only speculated.

This is a sensitive topic for scientists so they have to tread carefully as most thought it completely impossible for blood cells to survive that long.

I did look at the link to Archaeopteryx site for the tests and it does seem to be about x ray or SRS-XRF tests. I will have to read that a couple of times to get the gist but it does mention SRS-XRF shows that P in the rachises and Zn in the bone have been spectacularly conserved in the Thermopolis Archaeopteryx, constraining original concentrations and distributions in the living organism. But i dont think that is about soft tissue.

 

[[serious]]

No its not just wondering how some got there and lasted so long. Seems to indicate some sort of flooding or deluge.

And as we've already established, science is fine with the fact that floods sometimes happen and trees are sometimes where floods happen.

 

[lasthero]

This is a sensitive topic for scientists so they have to tread carefully as most thought it completely impossible for blood cells to survive that long.

Not a single thing you posted talked about blood cells surviving. Not a single one.

 

[stevevw]

And as we've already established, science is fine with the fact that floods sometimes happen and trees are sometimes where floods happen.

Well just on face value it seems strange that yes even though there is evidence of a lot of flood catastrophe around the world some of it is in strange places or very high above sea level. Some are very large, like a pancake affect which cover vast areas sometimes as big as a country.

If they find a Polystrate trees high in a sedimentary cliff as they did in australia that would have taken a very long time to do. To long to have the tree still there and decaying.Such as the video stating that the sediments couldn't have had time to accumulate around it high enough as the tree would have rotted.

 

[lasthero]

Well just on face value it seems strange that yes even though there is evidence of a lot of flood catastrophe around the world some of it is in strange places or very high above sea level.

First off, can you name some places with evidence of a flood at exceedingly high altitudes?

Second off, no, on a planet where earth is constantly moving around and shifting and being displaced and has been doing so for millions of years, it's not that surprising.

If they find a Polystrate trees high in a sedimentary cliff as they did in australia that would have taken a very long time to do.

And I suppose you have a link to where some intrepid YECs have gone to study this thing, right? Maybe date it to see if it died 4,400 years ago. I mean, they did do that, right?

 

[stevevw]

First off, can you name some places with evidence of a flood at exceedingly high altitudes?

I dont mean high up in the mountains i mean the cliff faces are high and they are sometimes also elevated as well. So the ocean would have to have been 20 30 feet or more higher. Then it would have to come down to its current level. To me that takes a long time yet the tree has not petrified but just rotted.

Second off, no, on a planet where earth is constantly moving around and shifting and being displaced and has been doing so for millions of years, it's not that surprising.



And I suppose you have a link to where some intrepid YECs have gone to study this thing, right? Maybe date it to see if it died 4,400 years ago. I mean, they did do that, right?

What is YECs is that young earth creationists. If it is no it is mainly from the reference i included before if you read it. The video mentions the same. How can the layers build up so quick when the tree is still rotting and not petrified and between two coal layers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed8SzwTtqL0

 

[lasthero]

Polystrate Fossil Tree - YouTube

I typically don't respond to videos with other videos, but since you've already posted a bunch of them, I don't think it's asking too much for you to watch this one.

Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked - YouTube


This video also explains the preserved soft tissue in dinosaur bones, but I suggest you start the video at 6:00, where he starts explaining polystrata trees. Enjoy.

 

[stevevw]

Not a single thing you posted talked about blood cells surviving. Not a single one.

I had already included this reference if you would have read it as part of my previous posts.


In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.
http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637
​

 

[Subduction Zone]

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
​

Heme is a chemical, it is not a red blood cell.

In fact it is only part of the chemical hemoglobin. So not only do you not have blood cells, you don't even have hemoglobin. You have the product of the break down of hemoglobin. Now that is rather amazing, but it does not mean that the fossil is not 65 million years old. And the finder of it agrees with me.

 

[stevevw]

Heme is a chemical, it is not a red blood cell.

In fact it is only part of the chemical hemoglobin. So not only do you not have blood cells, you don't even have hemoglobin. You have the product of the break down of hemoglobin. Now that is rather amazing, but it does not mean that the fossil is not 65 million years old. And the finder of it agrees with me.

But is also doesn't mean that is could be only thousands of years old either at this stage. They speculate about how this could be but they have no solid evidence of how this could be. Simple all they keep saying is this is amazing and should not be the case. When you link this with some of the carbon dating that has thrown up young ages for dinosaur bones then you begin to wonder.

[FONT=&quot]Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

[/FONT]
If dinosaurs are really millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But is also doesn't mean that is could be only thousands of years old either at this stage. They speculate about how this could be but they have no solid evidence of how this could be. Simple all they keep saying is this is amazing and should not be the case. When you link this with some of the carbon dating that has thrown up young ages for dinosaur bones then you begin to wonder.

[FONT=&quot]Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

[/FONT]
If dinosaurs are really millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.

I already dealt with that C14 nonsense. Until they actually publish the response we are at a permanent state of BS by the people making the claim.

Now the question is how do we know that dinosaurs are many millions of years old? We knew that long before radiometric dating came out. By studying geology and stratigraphy it is possible to estimate a minimum age for dinosaurs and even without radiometric dating it was known that they were many millions of years old.

So we have countless pieces of evidence that says the fossils are old, old, old. We have one new discovery that is very interesting and what looks like a bogus claim by creationists. Hmm, I will go with the countless pieces of evidence.

 

[gungasnake]

I already dealt with that C14 nonsense.

In your own mind... These were blind tests conducted by the dating service at the University of Georgia using the most advanced technologies.

You're not doing yourself any favors by calling that "nonsense".

 

[gungasnake]

Trex proteins turn out to be so close to those of a chicken that you'd expect it to taste like chicken:

https://www.google.com/search?clien...eins+chicken&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your own mind... These were blind tests conducted by the dating service at the University of Georgia using the most advanced technologies.

You're not doing yourself any favors by calling that "nonsense".

How many times must you be told, it is not the testing that is being disputed.

It does not matter how blind they are if you have faulty sampling methodology.

The "nonsense" came from your side, not mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trex proteins turn out to be so close to those of a chicken that you'd expect it to taste like chicken:

https://www.google.com/search?clien...eins+chicken&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Bad link, but thanks for supporting dinosaur/bird evolution.

 

[stevevw]

How many times must you be told, it is not the testing that is being disputed.

It does not matter how blind they are if you have faulty sampling methodology.

The "nonsense" came from your side, not mine.

Thats what they claimed faulty sampling methods or the equipment not calibrated. But they had gone back and done rigorous tests to ensure this wasn't the case if you would have read the info. It wasn't contaminated, the equipment wasn't faulty and it wasn't bio-film.