Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
151 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 145 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,214 Year: 4,326/6,534 Month: 540/900 Week: 64/182 Day: 36/16 Hour: 3/1

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 46 of 138 (194723)
03-26-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
03-26-2005 4:30 PM


Re: splitting the difference
quote:
OK, why don't you give a brief explanation of what "radioactive decay" is,

". Briefly, radiometric dating seeks to establish the age of matter based on the ratios of parent to daughter isotopes and the constant rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes present. Isotopes of an element are atoms whose nuclei have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons (see diagram). The atomic nuclei of radioactive isotopes are unstable. As they move to a more stable configuration, the nuclei rid themselves of subatomic particles and excess energy. This process is known as decay. As radioactive decay proceeds, the radioactive "parent" material (e.g., uranium) is transformed into offspring or "daughter" products (e.g., thorium, etc.). This process continues until a stable daughter product is achieved (in the case of uranium, this is lead).
The length of time required for half of the original parent material to decay is known as the "half-life" of the isotope. These half-lives range from those less than 0.000000001 seconds to those extremely long (more than one billion years). For a given radioactive isotope, infinite age is often assumed after the passing of 7 to 10 half-lives, because after this point it is statistically impossible to accurately detect the presence of the parent isotope."
http://www.grisda.org/georpts/2101.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 03-26-2005 4:30 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 03-26-2005 11:52 PM simple has taken no action
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-27-2005 5:56 AM simple has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 47 of 138 (194757)
03-26-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by simple
03-26-2005 1:04 PM


End of Discussion
Simple writes:

Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay. But this again involves a merge of the spirit world, which the science today, cannot detect. The physical only science that is so limited, and only choses to operate in the little 'box' of physical evidences. Science of the box!

I have forgotten are you for or against having "equal time" for creationism in schools? If you are for then thank you for invalidating the very idea. Also if this is your argument then you are invited to stop posting in the science threads.

When science is being discussed you have to have some evidence for you r suggestions. It seems all you have is some period of time from 6,000 years ago to 4500 years ago when things where "different". You have no reasons for this that are in any way supported by evidence.

What that tells us is that you have no way of arguing with the dating methods without just making up magic pixies of somewhat undefined capabilities. You, of course, won't agree nor will you even understand what you have done. You have admitted scientific defeat.

See the answer below, and add to that that the conditions of the last few thousand years are no indication of flood conditions, or an ancient world.

This is NOT an answer to the specific question. Please try again the question was not that hard. Do you agree or not agree that for the last 4500 years there will tend to be (only on a statistcal basis) less softtissue preservation for things which died longer ago (up to 4500 yrs) than those which died more recently. If not, why not?

How do you know some things did not go extinct before the flood? Say, maybe even most dinosaurs? Then, remember also that some of each type of animal was on the ark, so that is not extint by a long shot either. Otherwise, everyone who goes on a cruise is extinct? And no doubt we could raise other variables.

Perhaps you could try for some consistency here. Did everything go on the ark and some go extinct after or did some go extinct before the flood? Which is it? If some went extinct before which were they?

I don't know this, but what does anyone know about some pre flood tropical world anyhow?) -

Exactly! Thank you for another admission of defeat. You know nothing whatsoever about your pre-flood world. It seems it is just magic enough to solve your problems.

However whatever the conditions were preflood. All living things were subject to them. Do you wish to speculate what the effect would have been on the preservation of softtissues? That will be necessary before we can continue.

Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay.

Please describe in detail the nature of this process that produced the correlations between many different methods of dating. Until you do you might as well have posted: "POIjhldkf;aiuavp;oiyauetoa99aoieurytip" as that is just as meaningful in the context of this discussion as the gibberish you are posting now.

So the new findings (much more to come I think we can safely say, as they start cracking em like easter eggs) may not be a real good 'clock' as you say, but they make the long assumed age look questionable.

