Jump to content


Photo

T-rex Dna Find


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 10:28 AM

[Dating methodologies] have not been shown to be accurate.  They are assumed to be accurate.


No, they have been shown to be accurate through such things as the dating of the Hawaiin island chain and the Emporer seamounts, to name just one. Also, historically recorded volcanic eruptions have been accurately dated using Ar/Ar dating. The methodologies work and no assumptions are made.

Where did anyone get a "known" 70 million year old sample to use as a dating standard?  There is no such thing......


Just like everything in science, conclusions are inferred from the evidence. A clear history of 70 million years of radioactive decay is very strong evidence, especially when it is seen over and over again. Besides religious conviction, what reasons do you have for denying the overwhelming evidence? Also, please name the assumptions that you think are used.

#42 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 11:03 AM

Let's go over what you find "wanting".  You claim, without evidence, that soft tissue can not last for 70 million years.  You then expect reality to bend to what you believe is credible.  This is not a logical argument.  In fact, it is a common logical fallacy called "Argument from Incredulity".  You must show why soft tissue of this type CAN NOT last for 70 million years.  As mentioned already, insect soft tissue has been preserved in amber for millions of years, so your claim is already falling apart.


First, according to what I have read on the subject, what is preserved in amber is chitin, not soft tissue. Second, it is no more incredulous for me to say it is completely unbelievable than it is for you to say that it is. And if there is any reality bending going on here it is you who are doing it. Again, if someone makes fantastic claims it is up to them to demonstrate their validity. You are asking me to prove a negative which you know, or ought to know, is not possible.

#43 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 02:26 PM

First, according to what I have read on the subject, what is preserved in amber is chitin, not soft tissue.


Fair enough. A homologous situation may be occuring in this T. rex fossil as well. Bone and chitin are analgous in that they are tough matrices that withstand the forces of nature, so to speak. The flexible tissue observed in the T. rex fossil was protected by bone. Also, it has not even been established if these flexible structures are the original organic tissues. From http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/4379577.stm

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.


So we may be dealing with a protein/protein or a protein/lipid reaction that creates materials that are hard to break up. In the biological lab these types of reactions are carried out to preserve morphology in cells. For instance, formaldehyde is used to cross link proteins which preserves the cell morphology for extended periods of time. A similar process may be in effect here, a process that preserves morphology of microstructures but does not preserve the orginal organic makeup.

Second, it is no more incredulous for me to say it is completely unbelievable than it is for you to say that it is.


I am saying that it COULD BE possible. You are saying that it COULD NOT HAPPEN. Who is being more open minded here?


And if there is any reality bending going on here it is you who are doing it. Again, if someone makes fantastic claims it is up to them to demonstrate their validity. You are asking me to prove a negative which you know, or ought to know, is not possible.

View Post


You are claiming that there is positively, absolutely, no way that soft tissue could be preserved. This is a fantastic claim. It is up to you to support it. I am claiming that it is possible, and hence future evidence will determine my conclusions. The T. rex fossil may or may not support long term preservation of soft tissue. It may turn out that only the morphology of microstructures has been preserved. In this case you would be right, soft tissue can't survive that long.

Needless to say, more work needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn one way or another. All we have now is preserved morphology and macrostructure characteristics (flexibility). No information on the chemical makeup of the tissues has been released.

My early predictions are as follows:

1. The amino acids will be highly racemic. That is, they will be made up of equal parts L- and R-amino acids. This is common for proteins that have been around for millions of years. The early data so far for the T. rex specimen says that the material recovered so far is weakly antigenic. This is consistent with highly racemized and broken down protein. If this sample were 6,000 years or younger you would expect highly antigenic proteins to be recovered.

2. No DNA will be found. We are able to find short sequences of DNA for fossils younger than 100,000 years. I believe that they have been trying to stretch DNA retreival past the 100,000 year mark but results have been sketchy. DNA from Mammoth, neanderthal, and other extinct species that lived in the last 100,000 years have been identified. I am predicting no such DNA will be found in these fossils, consistent with the 70 million year age of the fossil.

What predictions do you make, and why?

#44 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 02:39 PM

Looking through more material, I came across some important info.

First, from http://www.newswise....es/view/510685/

"It will be controversial because of those preconceived ideas about what can and cannot be preserved over long periods of time," Horner said. "It has always been thought that cells couldn't be preserved, but there really wasn't any evidence to back up those ideas, other than no one having found cellular preservation before."


