RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

[User Name]

Maybe consider that "nope" was a direct response to the statement you made. :idunno:

So you think that carbon dating does work? Are you a YEC? How do you explain carbon dating results that go well beyond the six- to ten-thousand year timeframe of young earth creationism?

Let's suppose that soft dinosaur tissue was carbon dated to 50,000 years ago. Would you accept that result?

 

[User Name]

Here's another article: http://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones

The article includes this photograph, which I am assuming is one of the dinosaur bones in which microscopic soft tissue was found:

Quote:
"While examining a cross-section of a fossilized rib bone, the researchers spotted bands of fibers. When tested, the fibers were found to contain the same amino acids that make up collagen, the main structural protein found in skin and other soft tissues. More tests remain to confirm that the materials the Imperial scientists found are in fact genuine red blood cells and collagen fibers, but if confirmed, the implications of the new findings are huge. If such sub-par fossils could contain soft tissue, similar materials could be preserved on any of the numerous dinosaur bones housed in museums around the world."​

 

[Stripe]

You're the one who brought up carbon dating. Apparently you thought that carbon dating of soft dinosaur tissue was of relevance to this topic.

Yip. Dino fossils will be found to have Carbon 14/12 ratios that indicate the animals died a few tens of thousand of years ago at most (according to evolutionary assumptions).

So you think that carbon dating does work? Are you a YEC? How do you explain carbon dating results that go well beyond the six- to ten-thousand year timeframe of young earth creationism?

How about you talk about something relevant. :up:

Let's suppose that soft dinosaur tissue was carbon dated to 50,000 years ago. Would you accept that result?

Would you?

 

[User Name]

Carbon 14/12 ratios that indicate the animals died a few tens of thousand of years ago

Why don't you accept those results?

How about you talk about something relevant. :up:

Again, you are the one who brought up the topic of carbon dating. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Why don't you accept those results?

I've not got many issues with a result showing that dinos lived 10,000 years ago. It's the evolutionists that will face the difficult questions.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ahem....roughly 30,000 children will die today and EVERYDAY from preventable causes under the watch of your "fair" G-d. Nice guy, this fella.

God made you, what are you doing to prevent them?

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course, the "tissue" isn't tissue at all. Tissue is a collection of intact cells, which are not in this fossil. It's organic material from tissues that have decayed. But how does organic material, even in a sterile, anoxic environment, survive a few hundred millions years?

Turns out, there's a chemical explanation...

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex... Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

[way 2 go]

link

Mary Schweitzer will be widely shown to be wrong in her published claim that biological iron is the preservative that enables soft tissue to survive for millions of years. This will be falsified for many reasons including the realization that many specimens of recovered soft tissue are not associated with heavy deposits of biological iron. Further, which of the typical decomposition factors would iron interfere with: hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, cylical temperatures, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay?

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian was among those who demanded that Schweitzer's work be written off as biofilm until the evidence became too overwhelming for that narrative to hold water. He will say anything to protect his precious evolutionism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mary Schweitzer will be widely shown to be wrong in her published claim that biological iron is the preservative that enables soft tissue to survive for millions of years.

Not tissue. biological molecules. They found no tissue. But it's already known that iron will do this. That was known before it was found in these bones.

This will be falsified for many reasons including the realization that many specimens of recovered soft tissue are not associated with heavy deposits of biological iron.

If the organism has blood, it has heavy deposits of biological iron.

Further, which of the typical decomposition factors would iron interfere with: hydrolysis, chemotropism, microbes, cylical temperatures, friction, oxidation, autolysis, radioactive decay?

Friction? What are you talking about? What friction do you think happens to buried fossils? No microbes, since the interior of bones is generally sterile. Remember viruses wouldn't matter. Only prokaryotic organisms. Radioactive decay does not change the chemical properties of a substance, since there are so few radioactive atoms in living things. Hydrolysis requires water. Buried material generally doesn't experience much variation in temps. And what do you think "chemotropism" means?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian was among those who demanded that Schweitzer's work be written off as biofilm until the evidence became too overwhelming for that narrative to hold water.