Could you describe for me in your own words just what the new findings are and what they mean again? It is my impression that you think that the level of "soft tissue" preservation in the dino bones being discussed is equivalent to the 10,000 year old Mammoth material. Is this what you actually think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 1:04 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by simple, posted 03-27-2005 3:12 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 138 (194758)
03-26-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
03-26-2005 6:10 PM


Description of radioactive decay
wonderful!
Now that you have copied that from somewhere could you, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain what it means?

So far any of your own words suggest that you don't know what it is and conflate the idea of "decay" here with the "decay" of meat (for example).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 6:10 PM simple has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 138 (194783)
03-27-2005 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
03-26-2005 6:10 PM


Re: splitting the difference
OK, so please, in your own words, explain how radioactive decay is different from biological decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 6:10 PM simple has taken no action

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 50 of 138 (194837)
03-27-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
03-26-2005 11:51 PM


in the box
quote:
Do you agree or not agree that for the last 4500 years there will tend to be (only on a statistcal basis) less softtissue preservation for things which died longer ago (up to 4500 yrs) than those which died more recently. If not, why not?


One would tend to think so. Why?
As far as dating, I had to answer a question, and explain why the limited physical only assumptions (in a box)are not applicable to dates. Nothing to argue about, only to accept or reject, with no proof either way possible. Your definition of science becomes my definition of science of the box. But since the thread isn't about that it doesn't matter.
quote:
I have forgotten are you for or against having "equal time" for creationism in schools?

Try a thread that deals with schools, some may engage you on that one. I don't support public education, so I wouldn't be the one to ask there. Not a penny, would be my vote for that stuff the way it is these days.
quote:
Did everything go on the ark and some go extinct after or did some go extinct before the flood? Which is it? If some went extinct before which were they?
So now we're off on some ark tangent are we? That's a big topic. You wouldn't like, or be able to resist my arguements anyhow. Maybe if you have some specific creature in mind, and that may relate to the topic, we could have a stab at it.

quote:
However whatever the conditions were preflood. All living things were subject to them. Do you wish to speculate what the effect would have been on the preservation of softtissues? That will be necessary before we can continue.

I don't feel a particular need to speculate yet on that, why do you have some idea? Ha
All living things may or may not (if some effects were localized) have been affected, but how do you tell what fossils are from before or after, and thus differentiate where said effect came from?

quote:
Please describe in detail the nature of this process that produced the correlations between many different methods of dating.

Start a thread in the coffee house on dating, called "The Great Split " and I'll think about it.

quote:
Could you describe for me in your own words just what the new findings are and what they mean again?

What they are I think a school child could tell you. What they mean is still not clear, as so far we only have so much information. But it sounds like we may need to review assumptions on how fossilization works, and who knows? In the words of one poster here "a potential falsification?"
Why don't you focus on the issue, and what you might have to say about it yourself, if anything, rather than trying to trip me up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 03-26-2005 11:51 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3958
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 138 (194840)
03-27-2005 3:18 PM


Topic drift alert!
The topic theme is the preservation of organic material in (very old) fossils. The content of all messages should have some connection to this theme.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2005 6:01 PM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 138 (194855)
03-27-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Adminnemooseus
03-27-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Topic drift alert!
Thank you. Both you and simple have been better at remembering the topic than I have. Especially in that last post of mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-27-2005 3:18 PM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

  
gengar
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 138 (194898)
03-28-2005 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by simple
03-26-2005 5:34 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
simple writes:

So you mean this could make false the radioactive dating, that gave those dates?

Not in the way you'd like, I suspect. If you could clearly establish that the preservation mechanism in this case could only operate over thousands of years and not millions, the hypothesis that this particular bit of bone is 70 million years old would be falsified. If the bone was clearly associated with Cretaceous strata, then you have to start asking questions about the dating of that stratum.

But the first 'if' in that paragraph is the big one. Best to go back to the actual article in Science rather than the news reports (I've given the link but it's subscription only I'm afraid):

Cortical and endosteal bone tissues were demineralized , and after 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation

My emphasis - these vessels were surrounded by minerals which have protected them from decay. What is interesting is that it had to have grown very fast around the vessels and cells to preserve them so well. Another contributing factor:

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

The blood vessels are found deep inside the bone, where there was apparently some mineralisation even when the dinosaur still was alive, which also would have helped preserve them.