Simply, the rate of biological decay in fossils was assumed. This T. rex find may show those assumptions to be wrong.

#45 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:08 PM

Method, let us just wait a while and see what shakes out, shall we?

#46 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:22 PM

Wait and See the shake-out... a Good idea, Deacon.

Method,

When you call a claim fantastic, I'd like to understand what that criterion means.

A year ago .... wouldn't it have been considered fantastic to predict that soft tissue would be found.

I am afraid that without a concrete frame of reference for "fantastic", it is unwarranted to decry and dismiss a claim as fantastic.

If you simply mean implausible or highly unlikely, then the door is open for the creationist likewise to find origin of life claims as improbable ... but you reject that.

If you mean it doesnt fit well with accepted theories based on existing observations and evidence, then those theories are now disqualified by new evidence anyway.

Scientists a year ago may equally find it fantastic for any claim that soft tissue lasts 80 million years. Fine.

Equally,

I may find it fantastic that anyone claims soft tissue lasts 80 million years .

Why do think that you can use the word dismissively basedd on your own estimates of plausibility? (rejecting other claims to the word)

Please clarify.

#47 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:37 PM

Simply, the rate of biological decay in fossils was assumed.  This T. rex find may show those assumptions to be wrong.


Assumed????? I' m sure it was based on clear evidence.... B)

Terry

#48 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:46 PM

Method, let us just wait a while and see what shakes out, shall we?

View Post


Totally agree. This is the early data. Normally, a paper would not be written with so little information. It is the surprising find that prompted the paper. I think that the scientists involved wanted to alert the scientific community so that they could attract collaborators and ideas on how to approach this find.

Obviously, the title of this thread is very misleading. No DNA has been found. I also saw signs of exageration elsewhere, such as assuming that the flexible tissue was complete, unadulterated, organic tissue.

I actually hope that proteins are found. Sequencing of the proteins will tell us a lot about dinosaur physiology that is currently unknown. One haunting question is whether or not dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded. Believe it or not, scientists actually hope that there is something to work with.

When you call a claim fantastic, I'd like to understand what that criterion means.


"Fantastic claim" can come in two flavors. First, claims of absolute knowledge. This is the type of fantastic claim that is being thrown around by creationists in this thread. Creationists are claiming that there is absolutely, positively, no way that soft tissue could last for 70 million years. To do this you would need complete knowledge of how fossilization occurs and how decomposition occurs. Science makes no such claim, mainly because science claims that it has no absolute knowledge of anything. All theories are tentative and open to change due to new evidence. Creationists claims, it seems to me anyway, are written in stone and can not change no matter what the evidence is. This is why you see so many ad hoc theories in creationism, such as Ross's "White Hole" and Walt Brown's "Hydroplate Theory".

The second flavor of fantastic claims are ones that contradict the available evidence. For instance (and only as examples), a global flood fits in this category. The geologic data we have refutes a global flood. More specifically, hundreds of feet of limestone filled with clams created by a flood is a fantastic claim, even if that flood is local instead of at the top of Mt. Everest. All of the data we have shows that limestone is produced at a snails pace, not all at once.

(note to admin, if you feel the preceding paragraph will lead to topic drift feel free to delete everything but the first sentence).

My argument is that the dating of the fossil was independent from the presence of this flexible tissue. Creationists want to date the fossil BY the existence of this tissue. I argue that decomposition is a wildly variable process. However, radioactive decay has been observed to be constant on earth, elswhere in the universe, and in the past. Dating through radioactive decay is a much more reliable and accurate measure of age than decomposition and fossilization.

#49 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:50 PM

Assumed?????  I' m sure it was based on clear evidence.... B)

Terry

View Post


No, it wasn't. Like I said, our knowledge of fossilization and decomposition in different environments is not that great. Look at the quote I supplied. We assumed that organic tissue could not be preserved for long periods of time ONLY BECAUSE we haven't found tissue that has survived that long. This is how science works, with testable theories. The theory on decomposition is falsifiable and testable, which is being illustrated well with this new T. rex find. Our knowledge of radioactive decay and geology is much greater and well tested. This is why no one (within science) is dating the fossil because of the characteristics of the flexible tissue.

