RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

[The Barbarian]

"Erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures" are not tissue.

Tissues are groups of cells organized functionally. So far, no intact cells, much less an organization of cells. Lots of organic molecules, though.

 

[Stripe]

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.

:darwinsm:

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

 

[Stripe]

"Erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures" are not tissue.

Tissues are groups of cells organized functionally. So far, no intact cells, much less an organization of cells. Lots of organic molecules, though.

Perhaps you should e-mail the editors at all the journals and let them know where they are going wrong.

 

[User Name]

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.

"...in this study, putative soft tissue...was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens."​

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

One dictionary defines "putative" to mean "commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed." So the researchers are saying that they found what is "commonly regarded," "reputed," or "supposed" to be soft tissue in six out of eight poorly preserved fossils.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

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

You know Barbarian, I once had hope for you but now see that you are just another liar.

The entire iron preserves organic material thing is beyond foolishness and you KNOW IT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSav1Yjd4KY&feature=youtu.be

 

[Stripe]

The entire iron preserves organic material thing is beyond foolishness and you KNOW IT.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[way 2 go]

:darwinsm:

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

for defending the absurd

 

[way 2 go]

You know Barbarian, I once had hope for you but now see that you are just another liar.

The entire iron preserves organic material thing is beyond foolishness and you KNOW IT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSav1Yjd4KY&feature=youtu.be

:thumb:

good video

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps you should e-mail the editors at all the journals and let them know where they are going wrong.

I notice you haven't cited any of the journals that disagree with the one I cited.

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.

Show us those, Stipe. Prediction: no scientific journals will be cited.

 

[Stripe]

I notice you haven't cited any of the journals that disagree with the one I cited.[COLOR="DarkRed"]The potential for future research into the metabolic rate of extinct animals based on erythrocytes is promising because in this study, [B]putative[/B] soft tissue ([COLOR="Red"]either erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures[/COLOR]) was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens. Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly [B]suggests[/B] that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted.[/COLOR]Show us those, Stipe. Prediction: no scientific journals will be cited.

:darwinsm:

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

Surprise!

You are a soft-tissue denier (STD).

 

[The Barbarian]

From the video "the days of filling in the gaps of dinosaur genome with frog DNA is over."

Apparently the guy who dressed up in a lab coat, confused "Jurassic Park" with science. He seems to really think scientists do that. None of the stuff he's talking about has anything to do with DNA, BTW. Apparently, he just tossed that in because it sounded sciencey.

"A guy dressed up in a lab coat?" Yep:

[COLOR="dark red"]Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there.
[/COLOR]
http://creation.com/mark-h-armitage

One of his good ones:
"These are not fossilized because we dissolved them in weak acid"

Limestone dissolves in acid, more quickly than bone does. What an idiot. Or possibly, he thinks the rest of us are.

BTW, the red in the sample he showed, is from iron.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
I notice you haven't cited any of the journals that disagree with the one I cited.

Show us those, Stipe. Prediction: no scientific journals will be cited.

Prediction confirmed:
Stipe dodges again:

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

If you every find all those journals you were telling us about, be sure to show them to us, um?

 

[User Name]

I notice you haven't cited any of the journals that disagree with the one I cited.

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.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just to understand your position. This is the particularly relevant quote at issue from the article:

"...in this study, putative soft tissue...was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens."​

One dictionary defines "putative" to mean "commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed." So the researchers are saying that they found what is "commonly regarded," "reputed," or "supposed" to be soft tissue in six out of eight poorly preserved fossils.

Is it your contention that the authors' use of the term "soft tissue" was incorrect?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's see... "...in this study, supposed soft tissue ... was observed"

Yeah, that seems to be what the meaning would be. To contrast, we find actual soft tissue in mammoths that have been frozen for tens of thousands of years. Cells are damaged, but still there, tissue is still organized.

Pine needles buried in mud from tens of thousands of years ago, are sometimes still green when uncovered.

Tissue lasts a long time when it's in anoxic conditions, or is frozen, but so far, no evidence for millions of years.

 

[User Name]

Let's see... "...in this study, supposed soft tissue ... was observed"

Yeah, that seems to be what the meaning would be. To contrast, we find actual soft tissue in mammoths that have been frozen for tens of thousands of years.

"Supposed" does not mean "isn't," however. They are calling it as they see it. They are suggesting that it apparently is soft tissue.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Supposed" does not mean "isn't," however.

It means that some people have supposed it is. So no opinion expressed, except to say it's in question.

On the other hand, I've asked Stipe several times to show me the many scientific journal articles he says identify it as tissue, and he's repeatedly declined to show any of them.

So that leads me to believe he made it up.

 

[way 2 go]

:sam:
have we got a product for you
Snake Oil the new soft tissue preservative
laboratory tested 2 years and extrapolated to preserve
soft tissue for millions of years
but wait there's more
not only does Snake Oil preserve soft tissue soaked in it
it preserves soft tissue that does not come in contact
with Snake Oil
call today don't delay
1800 hokum
hokum an evolutionist Company
if we cant dazzle you with our brilliance
we baffle you with our bunkum

individual results may vary
no money back guarantee

 

[Stripe]

It's easy to tell when Barbarian is flustered; he starts umming. :chuckle:

Maybe he is too scared to e-mail all those authors and tell them they are doing it wrong. :idunno:

 

[User Name]

They are suggesting that it apparently is soft tissue.

It means that some people have supposed it is. So no opinion expressed, except to say it's in question.

What do you think it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

What do you think it is?

It's biological molecules. Tissue is defined as a group of cells with a specific function. So without intact cells, no tissue. For example, the first known case was from a T-rex. Even the hemoglobin had been broken into heme. No intact cells, no tissue.

Is it theoretically possible? Maybe so. The problem is, tissue rapidly degrades after the cells die. Frozen or dried tissue seems to persist for many thousands of years, but after that, we don't see much to support the idea.