|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mummified hadrosaur evidence of recent global flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4300 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Just wanted to let you know that I am still avidly reading. Thanks for the fascinating info. I have to say I was puzzled as to why the fossil has been called a mummy, when it sounded to me like an exceptionally well-preserved "normal" fossil.
I love being able to come here and read messages from people who are actually involved in the cutting-edge science that creos know so little about, and criticise. I can't honestly say I can think of any more "comebacks" here, other than "you can't prove it isn't from a global flood," but the evidence given here is cumulatively strong enough to prove just that. I was going to go and have this debate with them but they're keeping me busy elsewhere. I believe it's called the Gish gallop LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the fascinating info. I have to say I was puzzled as to why the fossil has been called a mummy, when it sounded to me like an exceptionally well-preserved "normal" fossil. It is a mummy (from what I read). It is a fossilized mummy. That is, it was dessicated and mummified. We see this happen with animals in the right climate all the time. If the climate is right I think this happens in days, weeks or months. Then the mummy was fossilzed. That is the original dry flesh was replaced with minerals. I guess we don't know yet if it is a total mineralization or not. The fact that it was mummified first makes nonsense out of the "it had to happen fast" claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Ned, I guess my question for you is what is the process of mummification? You said "dessicated and mummified." I'm familiar with desiccation of vertebrate carcasses, but as far as I always knew, mummification was an anthropogenic process. We do tend to refer to these specimens as dino mummies, but honestly, I don't know why. I guess because dessicated carcass isn't user-friendly enough. I don't know other process happens to a carcass besides dessication that leads to dried skin envelops prior to burial.
But absolutely, the long and the short of it is that the "it had to happen fast" claim is utter BS. Not just, as I've stated, because of the dessication, because honestly that wouldn't alone preclude THE FLOOD (i.e., said animal could have died and dessicated prior to THE GREAT RAINS and just have been buried in the flood). The thing that totally destroys the argument is that these deposits really do NOT appear to be flood deposits and that floods are NOT the only mechanism by which a dessicated carcass can be quickly buried.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Mummies are not just anthropogenic. It is suggested that the Egyptians developed the idea and techniques because they observed natural mummification.
Mummy - Wikipedia Down a bit there is a discussion of natural mummies. Which are taken as only being human remains in this article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Oh, so any time original integument is preserved it's a mummy? Huh...we don't really look at it that way in the field, but okay...I can work with that definition.
That's particularly interesting then, because by this definition, "Dakota," which has yet to give up her secrets, cannot be classed as a mummy. The whole idea of dinosaur mummy then becomes fantastic because I cannot think of a single occurrence of soft-tissue preservation, where the original material hasn't degraded to some degree. We'd have to come up with an index of original material lost. That might have been done and I just haven't read the paper, but I doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Tis too a mummy! Well, it was a mummy but it has now been replaced with rock that preserves many details of the mummy. If it isn't a fossilzed mummy now then regular dinosaur bones (that have been completely mineralized) aren't a fossilzed dinosaur either. This is really nit picking and doesn't matter much. Mummy conveys lots of useful and not untrue information in a short package. It isn't intended to be a careful definition of anything. However, one might now ask: to get skin and such preservation over these time periods do we almost have to have mummification first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Tis too a mummy! Well, it was a mummy but it has now been replaced with rock that preserves many details of the mummy. (*being a pain-in-the-ass hat on*) Ahhh...but the wiki definition you pointed to indicates that mummies retain dried flesh. There is no indication that "Dakota" does this and indeed the other Lance/Hell Creek hadrosaur "mummies" preserve impressions of skin (in sandstone), but not skin itself. So yes, you're second sentence. Maybe we need a new word (ex-mummy?).
If it isn't a fossilzed mummy now then regular dinosaur bones (that have been completely mineralized) aren't a fossilzed dinosaur either. Normal dinosaur bones aren't always "completely" mineralized.
This is really nit picking and doesn't matter much. (*being a pain-in-the-ass hat on*) Ahhh...but science is about being nit-picky. Mummy conveys lots of useful and not untrue information in a short package. It isn't intended to be a careful definition of anything.
