Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 10:05 AM
395 online now:
Coyote, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,998 Year: 16,604/21,208 Month: 2,493/3,593 Week: 606/882 Day: 38/86 Hour: 2/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find?
mram10
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 1 of 33 (733371)
07-16-2014 4:32 PM


Has anyone heard the LATEST reasoning behind the tissue being soft after 65mil years? This is obviously a huge find.

Please bring only scientific answers to the questions and not accusations as to why I am asking.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-16-2014 5:23 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2014 6:14 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2014 6:53 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 7 by Meddle, posted 07-16-2014 7:13 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 33 (733373)
07-16-2014 4:45 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 3 of 33 (733379)
07-16-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mram10
07-16-2014 4:32 PM


Has anyone heard the LATEST reasoning behind the tissue being soft after 65mil years?

No, what is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 4:32 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 07-16-2014 5:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2687
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 33 (733381)
07-16-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
07-16-2014 5:23 PM



"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-16-2014 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 5 of 33 (733382)
07-16-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mram10
07-16-2014 4:32 PM


Has anyone heard the LATEST reasoning behind the tissue being soft after 65mil years?

According to the people who found the tissue (Schweitzer et al) it was mineralized. This would rather preclude people, or at least sane people, from offering reasoning to explain why it wasn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 4:32 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 33 (733383)
07-16-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mram10
07-16-2014 4:32 PM


The tissue wasn't soft until Dr. Schweitzer (well, a grad student, more likely) dissolved all the calcium-containing minerals in that chunk of fossil with EDTA. The remaining proteinaceous stuff had been encased in those minerals well enough that bacteria couldn't eat it, water couldn't hydrolyze it, and oxygen couldn't oxidize it.

That's my latest reasoning, and it is only a minute or so old. I think that puts it in the running for the latest, no?

Second-latest reasoning may be this, from Live Science in November 2013:

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.

Edited by Coragyps, : addition of Live Science quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 4:32 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
Meddle
Member
Posts: 160
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 7 of 33 (733385)
07-16-2014 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mram10
07-16-2014 4:32 PM


It seems that the presence of iron, which was originally locked up in the animals blood, contributed to the preservation of the collagen fibres within the bone through generation of oxygen free radicals. You can read more about it in this article, also the original journal article can be found here which should come out from behind the paywall in the next few months. Of course rapid burial and mineralisation, as Dr Adequate highlighted, also contributed to preservation, and remember that it was only after release from it's mineralised state that the collagen tissue became pliable.

Edit: And Coragyps beat me to it

Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 4:32 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 1:10 AM Meddle has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1621
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 33 (733413)
07-17-2014 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Meddle
07-16-2014 7:13 PM


Thanks Malcolm.

Also interesting in it is the following part:

The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Meddle, posted 07-16-2014 7:13 PM Meddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:47 PM Pressie has responded

    
mram10
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 9 of 33 (733542)
07-17-2014 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Pressie
07-17-2014 1:10 AM


Thank you for the explanations. I wasn't aware the collagen could last 65 mil years. Amazing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2014 1:10 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 07-18-2014 1:42 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 07-18-2014 6:49 AM mram10 has responded
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2014 1:50 AM mram10 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 345 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 10 of 33 (733543)
07-18-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:47 PM


I am curious as to what research you yourself had done on this subject before coming here and asking. You know the subject well enough to know a name and that name along with "t-rex" brings up the relevant article on google, so I have to wonder: what was your reasoning for asking here if your only response is "neat"? Do you have any thought provoking original ideas regarding this discovery? do you have an alternate theory as to how soft tissue survived so long?

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:47 PM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2014 4:22 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:48 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 11 of 33 (733548)
07-18-2014 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by hooah212002
07-18-2014 1:42 AM


Well, he didn't know it wasn't soft, which he could have found out by glancing at the abstract of the paper.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 07-18-2014 1:42 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1621
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 12 of 33 (733550)
07-18-2014 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:47 PM


You should read more scientific articles and fewer religious websites masquerading as "science".

The collagen had to be demineralised. Dr Schweitzer (an evangelical Christian) et al showed a way soft tissues can be preserved as long as those fossils exist, by publising their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You should try to tell your creationist buddies how science is done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:47 PM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:51 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 13 of 33 (733600)
07-19-2014 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:47 PM


I would wish to direct everybody's attention to a particular number. Namely mram10's total number of posts.

24.

I'm not very smart nor sharp. But isn't that the typical number of posts that students in Sunday School and other typical bullshit creationist classes are asked to post to websites?

mram10 has already posted the number of posts he needs for his homework assignment. I very much doubt that we will ever see him again.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:47 PM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:45 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
mram10
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 14 of 33 (733626)
07-19-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
07-19-2014 1:50 AM


I would wish to direct everybody's attention to a particular number. Namely mram10's total number of posts.

24.

I'm not very smart nor sharp. But isn't that the typical number of posts that students in Sunday School and other typical bullshit creationist classes are asked to post to websites?

mram10 has already posted the number of posts he needs for his homework assignment. I very much doubt that we will ever see him again.

I would also point out that my "homework" has taken me over a year to post 24 times

Seriously?? It amazes me that some of you consider yourselves "scientists". Again, thank you for the laugh this morning

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Never argue with a fool or the closed-minded

Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to wrath


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2014 1:50 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2014 12:52 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
mram10
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 15 of 33 (733627)
07-19-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by hooah212002
07-18-2014 1:42 AM


I am curious as to what research you yourself had done on this subject before coming here and asking. You know the subject well enough to know a name and that name along with "t-rex" brings up the relevant article on google, so I have to wonder: what was your reasoning for asking here if your only response is "neat"? Do you have any thought provoking original ideas regarding this discovery? do you have an alternate theory as to how soft tissue survived so long?

I bring it up here, hoping people have more information. The articles are written for the general public and have stated "red blood cells", etc. It makes it easier to track down the associated articles by asking those that are interested, then it is to google and go through 100 articles.

Like the member pic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 07-18-2014 1:42 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 07-19-2014 1:36 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:48 PM mram10 has responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017