Real Science Friday: What Museums Aren't Showing You

[Jefferson]

RSF: What Museums Aren't Showing You

This is the show from Friday April 15th, 2011.

SUMMARY:





* Dr. Carl Werner's Museum Exposé: Co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart talk about Don Batten's interview of Dr. Werner and the how museums downplay the 432 mammal species excavated by paleontologists from dinosaur layers. Fred is with the Creation Research Society, and on this episode of Real Science Friday the guys again draw from both the latest issue of Creation magazine, April - June 2011 and the Winter 2011 CRSQ Creation Research Society Quarterly.

* 432 Mammal Species Downplayed: From Dr. Batten's great interview of Carl Werner: "Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. … But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing."

* Squid Ink Correction: Bob Enyart starts the show with a correction about the allegedly "150-million" year old squid fossil which did NOT have liquid ink as Bob had erroneously stated. The media reported that, "the black ink was of exactly the same structure as that of today’s version," but it needed to be reconstituted in order to be used as ink. See the full correction on the appropriate KGOV pages including here. And as Dr. Carl Wieland writes about why this ink is not millions of years old, "Chemical structures 'fall apart' all by themselves over time due to the randomizing effects of molecular motion."



- Bone Valley: Just as Yellowstone's interpretive sign has now been removed that had wrongly presented a just-so story of the repeated appearances and destructions of forests which had supposedly left behind a handful of petrified trees on more than a dozen strata, the Bone Valley story will eventually be dropped also. Fossilized marine and land animals, from sharks and whales to mammoths and saber-toothed cats, to many marine and land plants, tell the story of the global flood from central Florida. Tom DeRosa reports on Bone Valley at the University of South Carolina Lancaster, South Carolina, in the CRS Conference Abstracts.

* Lucy in the Skull 1470 with C14 in Diamonds: Huh? Bob and Fred enjoy recollecting some Lucy and Skull 1470 trivia. And see our List of Not So Old Things as for the Carbon-14 in diamonds.

Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Friday broadcasts! So have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grand kids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine and if you're up to reading more technical scientific articles, you'll also want to subscribe to CRSQ! And to order any of our BEL science products by phone, just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

* Special Editions of Real Science Friday:
- BEL's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
- Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
- PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Friday so we hit back with the PZ Trochlea Challenge
- Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Science mag cover: Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
- Microbiologist in Studio: Creation Research Society Quarterly editor on new genetic findings
- Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
- And see the RSF Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 paid in 1998; $1,500 in 2010...

 

[Alate_One]

RSF: What Museums Aren't Showing You

This is the show from Friday April 15th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

Said mammals are absolutely NOT Sabretoothed cats. You've been watching too much Ice Age. But I suppose I should expect Bob's "science" to come from cartoons by now. Correct one falsehood and bring in another, awesome job Bob . . .NOT. :doh:

Here's what mammals that have been discovered in the same layer as dinosaurs look like:

That sooo looks like a Smilodon doesn't it?

* Dr. Carl Werner's Museum Exposé[/b]: Co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart talk about Don Batten's interview of Dr. Werner and the how museums downplay the 432 mammal species excavated by paleontologists from dinosaur layers. Fred is with the Creation Research Society, and on this episode of Real Science Friday the guys again draw from both the latest issue of Creation magazine, April - June 2011 and the Winter 2011 CRSQ Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Gee, maybe because they are very small and not impressive and complete or even partly complete skeletons are rarely if ever found. Bob seems to imply "evolutionists" are hiding things like elephants and dogs, and sabre tooth cats that lived alongside dinosaurs. There is no such thing.

This is the largest Mammaliaform ever found with non-avian dinosaurs and it's about a foot long.

Remember that mammal-like reptiles were actually far more common than dinosaur ancestors back in the Permian. So there have been mammal-like creatures around for a very long time, no surprise there.

* Squid Ink Correction: Bob Enyart starts the show with a correction about the allegedly "150-million" year old squid fossil which did NOT have liquid ink as Bob had erroneously stated. The media reported that, "the black ink was of exactly the same structure as that of today’s version," but it needed to be reconstituted in order to be used as ink. See the full correction on the appropriate KGOV pages including here.

Good. :up:

And as Dr. Carl Wieland writes about why this ink is not millions of years old, "Chemical structures 'fall apart' all by themselves over time due to the randomizing effects of molecular motion."