(Stipe likes to make up stories, but he never substantiates them)

I suspect Stipe doesn't even know what biofilm is. The key here is that the material is not tissue, but substances like collagen. If you'll remember, I pointed out that it would be really astonishing if they found tissue. And now we know there wasn't any.

And he's pouting because chemists found a reason for the preservation of that collagen.

 

[way 2 go]

Barbarian was among those who demanded that Schweitzer's work be written off as biofilm until the evidence became too overwhelming for that narrative to hold water. He will say anything to protect his precious evolutionism.

also defended rodocetus fake

 

[Stripe]

also defended rodocetus fake

He still insists it is a whale. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Stories.

Nope.

You're an STD (soft-tissue denier).

It would be really astonishing if they found tissue. And now we know there wasn't any.

You should tell all the authors of papers published in scientific journals that they are doing it wrong. :chuckle:

In fact, soft tissue is preserved, which is why it is reported. :up:

It also explains why you are so uncomfortable. Don't like being surprised, do you? :chuckle:

Surprise!

 

[The Barbarian]

It should be easy enough to show us a scientific journal article demonstrating tissue. And we know why you won't. Tissue can be demonstrated by photomicrographs showing cellular structure that defines tissue.

Here's the photomicrograph of the material in the latest find:

http://www.history.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/dinosaur-blood.jpg

Collagen fibers. But no tissue. This is connective tissue:

Notice fibroblasts between the strands of collagen? That's what tissue is. A group of cells organized to some function. Not the accumulation of collagen, which is merely a substance.

Tissue: A group or layer of cells that perform specific functions. For example, muscle tissue is a group of muscle cells.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5800

Surprise.

 

[Stripe]

It should be easy enough to show us a scientific journal article demonstrating tissue. And we know why you won't. Tissue can be demonstrated by photomicrographs showing cellular structure that defines tissue.Here's the photomicrograph of the material in the latest find:Collagen fibers. But no tissue. This is connective tissue:
[IMG]https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/729/flashcards/841729/jpg/fibroblasts1357803377883.jpg[/IMG]Notice fibroblasts between the strands of collagen? That's what tissue is. A group of cells organized to some function. Not the accumulation of collagen, which is merely a substance.[COLOR="DarkRed"]Tissue: A group or layer of cells that perform specific functions. For example, muscle tissue is a group of muscle cells.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5800[/url]Surprise.

Surprise!

You should write to all the authors who published in scientific journals discoveries of "soft tissue" preserved in dino fossils and tell them they are doing it wrong.

Surprise!

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that Stipe support his claim with a journal article)

(Stipe dodges and makes excuses)

Here's why he won't do it:

Tissue: A group or layer of cells that perform specific functions. For example, muscle tissue is a group of muscle cells.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5800

 

[User Name]

Tissue: A group or layer of cells that perform specific functions. For example, muscle tissue is a group of muscle cells.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5800

Why does the newly released article in Nature use the word "tissue" a number of times? For example:

The potential for future research into the metabolic rate of extinct animals based on erythrocytes is promising because in this study, putative soft tissue (either erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures) was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens. Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted.​

Link: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html

 

[Stripe]

(Barbarian suggests that Stipe support his claim with a journal article)(Stipe dodges and makes excuses)Here's why he won't do it:Tissue: A group or layer of cells that perform specific functions. For example, muscle tissue is a group of muscle cells.url]http:// [ul]ww w.medicinenet[/url]. com/script/ main/art.asp? =5800[/url]

You should contact all the editors who use "soft tissue" in their scientific journals and tell them to fix their error.

Surprise!

 

[The Barbarian]

Why does the newly released article in Nature use the word "tissue" a number of times?

Well, let's take a look...

The potential for future research into the metabolic rate of extinct animals based on erythrocytes is promising because in this study, putative soft tissue (either erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures) was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens. Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted.