Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
440 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, nwr (4 members, 436 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,213 Year: 4,325/6,534 Month: 539/900 Week: 63/182 Day: 35/16 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 138 (194254)
03-24-2005 10:10 PM


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

How could soft tissue last 70 million years? It couldn't.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-25-2005 12:02 AM simple has replied
 Message 5 by aristarchus, posted 03-25-2005 1:30 AM simple has replied
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:18 AM simple has replied
 Message 138 by trisha, posted 09-01-2011 6:59 AM simple has taken no action

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 4 of 138 (194306)
03-25-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
03-25-2005 12:02 AM


quote:
Short answer: The age of the rocks are determined independently of whatever might also be found in the rocks. Amazingly enough, it seems that soft tissue indeed can be preserved that long.

Then if it is deemed unlikely soft tissue and blood would be around after millions of years, it is a good indication that the dating is way off of the rocks, for some reason!

I don't believe that it is logical to assume only present physical decay rates have been around forever anyhow. Not that the rates themselves have changed, but the process itself must have been different. Why? Well, since a spiritual factor is not considered science, we can't get into it. Unless it was bumped to coffee house. Anyhow, "This rapid burial provides a sealing effect from bacteria and oxygen that otherwise would have completely destroyed the organism. Except in extremely rare conditions, soft parts are never fossilised. It is more common to find fossilised hard skeletal remains or trace fossils. " http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Paleontology/FossilsAndFossilisation/...

Blood and soft tissue, come on, I think the evos are caught!

{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. Also added blank lines between paragraphs - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2005 01:12 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-25-2005 12:02 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MangyTiger, posted 03-25-2005 1:33 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 8 of 138 (194359)
03-25-2005 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by aristarchus
03-25-2005 1:30 AM


black helicopters
quote:
On one hand creationist accuse scientists of hiding any data that puts evolution in doubt, then turn around and depend upon science to make discoveries that fuel their flame.

Hey, there's way too much to sweep under the carpet. After all, what do you think is going on, some kind of conspiracy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by aristarchus, posted 03-25-2005 1:30 AM aristarchus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by aristarchus, posted 03-25-2005 3:47 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 138 (194363)
03-25-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sylas
03-25-2005 2:34 AM


fresh blood
quote:
An interesting detail; Schweitzer is a Christian; and she gets very angry at the way her work is used by creationists.

Well, She'll just have to get over it.
quote:
There is no serious question about the age of the fossils

Based on what? decay rates?
quote:
. Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain
Right. In layman's english, they just don't know, haven't a clue.
quote:
). These data indicate that exceptional morphological preservation in some dinosaurian specimens may extend to the cellular level or beyond.

Well at least in the specimen it is supposed to be refering to, namely the t rex.

Just wait till some others start opening the dino bones they already got!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 2:34 AM Sylas has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:26 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 138 (194364)
03-25-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by aristarchus
03-25-2005 3:47 AM


Re: black helicopters
Well, the head of such a conspiracy is most often attributed to a certain spirit. Science can't detect spirits, and therefore can not acknowledge them. Therefore even if there is such a conspiracy science would be utterly able to detect it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by aristarchus, posted 03-25-2005 3:47 AM aristarchus has taken no action

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 12 of 138 (194365)
03-25-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by MangyTiger
03-25-2005 1:33 AM


Re: Read the article more closely...
quote:
but I don't think this is going to shatter the foundations of evolutionary biology. It's just a rare and fascinating glimpse into a creature that lived millions of years ago.

Really? Funny how the tissue and blood have weathered the years so well, tens of millions of them, supposedly. And since it was rare to open these things up, I wonder how rare it really will turn out to be as every dino bone collector rips them open, looking for more? Ha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MangyTiger, posted 03-25-2005 1:33 AM MangyTiger has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 4:20 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 138 (194367)
03-25-2005 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sylas
03-25-2005 4:20 AM


crack em like easter eggs
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news...
Horner said he hoped museums around the world would start cracking open bones and looking for soft tissue in their fossils.

"Dinosaurs are relatively rare and we certainly think of Tyrannosaurus rex as being really rare -- although it really isn't -- so people tend not to want to cut holes into the bone or cut them in half," he said.

"But to study the cellular and molecular structures of these things you have to do that." The "good stuff," he said, is on the inside.

{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2005 05:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 4:20 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 4:54 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 18 of 138 (194448)
03-25-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sylas
03-25-2005 4:54 AM


easter eggs with a golden yoke!
quote:
Sure; it would be great to find more fossils like this, and that will require looking inside. By I don't think anyone, Jack Horner included, expects preservation detail such as reported in Science to be common.

Granted. Of course they didn't expect it in this one either. And you know human nature, everyone loves an easter egg hunt, even if sometimes they do make a mess! Besides, it could be worth some money, in a short while, and gold fever is another element of human nature that may have some digging and cracking where maybe some think they should not!
Already there is talk about how a total rethink about fossilization is now needed! On the surface, what seems to make more sense with blood and soft tissue tens of millions of years old? Or dinosaurs that walked with men!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 4:54 AM Sylas has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 1:35 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 19 of 138 (194449)
03-25-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
03-25-2005 7:26 AM


Re: fresh blood
quote:
Including lots of evidence that decay rates haven't changed.

I don't think they have. I think the physical process of decay itself was not the same process at all before the fall. It was recorded to have been one of regeneration, leading to eternal life, rather than decay and death. As I see it, there is only a several thousand year window of time, when the physical only decay process exists at all. Before death entered the world, and after the new heavens are revealed, the present processes are non existant. But now, sure they exist, and are constant. Of course this aspect needs the evidence of the bible, which is not accepted at the moment as we know by science. But neither do I accept unprovable assertions of belief that there was no spiritual effect that resulted in a different process altogether! So not much on that point to debate about.
At least the 'bleeding dino' ought to echo a warning that something is rotten in Denmark, with the old age philosopies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:26 AM JonF has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 03-26-2005 9:14 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 21 of 138 (194455)
03-25-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by JonF
03-25-2005 7:18 AM


quote:
The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels.

Isn't it a bit early to call it "originally organic matrix "?
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050324/capt.wx10303241932.t_rex_tissue_wx103.jpg

quote:
There have to have been other factors at play—cells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at death

Other factors, like it wasn't millions of years old after all, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 03-25-2005 7:18 AM JonF has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-25-2005 2:39 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 23 of 138 (194470)
03-25-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by pink sasquatch
03-25-2005 2:39 PM


"Are you claiming it was originally inorganic?"
No. I was thinking it was still organic, or recently was anyhow. The term matrix sounded unreal, and as if the dino was so long ago and far away, instead of still bloody, so to speak.

quote:
Unless death was caused or accompanied by a drastic change in temperature or salinity, in which case those enzymes would be rendered non-functional.

But do these flood year type conditions you speak of really have the capability to preserve blood and soft tissue 70 million yeras? If so, how do we know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-25-2005 2:39 PM pink sasquatch has taken no action

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 24 of 138 (194471)
03-25-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
03-25-2005 1:35 PM


Re: easter eggs with a golden yoke!
"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

"The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said" http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=1&u=/nm/20050324/sc_nm/dinosaur_to_dc
That's all I could find in a hurry on that.

quote:
But even if there were dinosaurs living today, what would that have to do with either Evolution (which is a fact) or the TOE?

Seems to me, evos say dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic, and such long ago periods, and this evolved from that, etc, etc. If one was running around now, the evolving part might be taken with a grain of salt! Ha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 1:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 3:52 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 138 (194542)
03-25-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
03-25-2005 3:52 PM


Re: easter eggs with a golden yoke!
quote:
Seems to me, evos say dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic, and such long ago periods, and this evolved from that, etc, etc.

Well, Yup! That much is fact.



That they say it, yes, but just between monkeys, here, I don't really buy it.

quote:
Why would a living dino be ANY problem for either Evolution or the TOE?

Well, I don't know. I have had some evos get snitty when some creationist suggested that men had encountered and seen, and lived with dinosaurs? Or that they thought that both men and dino footprints were found together, or some of their claims like that. I have heard some say they actually thought dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago. But if you say dinos walking around right now is fine with TOE, fine. It's fine with me as well, since I don't believe in the old ages! A little tissue and blood from dinos turns up, and evos seem to get ready to head for safer ground?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 3:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 9:23 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 30 of 138 (194548)
03-25-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
03-25-2005 9:23 PM


jar's little phrases
quote:
Why would a living dinosaur be a problem for the Theory of Evolution?

What I said was that blood and soft tissue would seem to fit a young earth scenario better than one where they died out 70 million years ago! Now if you want to warp it over to what evolution says about it, or whatever, be my guest, I could use a laugh! You raise the point, you're an evo, answer it yourself, or flush it for all I care.
You are locked into the great age of the dinosaur, because you believe the dating methods used on the rock surrounding it. So what would I care if you felt cool about a dino running around new dehli today or not? This one evo dates put at I think it was 70 million years. Deal with the issue at hand, and if you have a point to raise, don't expect me to explain the silly theory in intimate detail to you! I told you my thoughts on your little would be trick question! If you don't like them apples. then take this little phras for your answer. I don't know. Ha, add this little phrase to it. I don't care!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 9:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 10:46 PM simple has replied
 Message 36 by gengar, posted 03-26-2005 3:24 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 34 of 138 (194579)
03-26-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by MangyTiger
03-25-2005 10:01 PM


Re: easter eggs with a golden yoke!
Thank you, I guess you could see what he was getting at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by MangyTiger, posted 03-25-2005 10:01 PM MangyTiger has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022