So, you're going to stand by your claim that excellent preservation of ink is impossible. Because "chemicals fall apart over time?" Um . . . no. Certain chemicals do break down and react with others but drying them out and sealing them in rock is a very good way to preserve chemicals. Besides, Wieland offered exactly zero citations for his assertion which is pure stupid.

In short, Bob is yet again either a liar or grossly ignorant (yet he claims to be "knowledgable". I am leaning towards the former since he keep repeating the same mistakes. He corrects one and introduces three new ones . . . . awesome.

 

[Jukia]

In short, Bob is yet again either a liar or grossly ignorant (yet he claims to be "knowledgable". I am leaning towards the former since he keep repeating the same mistakes. He corrects one and introduces three new ones . . . . awesome.

And he seems to blame the media for giving him the wrong information. Anything so it is not his fault?

 

[Alate_One]

And he seems to blame the media for giving him the wrong information. Anything so it is not his fault?

Decided to actually listen to the show (I got really, really bored), I love how the correction is laced with inaccuracies about the Dinosaur "soft tissue". :doh: There's actually a fair bit of dispute over the "soft tissue" information, I would say the jury is still out to some extent. Bob sort of skimmed over the fact the T-rex protein sequence matched birds.

Total dishonesty in the discussion about mammal fossils alongside dinosaurs. "They show a bone sometimes". Gee, except for this Dinosaur diorama from the American Museum of Natural history.

Welcome to the early cretaceious period. It's 130 million years ago in eastern Asia, and you are standing on the marshy shore of a giant lake. Fish swim by and animals from tiny mammals to large dinosaurs make their way through the forest. Among the most intriguing animals from this region are the creatures that are covered in feathers—but aren't birds. How do we know so much about this ancient environment? How do we know that these trees, turtles, insects and dinosaurs lived together in this forest? And how do we know that the dinosaurs you see here really had feathers? Countless fossils preserved on the bottom of the lake provide firsthand proof. These fossils provide a window into Liaoning's fascinating past. When the fossil displayed at left was discovered in Liaoning, it joined a growing list of dinosaur fossils showing evidence of feathers. But this fossil is unique because the imprints of feathers are astonishingly clear. Look for this birdlike dinosaur, called Sinornithosaurus (sign-or-NITH-uh-sore-us), in the diorama.

It even shows flying birds and feathered dinosaurs together. Oh that must be some horrible problem for evolution right?!

They even say on the website:

FIELD GUIDE Species: Confuciusornis sanctus "con-FEW-shis-or-nis SANK-tus" Flying bird; one sex had long tail feathers, which may have been used in mating displays Birds like Confuciusornis evolved from an early feathered dinosaur. This diorama shows birds and other feathered dinosaurs living at the same time. How can this be?

Of course anyone that knows anything about evolution recognizes that feathered dinosaurs can still exist long after some of them evolved into flying birds. The argument that this is a problem somehow, is the same old YEC saw "If people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" I would think Bob and Co. Would be smarter than this but . . . .

Gonna give a retraction over that one? Or are you going to keep telling everyone that science is trying to hide things from the general public . . . .

Aww Bob mentioned my name on air, how nice, except you mispronounced it . . . All long A's. I hope Bob will mention Christian evolutionist, next time. (I know there will be a next time, lots of them if he decides to be honest) I wonder how that Mendel citation is going anyway.

edit - If anyone wants a better "Science Friday" Other than the original on NPR, there's also the Nature Podcast.

 

[DavisBJ]

And as Dr. Carl Wieland writes about why this ink is not millions of years old, "Chemical structures 'fall apart' all by themselves over time due to the randomizing effects of molecular motion."

Am I missing something here? If the ink had been millions of years old, and millions of years ago it had been displaced by some fossilizing mineral complex, isn’t that mineral complex also a “chemical structure?” Why don’t fossils “fall apart”, since they are chemical structures?

Claiming there is a tendency for chemical structures to fall apart is almost meaningless without some necessary qualifications being added. In fact some chemical structures actually form over time. Leave your car outside unused for a few years, and you will find a chemical structure called rust that was not there before.

To show this “failing apart” claim is applicable in a given situation we have to know specifically what chemicals are involved, and probably the environment – heat, pressure, etc.

 

[Jukia]

Maybe Pastor should change his intro...seems like his "brightest audience in the country" is calling him out on either his lack of knowledge or his dishonesty. Especially when dealing with children. Didn't Jesus have a comment about dealing with children?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Am I missing something here?

Very likely.