So what it appears we have here is some kind of very fast mineralisation process isolating and preserving the soft tissue. It is the speed which is the issue: once the blood vessels have been enveloped, they will be well protected from decay, and could potentially survive a very long time - certainly much more than a few thousand years. Whether it could survive in its original chemical form for 70 million years is more of an issue, but from the commentary piece in Science:

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived.

In either case, the problem is that you can't just consider this find in isolation. At the moment you're dealing with a few isolated instances of extremely good preservation amongst the thousands of dinosaur bones found in these strata. On current knowledge, they are the exception rather than the rule - they are unusual. Would indications of young age require us to question our assumptions? Yes. Does it immediately invalidate the vast amount of evidence that suggests that dinosaurs and the rocks that bear them are very old? No.

This message has been edited by gengar, 28-03-2005 10:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 5:34 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 03-28-2005 2:48 PM gengar has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 54 of 138 (194998)
03-28-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by gengar
03-28-2005 5:15 AM


Re: stretching the evidence
quote:
What is interesting is that it had to have grown very fast around the vessels and cells to preserve them so well.

What conditions normally would you think contribute to this happening? Since it is not normal with just rapid burial, I guess it likely would be something in the atmosphere, or dirt that it got trapped in?
quote:
The blood vessels are found deep inside the bone, where there was apparently some mineralisation even when the dinosaur still was alive
Sounds like something at work there we would not find in today's world?
quote:
On current knowledge, they are the exception rather than the rule - they are unusual.
But it is just as unusual to cut open the dino bones, and look for this type of thing! Up till now at least.
quote:
Would indications of young age require us to question our assumptions? Yes. Does it immediately invalidate the vast amount of evidence that suggests that dinosaurs and the rocks that bear them are very old? No.
True. But give it a week or two, who knows?
quote:
Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--

Here, age is again from radioactive dating we presume. And the original material was not known. To me, an assumption based on two unknowns is less than solid. Dating is only as good as an assumption that the decay process was always the same process. In other words only as good as saying there is nothing else but the physical world we now see, and it's current decay process. This is the assumption science makes, and one that cannot be proved or disproved. Something that cannot be proved or disproved is I would say, an unknown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by gengar, posted 03-28-2005 5:15 AM gengar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by gengar, posted 03-31-2005 3:25 AM simple has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 138 (195207)
03-29-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by simple
03-26-2005 12:39 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
You did notice that one of your quotes speaks against your case.

quote:
"It has always been thought that cells couldn't be preserved, but there really wasn't any evidence to back up those ideas, other than no one having found cellular preservation before."
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/510685/

So you realize that what this quote says is that previous assumptions made about cell preservation may not be correct in light of new evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 12:39 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 03-29-2005 9:33 PM gnojek has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 56 of 138 (195327)
03-29-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by gnojek
03-29-2005 1:23 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
quote:
So you realize that what this quote says is that previous assumptions made about cell preservation may not be correct in light of new evidence.

Well, at least it admits they are just assumptions! I'm hoping that things will start to surface now that indeed show their assumtions are off, hopefully, even the assumtions for the dating. I mean, what if something wild happens, like they find the dna is still good? That would not fit into some 70 million year old timeframe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by gnojek, posted 03-29-2005 1:23 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 1:23 PM simple has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5711 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 57 of 138 (195375)
03-30-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
03-25-2005 12:02 AM


An illustration of failed expectations
The DNA potential for this sample are at present grossly overstated. If we look at much more recent sub fossils such as woolly mammoths, where biomolecules are preserved, the quality and quantity are substantially reduced when compared to any recent or near recent samples.

quote:
Science. 1980 Jul 11;209(4453):287-9. Related Articles, Links

Mammoth albumin.

Prager EM, Wilson AC, Lowenstein JM, Sarich VM.

