Jump to content


Photo

Another Unfossilized Fossil


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
101 replies to this topic

#1 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 21 August 2009 - 09:11 AM

This time it is the ink sack of a squid that is supposed to be 150 million years old:

From Ddaily Mail UK:

155million years old and still inky: The perfectly preserved squid fossil amazing scientists

The squid-like creature perished some 155million years ago.
But despite the vast passage of time, experts who unearthed the fossilised remains were able to extract ink from its perfectly-preserved sac and use it to paint a picture of the ancient animal.
The odds of finding something as delicate as a squid’s ink sac intact after so long are put at a billion to one.

Posted Image
An eye on history: A  palaeontologist views the fossil found in inland Wiltshire

The key is the speed with which it was fossilised in rocks in Wiltshire that were under the sea during the Jurassic period.

Scientists describe it as the Medusa effect, after the monster in Greek mythology whose face was so terrible to behold that anyone gazing at her was turned to stone.
Dr Phil Wilby, who led the team which found the fossil, said: ‘The decomposition process usually means only the hard parts of an animal are preserved.
‘It is extremely rare to find any fossil with the soft parts preserved. We call it the Medusa effect - specimens turn to stone within a matter of days, before the soft parts can be eaten away.’

Posted Image
Pen and (very, very old) ink: The squid's pigment is used to draw a description of it

The inch-long ink sac had become separated from its owner - Belemnotheutis antiquus - which Dr Wilby said was ‘squid-like but not the same as a modern-day squid’.
However the black ink was of exactly the same structure as that of today’s version. Although solidified, some was ground up with an ammonia solution to make paint.
The ink sac was among several thousand fossils removed from the site by Dr Wilby, of the British Geological Survey.
He hopes that analysing them will reveal why so many creatures perished in the area and how some have been so well-preserved they look as if they have only just died.
The site was known about in the Victorian era and was one of the first in the world to yield fossils of fragile muscle and stomach tissue.

But its exact location became lost until rediscovered recently by Dr Wilby.

So the ink solidified but hadn't turned to stone after 155 million years?

BBC News also has the story:

H/T Creation-Evolution Headlines

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2009 - 10:00 AM

Wow! :D

That's amazing that the ink sack managed to stay preserved for 4500 years or less like that.

#3 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 21 August 2009 - 10:35 AM

Wow! :D

That's amazing that the ink sack managed to stay preserved for 4500 years or less like that.

View Post


Exactly. Just like the other soft-tissue finds, it's difficult to believe such preservation after 4,500 years. 155 million years stretches it far past the breaking point...

#4 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:15 PM

Exactly. Just like the other soft-tissue finds, it's difficult to believe such preservation after 4,500 years. 155 million years stretches it far past the breaking point...

View Post


Yes, that's called "coconut" faith......

#5 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 22 August 2009 - 05:19 AM

I would like to make a point here.

One there is no more water or moisture left, then there can be no more activity in said substance. Its the reason why dry pasta will never go bad. It can't, there is no biological activity going on in it. Of course you want to keep it protected from the elements, such as an airtight container.

So if something was completely desiccated and stored in something that allowed no air or water to enter it, then any soft materials that had thier moisture sucked out, would last indefinitely.

I'm tempted to doubt the source material though. but I won't. I just wonder why a scientists would destroy such a relic just to paint a picture using the dried up ink he found.

#6 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 28 August 2009 - 08:52 AM

I would like to make a point here.

One there is no more water or moisture left, then there can be no more activity in said substance.  Its the reason why dry pasta will never go bad.  It can't, there is no biological activity going on in it.  Of course you want to keep it protected from the elements, such as an airtight container. 

So if something was completely desiccated and stored in something that allowed no air or water to enter it, then any soft materials that had thier moisture sucked out, would last indefinitely.

View Post

Then why the surprise on the part of professional paleontologists? It seems to me that if you're right, there should be no such surprise at all...

#7 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 August 2009 - 08:43 PM

Then why the surprise on the part of professional paleontologists? It seems to me that if you're right, there should be no such surprise at all...