If the ink had been millions of years old, and millions of years ago it had been displaced by some fossilizing mineral complex, isn’t that mineral complex also a “chemical structure?”

What makes you think the ink had been displaced? The fact that they've reconstituted liquid ink from it seems to indicate that the original biological pigments were still there (either that, or what they did was no more impressive than writing with graphite or charcoal). I think a more pertinent question to ask would be how can biological pigments last millions of years without breaking down?

 

[DavisBJ]

What makes you think the ink had been displaced?

I realize the ink had not actually been displaced. I was pointing out that if, as YECs seem wont to assume, over millions of years the ink would have been fossilized, then that fossil replacement is still a chemical structure, and should itself have broken down (under Weiland rules).

The fact that they've reconstituted liquid ink from it seems to indicate that the original biological pigments were still there (either that, or what they did was no more impressive than writing with graphite or charcoal). I think a more pertinent question to ask would be how can biological pigments last millions of years without breaking down?

Not all things derived from biological sources are delicate. Teeth, for example, and sometimes hair, can last for enormous amounts of time. Do you know what the chemical structure of the ink was?

 

[Alate_One]

Do you know what the chemical structure of the ink was?

Ink is primarily Melanin. Which is a relatively simple chemical polymer. I don't see any reason it couldn't last a very long time, when initial preservation conditions are right. Considering squid ink is used as Sepia pigment in art and ancient writing (Likely, parts of the Bible were written using it), obviously it lasts a long time. Moronic assertions from Bob and Fred do not make something true.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I realize the ink had not actually been displaced.

It didn't sound like it from the statement you were making.

I was pointing out that if, as YECs seem wont to assume, over millions of years the ink would have been fossilized, then that fossil replacement is still a chemical structure, and should itself have broken down (under Weiland rules).

While the ink sac itself may have petrified, it appears that the ink inside simply dried up.

Not all things derived from biological sources are delicate. Teeth, for example, and sometimes hair, can last for enormous amounts of time.

We're not talking about teeth or hair. We're talking about the pigments in squid ink.

Do you know what the chemical structure of the ink was?

No, but they say they could probably have made food-coloring out of it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ink is primarily Melanin. Which is a relatively simple chemical polymer. I don't see any reason it couldn't last a very long time, when initial preservation conditions are right. Considering squid ink is used as Sepia pigment in art and ancient writing (Likely, parts of the Bible were written using it), obviously it lasts a long time. Moronic assertions from Bob and Fred do not make something true.

Nobody is disputing that it can last a few thousand years, but this stuff is supposed to be 150 million years old. This is a difference by an order of magnitude.

 

[Alate_One]

Nobody is disputing that it can last a few thousand years, but this stuff is supposed to be 150 million years old. This is a difference by an order of magnitude.

And what evidence do you have that it CANNOT survive that long? What reason do you have? This "molecules fall apart" blather is nonsense and unsupported.

There are plenty of ways that a fossil can be dated, why is it that ink must, in your opinion, contradict all the other types of data we have that say the fossil must be far older than a few thousand years? Because it supports your YEC position? (Be honest with yourself)

This is Bob's whole M.O., cherry picking pieces of data and then making pronouncements on them which ignore the mountains of data that say otherwise. It is inherently illogical.

 

[some other dude]

I'm confused.

Is Bob saying that Saber toothed tigers had feathers and were the ancestors of birds?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

And what evidence do you have that it CANNOT survive that long? What reason do you have? This "molecules fall apart" blather is nonsense and unsupported.

Do you seriously think it could have survived being alternately baked and frozen over and over for millions of years? Come on.

There are plenty of ways that a fossil can be dated, why is it that ink must, in your opinion, contradict all the other types of data we have that say the fossil must be far older than a few thousand years?

It's not just the ink, Alate_One.

Because it supports your YEC position? (Be honest with yourself)

Everything I've seen supports the YEC position. That's why I adopted it.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Do you seriously think it could have survived being alternately baked and frozen over and over for millions of years? Come on.

Incredulity is not an argument.

It's not just the ink, Alate_One.

Oh, what else?

Everything I've seen supports the YEC position. That's why I adopted it.

Then apparently what you've seen could be written in jot on a letterhead. What the experts have seen, however, is mountains and oceans of data, and, not coincidentally, it certainly doesn't corroborate your position. In fact, the complete opposite.

 

[Alate_One]

Do you seriously think it could have survived being alternately baked and frozen over and over for millions of years? Come on.

