Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 7:11 PM
362 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, GDR, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle (8 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,870 Year: 21,476/21,208 Month: 1,909/2,326 Week: 364/881 Day: 82/107 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 77 (509144)
05-19-2009 2:00 AM


Schweitzer's research appears to have proved it can happen already. The question now is how collagen bits get preserved for 80 million years.

All Schweitzer found is that collagen is present in dinosaur bones, not really that it can last for 65 million years ...

Now here's the thing with Schweitzer's discovery. As Percy correctly pointed out, it does not underpin an ancient earth nor evolution. Assuming that the evolutionary interpretation of geology and the fossil record is right, dinosaurs have disappeared in the record for the past 65 million years, which, at first hand, would seem to prove they have gone extinct. But this is not necessarily true: Coelacanth also have disappeared from the past 65 millions years in the fossil record, but as we all know, they did not go extinct, since they are found alive today. (as is the case with every ''living fossil'')

If research can be done to estimate the maximum time collagen can survive, and it doesn't allow 65 millions years of survival, then it doesn't throw all evolution down, it simply shows that the dinosaurs probably did not go extinct 65 million years ago, they just disappeared from the fossil record as the coelacanth did and a lot of other living fossils have done.

In any case, it would simply mean a revision of the history of the dinosaurs. If they did not go extinct 65 millions years ago, then when DID they go extinct ? If it turns out to be true, we cannot know from the fossils since they dissapeared from it. The only other way would be to look at the recorded history of mankind, or at the clues left behind by caveman with their drawings. Both recorded history (threw dragons tales) and cave drawings seem to point that man did coexist with at least some type of big lizards, which could well be some dinosaur who would have survived. If anyone would be interested in discussing this possibility, we could open another thread about it.

Edited by slevesque, : grammar


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 2:50 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 2:53 AM slevesque has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 17 of 77 (509151)
05-19-2009 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:00 AM


It is not impossible that somewhere dinosaurs still live, or at least lived relatively recently, but that doesn't bear on this research. The Schweitzer T-Rex, based upon dating of the geologic layers in which it was discovered, is 68 million years old. If it is impossible for proteins to survive that long then there's only one reasonable possibility: Schweitzer is mistaken. The other possibility that vast swathes of physics and geology and cosmology are all mistaken, while not impossible, is extremely remote.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:00 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:35 AM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 18 of 77 (509152)
05-19-2009 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:00 AM


Special Pleading / Dragons
I went to see the wikipedia definition of special pleading since it seemed to me we didn't have the same definition lol, probably because of the language barrier.(me=french) I viewed it more as simply speculating the existence of an unknown thing (in this case, conditions which would make the proteins survive 65 millions years)to explain results which do not fit with previous data.

Which previous data?

If research can be done to estimate the maximum time collagen can survive, and it doesn't allow 65 millions years of survival ...

But where is this research? If you cannot produce it, then it doesn't take "special pleading" to postulate an "unknown mechanism" that preserved it, rather it takes wishful thinking to postulate, in the face of the known facts, some unknown mechanism that must have destroyed it by now.

Both recorded history (threw dragons tales) and cave drawings seem to point that man did coexist with at least some type of big lizards ...

You don't say.

If anyone would be interested in discussing this possibility, we could open another thread about it.

I'm game.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:00 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:43 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 77 (509165)
05-19-2009 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
05-19-2009 2:50 AM


Ooohhh right on, I forgot for a moment there that the bones were found in sediments believed to be 65 millions years old, which puts the bone also at 65 millions years old.

Then the other possibility would be that the sediment is not as old as believed. You don't have to throw away all cosmology and geology for that to be true. Although geology would be changed I agree.

Although I doubt this would happen, I would be curious to see the result of carbon dating on that dinosaur bone.

The chance Schweitzer is mistaken is slim to none. When the announcement of the T-rex soft tissues were announced, many people simply said she was mistaken, contamination etc. But in her recent finding (the Hadrosaur) she took extreme car about this so that no one could invoke contamination as a possible explanation of the data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 2:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 8:56 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 05-23-2009 11:49 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 77 (509167)
05-19-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2009 2:53 AM


Re: Special Pleading / Dragons
Which previous data?

I was talking in a more broader sense in regards to what I thought ws special pleading. But for this particular case, I have sent a message to CMI for peer-reviewed articles of the longevity of collagen and other proteins and macromolecules.