View Post



That's a good question. Maybe we haven't been looking in areas where it allows such fossils to form? Maybe the surprise is really about the fact that we don't find many soft tissues being preserved so well?

I don't know really I'm just familiar with food preservation techniques, and would assume that if something could preserve meat, then other soft tissues could be preserved in a similar manner (drying).

But again I'm not claiming special knowledge here, or a total understanding of the situation. So i could be completely wrong.

Either way its cool that they found this, and I'm excited for more similar finds.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 August 2009 - 11:19 PM

I would like to make a point here.

One there is no more water or moisture left, then there can be no more activity in said substance.  Its the reason why dry pasta will never go bad.  It can't, there is no biological activity going on in it.  Of course you want to keep it protected from the elements, such as an airtight container. 

So if something was completely desiccated and stored in something that allowed no air or water to enter it, then any soft materials that had thier moisture sucked out, would last indefinitely.

I'm tempted to doubt the source material though.  but I won't.  I just wonder why a scientists would destroy such a relic just to paint a picture using the dried up ink he found.

View Post


So what you are saying by claiming this, is that there is only one possibility so there can be only one interpretation of the evidence?

You see you assume evolution is true, correct? So all evidence found must conform to it or it's fake, right? Not allowing the evidence to lead you to where ever it will breaks the scientific method. But then again, I don't see many who follow it so what's the difference? Rules only apply to those who disagree, everyone else gets to break them.

And doubting the source material is your defense because said evidence most likely will not conform to the accepted absolute called evolution. Might as well reject the T-Rex blood as well.

#9 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:43 AM

So what you are saying by claiming this, is that there is only one possibility so there can be only one interpretation of the evidence?


Now hold on here, are you ignoring the fact that I said I could be wrong in a later post? And are you ignoring that I mentioned that I am looking at this from a preserving food method? What I suggestd is that if something is dried, ie no moisture left, then its potential life is almost indefinite.

You see you assume evolution is true, correct? So all evidence found must conform to it or it's fake, right? Not allowing the evidence to lead you to where ever it will breaks the scientific method. But then again, I don't see many who follow it so what's the difference? Rules only apply to those who disagree, everyone else gets to break them.


To automatically jump to the conclusion that this evidence leads us to Creation is just as wrong as it automatically leading us to Evolution. You would not be following the scientific method, in the same way as someone jumping to the conclusion of Evolution.

And doubting the source material is your defense because said evidence most likely will not conform to the accepted absolute called evolution. Might as well reject the T-Rex blood as well.

View Post



:lol: I said I was tempted to doubt it, not that I do. I don't know enough about the source material to say if it is true and accurate, or to say its not true or accurate. I'll gladly accept this material as accurate.

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 August 2009 - 08:02 AM

And doubting the source material is your defense because said evidence most likely will not conform to the accepted absolute called evolution. Might as well reject the T-Rex blood as well.

View Post

Well, yes and no. Evidence only really has to be rejected once the implications are understood. Patterns vary quite a bit among the closed-minded. Some reject anything suspicious; others wait around until they learn enough to understand and they activate their rejection mechanism.

#11 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 29 August 2009 - 09:37 AM

Well, yes and no. Evidence only really has to be rejected once the implications are understood. Patterns vary quite a bit among the closed-minded. Some reject anything suspicious; others wait around until they learn enough to understand and they activate their rejection mechanism.

View Post


Like I said I was tempted to doubt it but I don't. Of course you can't see my posts because you have me on your ignore list. :D So why make a response to a response that was directed at me to one of my posts?

Of course you can't see this either so I don't know why I bother other than to point out how intellectually dishonest ignore lists are. You sit there perfectly safe from other points of view without having to respond to them. How many Atheists do you have on this ignore list now? If I was truly here to be rude or argumentative as you think I am why haven't I been kicked out of here?

The Moderators have made it perfectly clear to everyone here that if that is someone's intentions when they come here that they will find out quickly and kick them out. I'm tempted to find a way around this ignore list feature, but I won't. Obviously you don't want to see what I have to say, so I won't make you see what I have to say.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 August 2009 - 09:45 PM

Now hold on here, are you ignoring the fact that I said I could be wrong in a later post?  And are you ignoring that I mentioned that I am looking at this from a preserving food method?  What I suggestd is that if something is dried, ie no moisture left, then its potential life is almost indefinite.