#50 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 04:10 PM

No, they have been shown to be accurate through such things as the dating of the Hawaiin island chain and the Emporer seamounts, to name just one.


How?

Also, historically recorded volcanic eruptions have been accurately dated using Ar/Ar dating.  The methodologies work and no assumptions are made.


Extrapolating anything back from recorded human history to 70 million years ago invloves assumptions.

Just like everything in science, conclusions are inferred from the evidence.

Everything in science is not infered. Observational science can be demonstrated and repeated in real time. Historical science is inferred, and those inferences cannot be tested emperically. What reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow, so its not wise to accpet the claims of historical science with the same relaiblity that we accpet the claims of observational science.

A clear history of 70 million years of radioactive decay is very strong evidence, especially when it is seen over and over again.


One man's clear evidence is another man's conjecture. Past recorded human history, there is no history, only conjecture about history. The exception being God's word.

Besides religious conviction


One might ask you the same question. Evolution is just materialistic philosophy that attempts to put reason in the straight jacket of self-organizing matter. There is no reason that an indivudual cannot look at scientific data and reach a conclusion that transends materialism, unless of course materialism is your god and faith.

God exists, this is as plain as the nose on your face. Since God exists, its not unreasonable to assume that he has something to say. Lesser beings certainly do. Since God has something to say, and seeing that God must really be smart to have created the universe and all that's in it, whater he says must make sense, and line up with reality. This is what we find with God's word and science. Its only materialisitc interpretations of the data that are at odd's with God's word, not observable data.

what reasons do you have for denying the overwhelming evidence?


The decay rate of the earth's magnetic field suggests its no more than 100k years old.
Measurable C14 in supposedly old organic material such as coal and oil.
Soft Tissue in dinosaur bones.
Helium contained in zircons
Lack of the helium in the earth's atmosphere that should be there from 5 billion years of radioactive decay.

The evidence is not so overwhelming if you set evolutionary dogma aside.

Also, please name the assumptions that you think are used.


Constant decay rate over a long period of time.
Intitial concentrations of daughter product.
No external influx/outflux of any of the isotopes.

Terry

#51 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 31 March 2005 - 04:31 PM

How?
Extrapolating anything back from recorded human history to 70 million years ago invloves assumptions.


No, it requires testable theories. This is not the same thing as an assumption.

Historical science is inferred, and those inferences cannot be tested emperically. What reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow, so its not wise to accpet the claims of historical science with the same relaiblity that we accpet the claims of observational science.


So we should let everyone out of jail who was convicted by forensic science?

One man's clear evidence is another man's conjecture. Past recorded human history, there is no history, only conjecture about history. The exception being God's word.


Why the exception? Isn't the divinity of the Bible assumed without empirical evidence?

One might ask you the same question. Evolution is just materialistic philosophy that attempts to put reason in the straight jacket of self-organizing matter. There is no reason that an indivudual cannot look at scientific data and reach a conclusion that transends materialism, unless of course materialism is your god and faith.


If you intepret evidence outside of methodological naturalism then you are no longer doing science, you are doing philosophy. There are other ways to interpret the data, but only a few of those interpretations are scientific. Creationists claim that the global flood and a young earth are scientific facts and should be taught in secular science class rooms. If that is so, then creationists must confine themselves to this "straight jacket" for their claims to be consistent.

God exists, this is as plain as the nose on your face.


It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. The existence of God is a subjective matter, not an objective matter which can be investigated through the scientific method.

Since God exists,


Pretty big assumption, isn't it?


Then, a list of creationist canards that have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect. I have looked at these claims and found them wanting in the extreme:

The decay rate of the earth's magnetic field suggests its no more than 100k years old.


The magnetic field has flipped numerous times and it's strenght has oscillated in the past. Why is this a problem?

Measurable C14 in supposedly old organic material such as coal and oil.


Created by nuclear decay in the rocks where you find coal and oil. If a nuclear reaction 93 million miles away can create C14 in our atmosphere, then why can't nuclear reactions in near by rocks do the same within the earth?

Soft Tissue in dinosaur bones.


Again, show me why soft tissue can not survive for 70 million years. To do this you must have absolute knowledge of fossilization and decomposition. Do you have that absolute knowledge? I sure don't.

Helium contained in zircons


This is on the Index as well:

http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD015.html

Lack of the helium in the earth's atmosphere that should be there from 5 billion years of radioactive decay.