But where is this research? If you cannot produce it, then it doesn't take "special pleading" to postulate an "unknown mechanism" that preserved it, rather it takes wishful thinking to postulate, in the face of the known facts, some unknown mechanism that must have destroyed it by now

I have to disagree with you here. I have invoked Thermodynamics as a mechanism (2nd law) which would destroy the collagen. It is not an unknown mechanism.

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf talks of the longevity of such molecules. But it seems that 'the biochemist' is not a peer-reviewed journal, so we'll have to wait CMI answer. (BTW, how is an easy way to identify if a journal is peer-reviewed)

you don't say

Are you telling me crocodiles fly ? :P

I'm game.

This could be fun, you want me to start the thread or you will ?

Edited by slevesque, : mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 2:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 4:25 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 21 of 77 (509177)
05-19-2009 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
05-19-2009 3:43 AM


Re: Special Pleading / Dragons
I have to disagree with you here. I have invoked Thermodynamics as a mechanism (2nd law) which would destroy the collagen. It is not an unknown mechanism.

I'm not clear what you're getting at. Do you suggest that something other than collagen is more thermodynamically stable, and that collegen should have turned into whatever-it-is by now?

Show your working: in particular, calculate how long it would take.

If you just say "Thermodynamics" as an explanation, you're not really providing an mechanism any more than if someone gave the answer "Biochemistry" to explain why the collagen should have been preserved.

Are you telling me crocodiles fly ?

No. If you are claiming that tales of flying dragons are evidence of living (non-avian) dinosaurs, are you telling me that dinosaurs could fly?

This could be fun, you want me to start the thread or you will ?

You're the one with the claims, if you'd like to start the thread I'll be happy to join in.

If you wish, you could ask the moderators for it to be a debate specifically with me, or you could throw it open to all comers.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:43 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 2:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 22 of 77 (509191)
05-19-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
05-19-2009 3:35 AM


Then the other possibility would be that the sediment is not as old as believed. You don't have to throw away all cosmology and geology for that to be true. Although geology would be changed I agree.

Rather than me repeating what I just said, please see Message 15, the last three paragraphs, and especially the part about every field of science being interwoven with every other field.

Although I doubt this would happen, I would be curious to see the result of carbon dating on that dinosaur bone.

First, radiocarbon dating can only be used for organic material that is less than about 60,000 years old because the half-life of 14C is relatively short, around 5500 years off the top of my head. By the time half the radioactive 14C has decayed a dozen times, there's no detectable amount left. In other words, all organic material older than 60,000 years has no significant levels of 14C left, which leads to...

Second, this means that ancient dinosaur bones will date to around 60,000 years old using radiocarbon dating, or perhaps a bit younger if the background radioactivity level was above average such as can occur in some coal and iron rich layers. Elevated levels of background radiation produce small amounts of 14C.

The chance Schweitzer is mistaken is slim to none. When the announcement of the T-rex soft tissues were announced, many people simply said she was mistaken, contamination etc. But in her recent finding (the Hadrosaur) she took extreme car about this so that no one could invoke contamination as a possible explanation of the data.

Again, rather than me repeating what I just said, please see Message 15, paragraph one, about independent confirmation. Schweitzer's team can repeat their studies as many times as they like, they still represent a single research team at a single lab. Replication requires that other research teams are able to reproduce the results.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:35 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 2:12 AM Percy has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 23 of 77 (509476)
05-22-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2009 4:25 AM


Re: Special Pleading / Dragons
I'm not clear what you're getting at. Do you suggest that something other than collagen is more thermodynamically stable, and that collegen should have turned into whatever-it-is by now?

Show your working: in particular, calculate how long it would take.

If you just say "Thermodynamics" as an explanation, you're not really providing an mechanism any more than if someone gave the answer "Biochemistry" to explain why the collagen should have been preserved.

I suggest that the random movements of electrons in the collagen would have it break down slowly but steadily, to the point it could not possibly be sequenced. You will have to wait CMI answer for any working, and I didn't simply say 'thermodynamics'', but the second law of thermodynamics, which is as much precision as I can give you right now.

No. If you are claiming that tales of flying dragons are evidence of living (non-avian) dinosaurs, are you telling me that dinosaurs could fly?