But millions of years? Come on. If the tables were turned, and you were YEC and I was the evo. Would not it sound kinda funny that I would imply that dried tissue would preserve for an eternity? How could I prove that to you?

Also, is not ink a type of moisture?

To automatically jump to the conclusion that this evidence leads us to Creation is just as wrong as it automatically leading us to Evolution.  You would not be following the scientific method, in the same way as someone jumping to the conclusion of Evolution.


But are you not only searching for a conclusion that only fits evolution? Making evidence conform to an accepted theory only allows for one outcome. Which barrs all others. Since evolution is an already accepted idea, should not the evidence be allowed to see if it supports another idea? I mean after all, once it's realized that it does not, what other alternative is there to support once one idea is omitted out?

Or could it be that science is only interested in one truth? Therefore everything else is already omitted out as a possibility? After all, when was the last time science ever spent any money, time and research chasing a trail that went anywhere else except towards evolution?

In my opinion, science = all roads lead to evolution only. "Any" other road equals individual stupidity and ignorance.

In fact I was just at a evolutionist forum just last night. And ran across a member that had a picture in his sig that had a bloody knife and said: Death to "all" fundamentalists. Evidently the forum allows it and all the members agree. What do you think that it is that teaches people like this to hate people so who disagree with evolution?

Now you pour that hatred into the halls of science, you can soon understand why science has already deemed evolution as a absolute. And barrs all other ideas.

:D  I said I was tempted to doubt it, not that I do.  I don't know enough about the source material to say if it is true and accurate, or to say its not true or accurate.  I'll gladly accept this material as accurate.

View Post


With all due respect, I guess you could claim that a creationist carved the ink pocket, then filled it with ink. Debunks like that seem to work for everything else that does not conform to evolution. And it could go into the archives as another debunk that produces no witnesses, and zero evidence to even warrant a court case.

#13 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 30 August 2009 - 06:51 AM

But millions of years? Come on. If the tables were turned, and you were YEC and I was the evo. Would not it sound kinda funny that I would imply that dried tissue would preserve for an eternity? How could I prove that to you?


Well by asking you question has made me do a little more research into it. All the information that i found gives life expectancy for the food item(s) until they were no longer edible.

Unfortunately they don't say how long until the dried item no longer exists.

I don't know if this is enough for me to change my mind on the long life of this fossil.

Also, is not ink a type of moisture?


Ink is a combination of solids and moisture. Once the moisture is gone you will be left with just the solids. If you think about the type of ink that is used in Japanese and Chinese calligraphy you will find solid bars of 'ink' that they mix with water to make their ink. Granted I think they make it that way, but that is just an example of a 'dry ink'

But are you not only searching for a conclusion that only fits evolution? Making evidence conform to an accepted theory only allows for one outcome. Which barrs all others. Since evolution is an already accepted idea, should not the evidence be allowed to see if it supports another idea? I mean after all, once it's realized that it does not, what other alternative is there to support once one idea is omitted out?

Or could it be that science is only interested in one truth? Therefore everything else is already omitted out as a possibility? After all, when was the last time science ever spent any money, time and research chasing a trail that went anywhere else except towards evolution?

In my opinion, science = all roads lead to evolution only. "Any" other road equals individual stupidity and ignorance.



I unfortunately don't know enough on how Scientists are supposed to approach new evidence that is contrary to the currently accepted Theory.  I assume they see if it fits, and if it doesn't fit then they need to change the Theory.

I guess if something was so far out from the theory, or if they found enough evidence to support that it was something else, then they would have to abandone that Theory all together.

If their was enough evidence to support something other than Evolution, then we would have at first a small group of scientists studying and reporting on it, and eventually more and more would come to the same conclusion.