However, one might now ask: to get skin and such preservation over these time periods do we almost have to have mummification first? Probably not, considering the vast amount of soft-tissue remains we find preserved on fossils that come from lake sediments. It is probably the only way we're going to get it in an animal that died in a river valley environment, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Tis too a mummy! Well, it was a mummy but it has now been replaced with rock that preserves many details of the mummy. (*being a pain-in-the-ass hat on*) Ahhh...but the wiki definition you pointed to indicates that mummies retain dried flesh. There is no indication that "Dakota" does this and indeed the other Lance/Hell Creek hadrosaur "mummies" preserve impressions of skin (in sandstone), but not skin itself. So yes, you're second sentence. Maybe we need a new word (ex-mummy?).
If it isn't a fossilzed mummy now then regular dinosaur bones (that have been completely mineralized) aren't a fossilzed dinosaur either. Normal dinosaur bones aren't always "completely" mineralized.
This is really nit picking and doesn't matter much. (*being a pain-in-the-ass hat on*) Ahhh...but science is about being nit-picky.
Mummy conveys lots of useful and not untrue information in a short package. It isn't intended to be a careful definition of anything. hmmm...pondering.
However, one might now ask: to get skin and such preservation over these time periods do we almost have to have mummification first? Probably not, considering the vast amount of soft-tissue remains we find preserved on fossils that come from lake sediments. It is probably the only way we're going to get it in an animal that died in a river valley environment, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That is, it was dessicated and mummified. We see this happen with animals in the right climate all the time. If the climate is right I think this happens in days, weeks or months. Then the mummy was fossilzed. That is the original dry flesh was replaced with minerals. I guess we don't know yet if it is a total mineralization or not. the problem i see is that the flesh and everything seems to occupy the same volume it would have in life, unlike the earlier hadrosaur mummy. which probably means that the flesh was NOT dried out before fossilization began. at least in the section they've analyzed. "mummy" is just the term they use for dinosaurs fossilized with skin intact. this one, to my knowledge, does not seem to have been actually mummified. at least as i understand the process of mummification.
The fact that it was mummified first makes nonsense out of the "it had to happen fast" claim. well, the relative completion indicates a fast burial. had it sat around exposed for a long time, things like t. rex would have wandered into a free meal. it also indicates very little chance to decompose. once buried, the fossilization can take as long as it needs to. frankly, i'm rooting for slow fossilization -- that they'll find some actual tissue. normally, we just get bones and desicated mummies. this thing seems to be a full-on cast of the entire dinosaur. and if they can pull DNA out of t. rex femur bones, what might be contained in the middle of this? it's very unlikely, but it would be pretty damned cool to pull out actual tissue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4300 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how would this particular fossil have become desiccated? You think it was probably buried quickly. It was buried in sediment. To my knowledge, desiccation happens in a very dry environment. What am I missing here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
the problem i see is that the flesh and everything seems to occupy the same volume it would have in life, unlike the earlier hadrosaur mummy. which probably means that the flesh was NOT dried out before fossilization began. at least in the section they've analyzed. They have made this assertion. They have yet to demonstrate how they are accounting for the compaction that we know had to have happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how would this particular fossil have become desiccated? You think it was probably buried quickly. It was buried in sediment. To my knowledge, desiccation happens in a very dry environment. What am I missing here? It is a bit of a problem since that area isn't thought to have been dry at the time this thing died...but what we don't know is how much seasonal aridity took place... If this thing died during a dry spell, it could have dessicated fairly well. Why nothing munched on it is another problem I don't think we can rule out some scavenging yet. Another thing to keep in mind, it is also possible that it didn't dry substantially before it was buried. We're assuming that because it fits the model of the other hadrosaur "mummies." Might not be the case this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how would this particular fossil have become desiccated? You think it was probably buried quickly. It was buried in sediment. To my knowledge, desiccation happens in a very dry environment. What am I missing here? the coastal plains around the hell creek formation were actually pretty wet. as JB had indicated above, there were lots of rapidly changing rivers, and there is a crocidile buried along with it. it's likely it was buried by water -- which would be the opposite of dessication. JB would probably be able to provide more info. i don't exactly know enough about this. just an arm-chair paleo-hobbyist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024