Although some dinosaurs could fly, it was more of a joke, since as you've pointed out, some dragon stories also involve non avian dinosaurs.

You're the one with the claims, if you'd like to start the thread I'll be happy to join in.

If you wish, you could ask the moderators for it to be a debate specifically with me, or you could throw it open to all comers.

I'm engaged in a couple threads already around here. But I'll start an open thread about this as soon as I can. I like open threads better since any comers can put forth new ideas and arguments.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2009 4:25 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:33 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 77 (509478)
05-22-2009 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
05-19-2009 8:56 AM


Rather than me repeating what I just said, please see Message 15, the last three paragraphs, and especially the part about every field of science being interwoven with every other field.

Although it pretty much ends at radioactive decay and sedimentology. while I absolutly agree it would need good changes in our view of the former, I would suggest it would only involve some minor tweeks in the later, although I don't know the geologic position of the fossils. Some positions would recquire more adaptation then others.

First, radiocarbon dating can only be used for organic material that is less than about 60,000 years old because the half-life of 14C is relatively short, around 5500 years off the top of my head. By the time half the radioactive 14C has decayed a dozen times, there's no detectable amount left. In other words, all organic material older than 60,000 years has no significant levels of 14C left, which leads to...

Second, this means that ancient dinosaur bones will date to around 60,000 years old using radiocarbon dating, or perhaps a bit younger if the background radioactivity level was above average such as can occur in some coal and iron rich layers. Elevated levels of background radiation produce small amounts of 14C.

I believe that with the new technology in accelerated particules, they can go up to a maximum of 200 000-250 000 years old.

Schweitzer's team can repeat their studies as many times as they like, they still represent a single research team at a single lab. Replication requires that other research teams are able to reproduce the results

I wasn't clear enough on this, but in her recent Hadrosaur discovery, she sent samples to two other labs for independant confirmation. She really did her homework so that no critics could neglect her data. I think this discovery is here to stay, and so a mechanism to preserve these proteins in 65 millions years old bones will have to be found eventually.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 8:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 2:16 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:51 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 25 of 77 (509479)
05-22-2009 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
05-22-2009 2:12 AM


Although it pretty much ends at radioactive decay and sedimentology. while I absolutly agree it would need good changes in our view of the former, I would suggest it would only involve some minor tweeks in the later ...

And I would suggest that it would require tearing up the whole thing and starting from scratch.

I wasn't clear enough on this, but in her recent Hadrosaur discovery, she sent samples to two other labs for independant confirmation. She really did her homework so that no critics could neglect her data. I think this discovery is here to stay, and so a mechanism to preserve these proteins in 65 millions years old bones will have to be found eventually.

No, a mechanism will have to be found to degrade them over the course of 65 million years. But not, of course, over the 4500 years since the Flood, obviously they must have remained intact that long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 2:12 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 26 of 77 (509495)
05-22-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
05-22-2009 2:00 AM


Re: Special Pleading / Dragons
slevesque writes:

I suggest that the random movements of electrons in the collagen would have it break down slowly but steadily, to the point it could not possibly be sequenced.

I think this is a very common expectation among scientists, which is why the result is such a surprise.

You will have to wait for CMI...

Why are you writing to a religious organization (Creation Ministries International) for scientific information? They'll tell you what you want to hear, a sort of scientific apologetic for conservative Christianity, but they won't provide you accurate scientific information about protein survival rates. Are you somehow under the impression that they have their own laboratories conducting research on protein longevity but that they aren't publishing in the technical literature, and that therefore you have to write to them for scientific information that only they have because since they don't publish you won't find it on the web? Did I mention I have a bridge for sale...

Although some dinosaurs could fly...

Unless you're including birds and bird predecessors among the dinosaurs, no dinosaurs could fly. You might be thinking of pterosaurs, which were reptiles, not dinosaurs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 2:00 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 4:10 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15718
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 27 of 77 (509498)
05-22-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
05-22-2009 2:12 AM


slevesque writes:

Although it pretty much ends at radioactive decay and sedimentology. while I absolutly agree it would need good changes in our view of the former, I would suggest it would only involve some minor tweeks in the later, although I don't know the geologic position of the fossils. Some positions would require more adaptation then others.

Only ignorance could suggest that "minor tweeks" could reinterpret geological layers as indicating a young Earth. When you've figured out what those "minor tweeks" are you let us know. And of course the radiometric data alone is sufficient to doom any young Earth interpretation.