Of course this is how its supposed to work idealy, but were are all just human.  And we al have our faults, and one of them is unfrotunately our pride.  We don't like to admit when we are wrong.  (well I don't mind so much, I've been proven wrong enough times that the sting of admitting it is no longer felt :huh: )

In fact I was just at a evolutionist forum just last night. And ran across a member that had a picture in his sig that had a bloody knife and said: Death to "all" fundamentalists. Evidently the forum allows it and all the members agree. What do you think that it is that teaches people like this to hate people so who disagree with evolution?

Now you pour that hatred into the halls of science, you can soon understand why science has already deemed evolution as a absolute. And barrs all other ideas.
With all due respect, I guess you could claim that a creationist carved the ink pocket, then filled it with ink. Debunks like that seem to work for everything else that does not conform to evolution. And it could go into the archives as another debunk that produces no witnesses, and zero evidence to even warrant a court case.

View Post


I understand that you wold be offended by the "death to fundies" signatures. I would be offended by that also. I don't think there is anyone who deserves to die from their beliefs, well maybe if they believe that the only way to save the earth was to hurtle it into the sun, but even then that person could just be incarcerated.

And I really don't think that hatred into the halls of science. Yes the 'halls' of science might scoff at an idea, but why would they 'hate' it? If there was enough evidence to support something hen there would be scientists willing to study it. It's even possible that there are now scientists looking into this. It could take years for their finding to see the light of day.

I certainly hope no one tries to say that a Creationist carved out that ink sac, or somehow faked it. I think there was enough people at the site to prove otherwise. But I understand your point. You feel that every piece of evidence that Creationists show is either ignored, or claims made that it was forged somehow. I would also find that to be extremely annoying.

#14 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 August 2009 - 07:15 PM

Can i just say that melanin is the pigment in the ink of this cephalopod. Melanin is "a brown-black polymer of dihydroxyindole, dihydroxyindole carboxylic acid" See all the oxygen in this polymer--that's not good for preservation. Oxygen burns all elements.

This is an explanation from wikipedia for carboxylic acid --"The weak O-H bond causes the acid molecule to be less stable, and causing the hydrogen atom to be labile, thus it dissociates easily to give the H+ ion. Since the acid is unstable, the equilibrium will lie on the right." All off wikipedia.

Okay it is an acid and it is unstable--it wants to give off the H+ ion. It has oxygen. It will deteriorate. It doesn't need water or free oxygen.

To say this ink would not break down after 150 million is only because the human mind has no mechanism for the perception of that duration.

What's more is that any paleontologist should have enough chemistry to know what I just stated and it really irritates me that such lies by omission are propagated to an ignorant public!!!!!!

#15 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 31 August 2009 - 02:11 PM

Can i just say that melanin is the pigment in the ink of this cephalopod.  Melanin is "a brown-black polymer of dihydroxyindole, dihydroxyindole carboxylic acid" See all the oxygen in this polymer--that's not good for preservation.  Oxygen burns all elements.

This is an explanation from wikipedia for carboxylic acid --"The weak O-H bond causes the acid molecule to be less stable, and causing the hydrogen atom to be labile, thus it dissociates easily to give the H+ ion. Since the acid is unstable, the equilibrium will lie on the right."  All off wikipedia.

Okay it is an acid and it is unstable--it wants to give off the H+ ion.  It has oxygen.  It will deteriorate.  It doesn't need water or free oxygen. 

To say this ink would not break down after 150 million is only because the human mind has no mechanism for the perception of that duration.

What's more is that any paleontologist should have enough chemistry to know what I just stated and it really irritates me that such lies by omission are  propagated to an ignorant public!!!!!!

View Post


;) that was way more advanced chemistry than I ever knew. So what does happen when the ink breaks down? Would there be any pigmentation left? What would happen if some mud had gotten into the ink sack somehow without spraying out the ink? Would the ink stain the mud, and would that be able to be used as the scientists did?

Also it sounds to me that you think this process would happen very quickly. How long would you estimate? Do you think an age of around 4000 years? Or would you think something much less like 50 years?

If it is a quick process to break down the ink, then maybe there was something special about this ink, or maybe it wasn't exactly like the ink we see today.

#16 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:32 PM

;) that was way more advanced chemistry than I ever knew.  So what does happen when the ink breaks down?  Would there be any pigmentation left?  What would happen if some mud had gotten into the ink sack somehow without spraying out the ink?  Would the ink stain the mud, and would that be able to be used as the scientists did?

Also it sounds to me that you think this process would happen very quickly.  How long would you estimate?  Do you think an age of around 4000 years?  Or would you think something much less like 50 years? 

If it is a quick process to break down the ink, then maybe there was something special about this ink, or maybe it wasn't exactly like the ink we see today.

View Post


Your kidding right? Melanin IS the pigment--it's not synthetic paint or ink--it's organic. Do you have some other chemistry for us? I didn't hear much--just alot of talk.

You must know that the carboxyl group (compare "carboxylic acid") is the acid side of amino acids. Dihydroxyindole tells me there are 2 H, an O and an indole. Tryptophan an amino acid in our body contains an indole. So everything about this molecule is organic.

There is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon in an organic molecule of melanin. Oxygen corrodes/rusts/burns things-- it's very reactive--so if some of it gets free it starts reacting especially with the hydrogen ions (which are itching for an electron) to eventually make water. SO you now have free oxygen and water in your sack.

You have too many "maybe it was's" and not enough "it was's."

#17 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 September 2009 - 06:20 AM

Your kidding right?  Melanin IS the pigment--it's not synthetic paint or ink--it's organic.  Do you have some other chemistry for us?  I didn't hear much--just alot of talk.

You must know that the carboxyl group (compare "carboxylic acid") is the acid side of amino acids. Dihydroxyindole tells me there are 2 H, an O and an indole.  Tryptophan an amino acid in our body contains an indole.  So everything about this molecule is organic.

There is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon in an organic molecule of melanin.  Oxygen corrodes/rusts/burns things-- it's very reactive--so if some of it gets free it starts reacting  especially with the hydrogen ions (which are itching for an electron) to eventually make water.  SO you now have free oxygen and water in your sack.

You have too many "maybe it was's" and not enough "it was's."

View Post


NEWS FLASH AFJ

Not every question is an attack. Please get that through your head.

I'm willing to buy what you're selling, but I had a few questions that I thought needed answered before I jumped on board with you.

Just to clarify the following statements are in attack of your post.

Instead of answering my questions you decided it was better to attack me. :D this tells me a lot. You non-answer tells me that you don't think this ink would last 4500 years, or even 1000 years. You probably doubt that it would last 2 years. So why do you buy this article???? "Oh I know for a fact that the ink would break down from the Oxygen that is a part of the melanin so it can't last all that long, but if it supports Creation then I will forget about my scientific knowledge!" followed by "Oh look an atheist is on this board! Burn the non-believer!"

But I will toss you a get out of jail free card.

This ink could have been made up of a completely different compound that less likely to break down as rapidly as the current squids have. Of course if you use that card then I would expect a full apology for your total mis-representation of my posts in this thread.

Thanks!!!

#18 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 04 September 2009 - 05:57 AM

AFJ did bring up an interesting point with his advanced knowledge of Chemistry.

How long would current squid ink last under the same circumstances? And how could we tell if this ink was made up of the same compounds?

Can anyone answer that question?

#19 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 10:52 AM

Exactly. Just like the other soft-tissue finds, it's difficult to believe such preservation after 4,500 years. 155 million years stretches it far past the breaking point...

View Post


If it can last 4500 years, why NOT 155 million?

#20 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:46 AM

AFJ did bring up an interesting point with his advanced knowledge of Chemistry. 

How long would current squid ink last under the same circumstances?  And how could we tell if this ink was made up of the same compounds?

Can anyone answer that question?

View Post


Two years of chemistry. Not an expert.
However, I can say that some compounds are extremely stable and that unless exposed to something such as oxygen, radiation, excessive heat or pressure they is no reason to expect it to degrade over time.

Squid ink varies among species, and contains a number of compounds, but the dark portion would be melanin regardless. Analysis is pretty straightforward, and I would expect some significant differences from the fossil ink compared to modern, just because some of the components would degrade over time.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users