Only works if you ignore ionization and stripping by solar winds, both of which have been observed but are not mentioned by creationists.

The evidence is not so overwhelming if you set evolutionary dogma aside.


Um, yes it is. As stated before, scientists come from every world religion. Science works by stripping away dogma and bias.

Constant decay rate over a long period of time.


Supernova 1987a, Oklo natural reactor. Both evidence constant rates 170,000 years ago and 2 billion years ago respectively.

Intitial concentrations of daughter product.


Which can be detected through the Ar/Ar and concordia/discordia methodologies. In fact, with the Ar/Ar method you can actually measure the initial amount of daughter product.

No external influx/outflux of any of the isotopes.


Also detectable through concordia/discordia.

Like I have said, I have looked at both sides and found the creationist claims to be wanting due to their refusal to face refuting evidence, ignoring data, and an unwillingness to use the scientific method.

#52 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 05:07 PM

If you intepret evidence outside of methodological naturalism then you are no longer doing science, you are doing philosophy.


Information Science is science every bit as much as physics, chemisty, biology, etc....., its just in a realm that is superior to materialism.

There are other ways to interpret the data, but only a few of those interpretations are scientific.


I don't worship at the alter of materialism, so I'm not restricted to an inferior data set or inferior methods of perception. Modern/popular interpretations of scientific data are not scientific, they are materialistic.

Terry

#53 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 31 March 2005 - 05:44 PM

Information Science is science every bit as much as physics, chemisty, biology, etc....., its just in a realm that is superior to materialism.
I don't worship at the alter of materialism, so I'm not restricted to an inferior data set or inferior methods of perception.  Modern/popular interpretations of scientific data are not scientific, they are materialistic.

Terry

View Post


from Websters:

Science: "knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested using the scientific method".

Scientific method: "principles for the pursuit of knowledge involving the formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses".

How do you test, observe, or experiment with the "immaterial"?

Science is materialistic by definition (not by "moderm/popular interpretation"), because the scientific method cannot be applied to the "immaterial".

What is YOUR definition of "science"?

#54 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2005 - 05:54 PM

The topic is drifting, gentlemen. Please keep to the thread subject, or open new threads as necessary.

#55 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 31 March 2005 - 06:04 PM

This leaves me with one question for evolutionists. Is it now plausable that man and dinosaurs could have VERY WELL co-existed?

#56 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 31 March 2005 - 06:37 PM

This leaves me with one question for evolutionists.  Is it now plausable that man and dinosaurs could have VERY WELL co-existed?

View Post


Nope. B)

Good hearing from you, where ya been?

#57 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 01 April 2005 - 09:11 AM

This leaves me with one question for evolutionists.  Is it now plausable that man and dinosaurs could have VERY WELL co-existed?

View Post


As said earlier, the dinosaur fossil dated to 70 million years ago. We don't date fossils by their condition, but by the ratio of isotopes in the surrounding rock. We have yet to find a dinosaur and human fossil in the same layer, much less any modern mammal and dinosaur.

#58 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 01 April 2005 - 09:36 AM

Nope. B)

Good hearing from you, where ya been?

View Post



I've been around. Anyways what dating method did they use? ANyone know? Anyone know how it could have been preserved? Blood and all if I'm not mistaken?

#59 Tim

Tim

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 01 April 2005 - 12:10 PM

In the last 70 mya to the present; plants, marsupials and mammals evolved...
and somehow, just somehow during this 70 mya soft tissue of a T Rex survives!

Sounds like a fairytale to me!

#60 tkster

tkster

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:Lubbock Texas
  • Interests:Working out, shopping, hanging out with friends
  • Age: 21
  • Scientology
  • Atheist
  • Lubbock Texas

Posted 01 April 2005 - 05:43 PM

This leaves me with one question for evolutionists.  Is it now plausable that man and dinosaurs could have VERY WELL co-existed?

View Post


Actually, as an evolutionist I've stated for a while now that man an dinosaurs more than likely lived together. Though some see this as an issue that falsifies evolution, the natural perspective of things tells science that man and dinosaurs living or not living together does not falsify the fact that all plants and animals are related to each other.

This may, if it stands, disprove some of the geologic ideas that have existed about man and dinosaurs, but plants and animals are still related to each other. This hasn't affected evolution at all.

tk




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)