I believe that with the new technology in accelerated particules, they can go up to a maximum of 200 000-250 000 years old.

Not that I've heard, but you suggested using radiocarbon dating on dinosaur bones, which are a minimum of three orders of magnitude older than what radiocarbon dating can handle. I was trying to point out to you the inanity of proposing a technique useful only for material some tens of thousands of years old on material that is millions of years old. Other radiometric dating techniques must be applied for ages that are tens and hundreds of millions of years. The most common are various forms of potassium/argon dating, and rubidium/strontium dating.

I wasn't clear enough on this, but in her recent Hadrosaur discovery, she sent samples to two other labs for independant confirmation. She really did her homework so that no critics could neglect her data. I think this discovery is here to stay, and so a mechanism to preserve these proteins in 65 millions years old bones will have to be found eventually.

Indications are that your level of knowledge is inadequate for others to trust your intuitions regarding which results to trust, but regardless, replication requires results from more than one team at one lab. For example, if contamination was taking place in Schweitzer's lab, then the samples she sent for analysis at other labs would also be contaminated. For another example, there could be fraud.

Like you, I hope Schweitzer's results hold up because of the exciting opportunities it opens up for learning more about ancient life, but you can't let hope overrule reason. You have to await replication.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 2:12 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 4:31 AM Percy has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 77 (509638)
05-23-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
05-22-2009 7:33 AM


Re: Special Pleading / Dragons
Why are you writing to a religious organization (Creation Ministries International) for scientific information? They'll tell you what you want to hear, a sort of scientific apologetic for conservative [/qs]
Christianity, but they won't provide you accurate scientific information about protein survival rates. Are you somehow under the impression that they have their own laboratories conducting research on protein longevity but that they aren't publishing in the technical literature, and that therefore you have to write to them for scientific information that only they have because since they don't publish you won't find it on the web? Did I mention I have a bridge for sale...

OMG, if I have to start saying things I have already said twice, this won't end ...
from myself one page ago:

quote:
I'll go ask CMI if they have a peer-reviewed reference article about the decay time of such molecules, we'll have to wait their answer (unless someone here can find one in that time)

All I asked them was if they had a peer-reviewed article that deals with the longevity of organic molecules. Not homemade research

Unless you're including birds and bird predecessors among the dinosaurs, no dinosaurs could fly. You might be thinking of pterosaurs, which were reptiles, not dinosaurs.

Thx for the info, I'm not really aware of reptile classification. I thought dinosaur pretty much englobed all ancient reptiles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 77 (509640)
05-23-2009 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
05-22-2009 7:51 AM


Only ignorance could suggest that "minor tweeks" could reinterpret geological layers as indicating a young Earth. When you've figured out what those "minor tweeks" are you let us know. And of course the radiometric data alone is sufficient to doom any young Earth interpretation.

It is not about reinterpreting geological layers as indicating a young earth. If it turns out that only very few dinosaur bones have soft tissues, then occasional castrastrophist scenarios could explain it.

We know volcanic erruptions such as at mount st-helens can create stratas. Now it could be a possibility that the few dinosaur bones that would have soft tissues simply died in such erruptions. It does not need a massive change of geology. Castrophist scenarios are sometimes used even in an overall uniformitarian geology.

Now if we discover that it is impossible that organic molecules can tough 65 millions years AND that the majority of dinosaur fossils possess soft tissues, as Jack Horner proposes, THEN it would involve a massive change of sedimentology I totally agree. But this is the essence of falsification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2009 5:34 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-23-2009 7:23 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 30 of 77 (509648)
05-23-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
05-23-2009 4:31 AM


(1) Strata is already plural. "Stratas" is not a word.

(2) What are you getting at? Are you proposing some special mechanism that only preserves soft tissue in dinosaur bones if the sediment is volcanic ash? Why? Do you know what sort of rock Schweitzer's dinosaur was found in?

(I haven't been able to find out what the T. rex was buried in, but in her follow-up work she found similar results with a hadrosaur buried in sandstone. Her comment: "Deep burial in sandstone seems to favor exceptional preservation", and the fact that she chose this dinosaur for her follow-up study, strongly suggest that the T. rex was also buried in sandstone.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 4:31 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 05-23-2009 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017