It's encased within rock, probably relatively well sealed. I don't know about baking, it was probably cool most of the time since any soil or rock that is under the earth a few feet stays relatively cool (ever been to a cave?). If it did actually bake very hot it would have been destroyed. But what does your, or Bob and Fred's personal opinions have to do with anything?

It's not just the ink, Alate_One.

And? It's not like the squid is still squishy and it's not like a modern squid, it's a member of an entire group that is extinct. It still has a relatively large phragmocone unlike any of living cephalopods.

Everything I've seen supports the YEC position. That's why I adopted it.

Is that why you told me that Dorudon can't possibly be a whale because it has feet? Even though in every other respect it looks exactly like something you WOULD call a whale?

There are so many things spread all across the earth that simply can't be explained by a few thousand years. Go look at the Grand Canyon and explain why organisms are so neatly ordered from simple to complex, from bottom to top. How could you have no fossils at all on the bottom, bunches of marine trilobites and then many feet up you have a lizard-like creature strolling along the beach and have it's footprints fossilized. You can't do that in a single event.

How can you have layers of rock that are tilted on their sides and then have more layers placed at an angle to them? You can't do that in a single event.

Why everywhere in the world we see the same pattern. Why species are distributed the way they are, why ancient forms and their came to be scattered across such distant continents as South America and Australia?

Nevermind all of the evidence from stars showing the universe (not just the earth) is old . . .

You're dishonest with yourself for even saying the evidence supports YEC. It simply does not in any way shape or form. Only cherry picking and wishful thinking will lead anyone to think it does.

 

[fool]

It's encased within rock, probably relatively well sealed. I don't know about baking, it was probably cool most of the time since any soil or rock that is under the earth a few feet stays relatively cool (ever been to a cave?). If it did actually bake very hot it would have been destroyed. But what does your, or Bob and Fred's personal opinions have to do with anything?

And? It's not like the squid is still squishy and it's not like a modern squid, it's a member of an entire group that is extinct. It still has a relatively large phragmocone unlike any of living cephalopods.

Is that why you told me that Dorudon can't possibly be a whale because it has feet? Even though in every other respect it looks exactly like something you WOULD call a whale?

There are so many things spread all across the earth that simply can't be explained by a few thousand years. Go look at the Grand Canyon and explain why organisms are so neatly ordered from simple to complex, from bottom to top. How could you have no fossils at all on the bottom, bunches of marine trilobites and then many feet up you have a lizard-like creature strolling along the beach and have it's footprints fossilized. You can't do that in a single event.

How can you have layers of rock that are tilted on their sides and then have more layers placed at an angle to them? You can't do that in a single event.

Why everywhere in the world we see the same pattern. Why species are distributed the way they are, why ancient forms and their came to be scattered across such distant continents as South America and Australia?

Nevermind all of the evidence from stars showing the universe (not just the earth) is old . . .

You're dishonest with yourself for even saying the evidence supports YEC. It simply does not in any way shape or form. Only cherry picking and wishful thinking will lead anyone to think it does.

Cool image.
I wonder if one of the smart people could give us a run down on what all those words mean as far as what kinds of rocks are created under what conditions, and where is the K/T boundry on that pic?

 

[Alate_One]

Cool image.
I wonder if one of the smart people could give us a run down on what all those words mean as far as what kinds of rocks are created under what conditions, and where is the K/T boundry on that pic?

I'm no geologist but I do know the K/T boundary isn't there. The youngest rocks are from the Permian era, the K/T is between the Cretaceous and Tertiary. All the Cretaceous, Jurassic and later rocks have been eroded away.

However, the newer rocks are represented in a different area of the grand staircase region, the white layers on the image below.

The K-T boundary is represented in this area by the Canaan Peak formation. here's a description of the staircase in general

 

[Dr.Watson]

Cool image.
I wonder if one of the smart people could give us a run down on what all those words mean as far as what kinds of rocks are created under what conditions, and where is the K/T boundry on that pic?

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#bs

 

[Alate_One]

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#bs

Thanks, I'll summarize some of the fossil findings.

The lowest section, labeled in my image as the grand canyon supergroup, consists of 9 layers, 4 of which contain stromatolites.

Stromatolites are pillars made up of layers and layers of photosynthetic bacteria. They take a very long time to grow.

Here are some modern stromatolites

To have 4 layers of stromatolites stacked on top of one another, means a lot of time must have passed between each layer's formation.