Dino Tissue

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Dino Tissue

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Why hadn't I heard of this?

It was noted on a creationist documentary called "Dragons or Dinosaurs" so I looked it up and there it is. This film is on netflix btw.

Interesting film but they have more gaps than your local mall by far though I can see how it would be quite convincing to someone who "wants" to believe it. 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 So we are one step closer

 So we are one step closer to Jurassic Park?

 

Dare I suggest that we start with cat sized dinosaurs before we move on to the big ones?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 So we are one step closer to Jurassic Park?

 

Dare I suggest that we start with cat sized dinosaurs before we move on to the big ones?

Yea nice it just happened to be a t-rex, one would think the odds would say it would have been found in a hadrosaur.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The article said nothing

The article said nothing about DNA, likely with good reason. At the very least, the editors did not want to unduly raise hopes it had no knowledge of.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
soft tissues after 70 million years - really?

 how is it possible to have any soft tissue after 70 million years?

I have debated with creationist saying this proves the dating methods are wrong and the earth is only 6k years old.

 

So, how do you argue back at that? How can soft tissue exist after that length of time?

 

I see the article is from 2005. What happened after that? Was it a hoax?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: how is

ex-minister wrote:

 how is it possible to have any soft tissue after 70 million years?

I have debated with creationist saying this proves the dating methods are wrong and the earth is only 6k years old.

 

So, how do you argue back at that? How can soft tissue exist after that length of time?

 

I see the article is from 2005. What happened after that? Was it a hoax?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144528.htm wrote:

ScienceDaily (May 1, 2009) — Ancient protein dating back 80 million years to the Cretaceous geologic period has been preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues of a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, according to a study in the May 1 issue of Science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103737.htm wrote:

ScienceDaily (July 31, 2009) — A new analysis of the remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex) that roamed Earth 68 million years ago has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage. The findings, scheduled for publication in the Sept. 4 issue of the Journal of Proteome Research, is the latest addition to an ongoing controversy over which biochemical remnants can be detected in the dinosaur.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=30969 wrote:

The results of this study indicate that exquisite preservation of pliable soft-tissues may be related to a microbial masonry process whereby the formation of microbial biofilms wall off internal surfaces of bones during early taphonomic stages. These biofilms metabolize organic materials and mineralize, forming resistant structures or microbial masonry wall surfaces across internal pores openings in bones. These results have potential to allow for more detailed taphonomic reconstructions and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of fossil preservation in the form of soft-tissues structures and biomolecules.

The claim of the presence of primary soft-tissues in fossil vertebrates has been supported by the identification by mass spectroscopy of biomolecules in the form of collagen and proteins [2], [3]. However, these studies have failed to produce a potential mechanism for the preservation of soft tissues throughout geological time. The results presented here suggest an important role of microorganisms in taphonomic processes, notably for the preservation of primary soft-tissues within bone, through a microbial masonry process. Although biomolecular studies on soft-tissue extracts from fossil vertebrates have shown that the proposed alternative interpretation of primary soft-tissue as microbial biofilms is unlikely [2], [3], biofilms may play a critical role in the preservation process.

 

Maybe so, maybe no.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well E-M, that argument

 Well E-M, that argument could be turned around just as easily. How can you have soft tissue after 6,000 years?

 

Really, I have only just scratched the surface of this topic but if you read up on forensics, it seems that knowing anything about a body is not so easy as all that. Apparently, when someone dies alone in an apartment and is not professionally embalmed, people notice this in a time frame of 2-3 weeks. At that point, there is often not enough left to figure out what actually happened. Often, the only way to even get a handle on how long the person has been dead for is based on what type of insect has managed to invade the body.

 

Past that, what does “soft tissue” even mean in this context? I could swear that I remember hearing about a mummified dino being found in a cave in Texas like 30 or so years ago. Apparently, not accurate or if accurate, it meant something different than I had in mind.

 

Now scientists do find new and unexpected things all the time. It is the nature of the job. While the specific new finding can never be anticipated, the fact that some new thing has been found is not really news.

 

You want to deal with how old the earth is? How about the Oklo Fossil reactors?

 

Basically, what happened there is that all sources of uranium are carefully monitored because of the danger of stuff getting into the wrong hands. So some French nuclear engineers are pulling new stuff out of the ground and what they are finding only makes sense if it had been spent nuclear fuel.

 

Hold the phone! Spent nuclear fuel in a virgin mine is a huge problem.

 

Unless there is a perfectly pedestrian explanation such as, oh I don't know but possibly the earth is billions of years old.

 

In that case, you can track back a whole lot of half lives and natural uranium would be viable as fuel. Then the fossil reactors can be accounted for as being actual reactors that just happened to be real. Either that or you have a few thousand tons of diverted nuclear fuel.

 

Here is why that does not work though: The combined financial activity of the USA and the USSR together only ever managed to make a few thousand bombs. What we are having to track with the Oklo uranium would be millions of bombs.

 

So yah, for the 6,000 year number to be true, there would have to be so many bombs missing that a terrorist organization could destroy the whole solar system.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=