Blood in dino bones

But in a general sense, what we see is normal for rapid burial - that's the point I've been trying to make. Exactly the same processes (mineral envelopment and - probably - replacement) have operated on this fossil as on most others. In a specific sense, the exact chemistry is novel, and why is a good question. An obvious factor to investigate would be the pore fluid composition of the sediment it was buried in, which would be influenced by the sediment itself.But don't be fooled - although the pictures look very impressive, the vessels didn't just fall out of the bone when it was broken open; they are the end result of dunking it in chemical bath for several days to remove the surrounding minerals. Then, in reply to another poster, you said: I'm interested in your use of the word 'assumption' here. Yes, it is true that we are relying on constant rates of radioactive decay. But it's not like scientists have not tried to establish whether this is the case. Observations of distant supernovae, for example, show similar decay rates millions of years ago to those measured on Earth today. To get into this in detail is a little off topic, but you do realise that this 'assumption' has been tested and appears to be supported by evidence?Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?

Hi Simple,
Probably the best one could hope for even with successful extraction and characterization of dino DNA would be to place dino's in their relative phylogenetic position in relation to other vertebrates. Perhaps rates of sequence evolution estimates would gain another calibrator but from a single sample and species the value of this is kind of doubtful. More likely the group will stumble into contamination like the first report of dino DNA in the early 90's which was demonstrated to be a human sequence.For a fairly easy to read summary of ancient DNA research (though it is a bit dated) you might want to check out the following articlePaabo S.
Ancient DNA.
Sci Am. 1993 Nov;269(5):86-92.Cheers
M

Simple,I seem to recall the last femur with exceptional preservation (with haem groups NOT blood cells, as widely reported in the creationist press) had fully racemised amino acids (the L & R forms of amino acids exist in equal quantity). This takes a loooong time to happen & is indicative of extremely long time spans. Mammoth remains aren't even close to this level of racemisation.That would be an "evolutionary" prediction, a high degree of racemisation, should amino acids be recovered, that is. Since the original paper is preliminary, we'll just have to wait & see. But since the last one was highly racemised...Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

relying on constant rates of radioactive decay

​

Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?

---

I started a thread on dating, in case someone wants to see opposing opinion.

quote:

---

The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments

---

http://www.ozestuaries.org/...es/indicators/DEF_aa_race.htmlBetween the flood year, and the tropical pre flood world, and maybe toss in some violent flood tectonics, and we have some heat that may skew results?

simple, How much heat, exactly, is required to skew the results by 70 million years minus 6ky?Since there's no evidence of a global flood, & its associated violent flood tectonics, it's a moot point. The heat produced by the alleged accelerated radioactive decay that (is invoked to drive such tectonic movement) would skew radiometric dating by 70 million years would cook everything anyway, there would be no amino acids left to racemise.Obvious conclusion: It never happened. You present no case to answer.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-31-2005 06:17 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

How much heat, exactly, is required to skew the results by 70 million years minus 6ky?

---

Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?

quote:

---

The heat produced by the alleged accelerated radioactive decay that (is invoked to drive such tectonic movement) would skew radiometric dating by 70 million years would cook everything anyway, there would be no amino acids left to racemise.

---

Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?

Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to? You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 09:47 PM

I understand that you have a lot of people to answer to, but I do think that it would be very nice of you to reply to the old ape's post.

quote:

---

Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to?

---

"The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments "
This link I posted, in case you feel no need to read the posts.

quote:

---

Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?

​

You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?

---

Actually we have here you misunderstanding where I am coming from. Now you don't want me to get snarky, so try to get it. If you need help, and are very polite, I may explain.

Ok. So is it rare or impossible for dino meat in bones to be preserved? Well, since they don't really cut bones open till now, it has been rare. Why, what's your point?

Well, actually actually, we have you, simple, both misunderstanding what Mark meant and ignoring Ned's hint at a face-saving reexamination of Mark's post. So, let me try to explain it to you - unconditionally.You see, Mark was talking about the heat of only a few thousand years. He meant that if the heat of the (alleged) accelerated radioactive decay could make it look as though radiometric dating were off by 70 million years, then that would be so much heat that the whole planet would be cooked thoroughly, destroying the amino acids - and everything else - altogether. What's more, it would be because the heat was being released in just a few thousand years.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 01-Apr-2005 09:17 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Don't reply to me. Reply to the old ape.

Simple, You tell me. You are claiming that full racemisation can take place with heat added, I am asking how much heat need be applied for zero to full racemisation take place in a single year. You are the one claiming it happened, I am asking for evidential support of your claim. No other samples show full racemisation from what you would describe as "only a few thousand years", let alone a single flood year, so why this one?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

You see, Mark was talking about the heat of only a few thousand years. He meant that if the heat of the (alleged) accelerated radioactive decay could make it look as though radiometric dating were off by 70 million years, then that would be so much heat that the whole planet would be cooked

---

Ahh. OK. But I never envisioned any accelerated radioactive decay at all! If anything, I was saying that how much could happen in only a few thoudand years? (at current rates). I tried to open up a dating thread, but they've held it up at the pass, and won't let it out of propsed topics. So it is difficult to really get into it on a blood and tissue thread. But in a phrase, the isotpes we now see, in their various proportions to each other, were produced, according to my current reasoning of the split, while in the middle of a non decay process! When the split came, the process became a decay process, and whatever was happening no longer is happening. An over simplified analogy might be an escalator. Someone flipped the switch, and it started to go down, instead of up. So measuring how many rungs are coming down how quickly now, and extrapolating that into the far past, beyond even when the escalator was built is of no real value beyond the point it was switched!
So I see no burning of the planet anywhere there. The heat that I noticed they used to base the test on, made me ask about how heat might have affected the results. What kind of heat did I mean? Well, It was a mostly tropical world pre flood, I thought we might have a little more heat to work with. Also, the violence of the flood year, and volcanoes, water shooting up from fountains of the deep etc. More heat to work with. And, lastly, people like walt brown envision some type of violent plate movement, near the flood time, which again, depending on the circumstances, and degree, would provide lots of heat as well. You can see why this stuff is too big to be a sudeline in a dino thread.Anyhow thanks for the mediation. A little detente always helps keep things civilized.