Serum albumin was detected immunologically in muscle from a mammoth that died about 40,000 years ago. Rabbits injected with ground mammoth muscle produced antibodies that react strongly with elephant albumin, weakly with sea cow albumin, and still more weakly or not at all with other mammalian albumins. Since elephant albumin elicited antibodies with the same specificity, some of the surviving mammoth albumin molecules evidently have antigenic sites identical to those on native elephant albumin. Much of the mammoth albumin has, however, undergone postmortem change. The small amount of soluble albumin extractable from mammoth muscle is heterogeneous in size, charge, and antigenic properties.


In addition to the very low albumin content, a chemical analysis of the "well preserved" Dima mammoth demonstrated that almost all elements one would expect in an organic sample were only a tiny fraction of normal i.e. phosphorous in the sample was below 1% of normal.

A perhaps more appropriate comparison to the Dinosaur is illustrated by the DNA from amber debacle. In the early 90's multiple claims of insect DNA sequences were published. Yet when further scrutinized, none of the results were reproducible as shown in this paper

quote:
Austin JJ, Ross AJ, Smith AB, Fortey RA, Thomas RH. Problems of reproducibility--does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects?
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997 Apr 22;264(1381):467-74.

or even possibly fraudulent.

quote:
Gutierrez G, Marin A.
The most ancient DNA recovered from an amber-preserved specimen may not be as ancient as it seems.
Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Jul;15(7):926-9.

One cannot rule out the possibilty of extremely well preserved samples. Even dinosaur. This says nothing about sample age but rather the preservation conditions. There are plenty of samples 100 years old that will not yield any DNA whereas frozen mammoth samples or even coprolites over 40 K yield abundant (albeit fragmented) DNA. Age and DNA preservation are not particularly well correlated.

I find it odd that Schweitzer and colleagues jumped to a discussion of DNA and preserved biomolecules rather than focusing on the morphological data that they DO have.


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 59 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 2:17 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 138 (195455)
03-30-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by simple
03-29-2005 9:33 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
There are far fewer assumptions being made about radioactive decay since we can observe it happening.

The reason people have to make assumptions about the preservation of organic material over millions of years is because there is so little real data on this type of thing. It's difficult to know what the conditions inside the T. rex bone was for 70 million years, much less being able to simulate it.

If they find viable DNA, I would be very surprised, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility. I would put money on them not being able to pull even a preliminary Jurassic Park type thing, as in I seriously doubt they'll be able to sequence T. rex's genome or something like that. The DNA is likely there in small fragments if it is there at all anymore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by simple, posted 03-29-2005 9:33 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 2:26 AM gnojek has taken no action

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 59 of 138 (195632)
03-31-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Mammuthus
03-30-2005 6:39 AM


Re: An illustration of failed expectations
quote:
If we look at much more recent sub fossils such as woolly mammoths, where biomolecules are preserved, the quality and quantity are substantially reduced when compared to any recent or near recent samples.

You are probably right. My feint hope there would rest in the following scenario. If the dino (or some other one they cut open now)was fossilized in the pre flood world, there may have been fantastic things at work, a mammoth from post flood would not share?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Mammuthus, posted 03-30-2005 6:39 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 03-31-2005 3:35 AM simple has taken no action
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 03-31-2005 3:37 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 60 of 138 (195634)
03-31-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by gnojek
03-30-2005 1:23 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
quote:
The reason people have to make assumptions about the preservation of organic material over millions of years is because there is so little real data on this type of thing.

Yes, long ages of imagined time, and real data don't go well together.
quote:
There are far fewer assumptions being made about radioactive decay since we can observe it happening.
Yes, and my only assumptions about that is whether something different was happening in the past, not that what is happening, is happening.
quote:
I would put money on them not being able to pull even a preliminary Jurassic Park type thing, as in I seriously doubt they'll be able to sequence T. rex's genome or something like that. The DNA is likely there in small fragments if it is there at all anymore.
Probably right again. And even if they had some good stuff, what would they mix it with, an ostrich? I don't think they could get a real t rex since there is nothing all that big to splice it with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 1:23 PM gnojek 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