Dinosaur soft tissue In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years. Here is why they are full of it. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
Yes why not take the word of a preacher instead of scientists who's life work is the study of dinosaurs, the study of organic chemistry, the study of nuclear physics, etc. etc. etc. Yep as the Mr. Smith's bio claims, he is qualified to comment on science because he reads a lot. There's a certain air of desperation, but I think its coming from the YECs as their denials become more vehement and their "evidence" regularly debunked.
Did you even read the article? Maybe you should read this again. Technical update, 19 June 2015: Schweitzer’s idea is that iron generated free hydroxyl (.OH) radicals (called the Fenton Reaction) causing preservation of the proteins. But free radicals are far more likely to help degrade proteins and other organic matter. Indeed, the reaction is used to destroy organic compounds. It also requires that the hydroxyl radicals are transported by water. However, water would have caused hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, and very fast deamidation of the amino acids residues asparagine and glutamine. Aspartyl residue should also have isomerized to isoaspartyl residue if exposed to water. Tyrosine, methionine and histidine would have been oxidized under Schweitzer’s proposed conditions. But the dino proteins show show that these unstable residues are still present: The dilemma is this: how did the fragment successfully become cross-linked through aqueous hydroxyl free radical attack apparently explaining peptide survival while hydrolytically unstable moieties such as Asn avoid contact with the aqueous medium—for 68 million years? If we are to accept the benefits of random aqueous hydroxyl radicals cross-linking the peptide matrix in an undefined chemical bonding, we should also accept the cost—peptide and amino acid hydrolysis.29
I don't get the thrill here in trying to attack what most people today believe is true by ignoring that the Bible genealogy describes pretty much the same 22 kinds of ancestors that evolution calls the 22 species. What is your goal here,... except to try and make some medieval idea about scripture seem correct today, when it doesn't make sense at all? What s wrong with just agreeing that evolution may well be described in Genesis 4 and 5???
Did you wish to discuss what I posted? You are the one who just insulted me. Prove what I posted is inaccurate. You cant.
I did not mention God, or the Bible. What we have here, is soft tissue in fossils that are millions of years old. How do you explain this?
Ahh.. Kweation.kom LOFL Just like your Turkish Islamist Kweationist/Konspiwacist/Kultist Harun Yahya/Yoyo. LOFL Pilgrim! A 10/20 Year OLD 'scoop'. Dinosaur Shocker Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts May 2006 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist [......] It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both. Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been Hijacked by “Young Earth” Creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists Misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” [......] Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.” [......] Young-Earth Creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s Horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They Twist your words and they Manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two Different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” [......] Sqooooooooooooooosh #2 for You. Whats next, AnswersInGenesis? GodDidIt.disinfo? You scrape the crap off the bottom of the google for anything that agrees with you. Never researching/checking Anything. +
Answer me this. They have extracted DNA from these fossils. Scientists know what the rate of decay is for DNA. Even if it was frozen, it could not last sixty five million years. That's not my opinion. It's scientific fact.
The tissue is not touchable tissue that we think of. It is proteins that we found in the bone. It is possible that the dinosaur was buried so quickly that the bacteria did not eat everything leaving behind some tiny proteins. The bones were also excellently preserved with the sandstone preventing a lot of degregation. Also the scientist who originally found this has criticized young earth creationists for how they misused her data. http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Did you read the article? "Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone."
The problem with that position is that it is only authenticated as T-rex tissue and not something deposited later because of its similarities to modern birds which....wait for it....evolved from the same line as T-rex. Your smoking gun against evolution is dependent on evolution to be true for the tissue to be authenticated.
Dinosaurs and birds have similar anatomical structures, so some of their DNA will be similar. Humans also have over ninety percent of our DNA in common with tadpoles. Doesn't mean anything. It's anecdotal. Nothing more. The article I posted explains why iron cannot preserve the DNA recovered. No one has tried to refute this evidence. Would you care to try?
I don't need to try. Your article is crap. There are scientific article on the subject. You should google one. They will explain to you why iron forms free radicals.
The article I posted refutes it. I presented evidence. Why won't you try refute it? All you've done is claim that I'm wrong. That's not how things work. You have to explain WHY I'm wrong. Can you?
Young-earth creationists first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
I knew this was too good to be true. I miss those guys. They weren't very smart, but they knew how to party. (Hmmm, they sort of remind me of Trump in that way...)
It was a rare find, but clearly is soft tissue inside a dinosaur bone, you Creationists love the odd exception to the rule as evidence against Evolution but why would that eliminate an entire theory well established?
Yeah... ... saw that on a PBS program couple nights ago... ... was the marrow of the bone... ... think it was about the ice age man found frozen in Norway.
I could not find anything saying that humans are 90% the same as frogs genetically. Probably the real number is closer to 70%.
What you posted was minimal and not inclined to reasonable debate. You basically headlined the fundamental fact of dinosaur soft tissue having been found then flung a generalised insult against evolutionists on the basis of one tiny element of the article you linked. What did you actually write to be discussed? The article itself really just reported a sequence of events from an obviously bias point of view. Theres nothing scientific about the article and it proves (nor disproves) anything in itself. If you wanted to discuss the science with people who actually understand it (though you think most of them are full of it of course), youd be better placed linking the primary sources of the research rather than creationist blogs selectively interpreting them.
Well, so far we have soft tissue, has this tissue been tested for DNA? Furthermore, the assumption that this "proves" that dinosaurs cannot possibly be older than a few thousand years, is utterally ubsurd. Remember Jurassic Park and the dinosaur DNA? Not much of a stretch, actually. Woolly mammoth meat, even though thousands of years old, has been consumed by humans. We're only talking about a very small amount of soft tissue, here.
Of course she criticises young earth...that is how she keeps her funding. That was the first thing she did years ago when she originally discovered the 'miracle". And now dinosaur bones are being broken right and left and they are finding soft tissue is commen.
