Jump to content


Photo

T-rex Dna Find


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#1 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:18 AM

By now I am sure everyone has heard about the soft tissue find in a T-Rex thigh bone.
Does this affect evolution in any way? Does this help the yec position?

#2 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:46 AM

It likely means that dinosaurs did not go extinct millions of years ago.

It may mean that the assumption of dinosaurs fossils being millions of years is wrong. If the evolutionary time scale is wrong, then the whole thing needs to be redone, since time is needed for mutations and natural selection to work.

It doesn't disprove evolution, but it lends credibility to the idea that dinosaurs and man have existed togehter. Something evolutionists reject outright.

Terry

#3 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 02:02 PM

So, the claim is that soft tissues survived for 65,000,000 years. To my fairly nimble mind the hubris needed to even suggest such a thing is beyond belief.

#4 Method

Method

    Banned

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

Posted 25 March 2005 - 02:55 PM

By now I am sure everyone has heard about the soft tissue find in a T-Rex thigh bone.
Does this affect evolution in any way? Does this help the yec position?

View Post


Firstly, the title is a little misleading. From the MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683):

Of course, the big question is whether it will be possible to see dinosaur DNA. "We don't know yet. We are doing a lot in the lab now that looks promising," Schweitzer said.


It seems that DNA has not been found, YET. The title of the thread seems to be jumping the gun.

As to your question, we still have not found any modern mammals, or even grass and grass pollen, in the same layers as we find dinosaurs. This is still a huge problem for creationists, and the finding of soft tissue does not affect this. What it shows is that we could be entirely wrong about the preservation of tissues. Could the removal of water and certain conditions preserve soft tissue for millions of years? Until this question is answered I can't really say one way or another. Our current understanding of tissue preservation is solely derived from fossils, so finding a fossil with soft tissue may readjust our understanding of preservation.

Also, this is not being touted, by scientists, as being a recent dinosaur. The sandstone layer from which this fossil was taken has been dated at 70 million years old. Creationists can make the claim that this animal was alive in recent times, but don't misconstrue the position of the scientists involved.

#5 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 25 March 2005 - 04:03 PM

The Science article mentions "soft tissue". I will trust them more than MSNBC.
Thanks

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:08 PM

I think the MSNBC article is few years late. This is a pretty good AIG article on their initial response to the news a few years ago(I'm assuming its the same bone), and their response to some negative feedback they got about their opinion.

when DNA was first reported in a fossil millions of years old, a well-known scientist in Nature said that it was just as well that those looking for it were not aware of laboratory-measured rates of decay which indicated that DNA should not last more than about 10,000 years (he later said 100,000)—or else they would not have looked for it. His implication: by definition, once you find the DNA, the previous belief, i.e. that it would not last, is proved wrong. Thus, if one finds heme, hemoglobin, and/or red blood cells in a millions-of-years-old bone (as they see it), this proves that under certain, remarkable, rare conditions, such things can happen. Note—I would not claim that the preservation proves the millions of years is wrong, but it strongly suggests it, and it is certainly more consistent with the belief that the fossil is only thousands of years old.


http://www.answersin...02/0325RBCs.asp

Richard Dawkins, I believe, maybe it was Gould, has said that if human fossils were found with dinosaur fossils, that it would be a way to falsify evolution. This seems to be in the same ball park.

Terry

#7 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

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

Posted 27 March 2005 - 09:27 AM

Richard Dawkins, I believe, maybe it was Gould, has said that if human fossils were found with dinosaur fossils, that it would be a way to falsify evolution.  This seems to be in the same ball park.


I don't think so. Scientists have known for a long time that orgainic material can be preserved for over 100 million years, in amber:

LINK

This just shows us that it can happen other ways, too.

#8 Tim

Tim

    Newcomer

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

Posted 27 March 2005 - 03:36 PM

To assume that 70 million year old soft tissue & DNA of a T-Rex survived because it was protectively encased within "bone" is near delusional. Bacteria and DNA are also found within amber fossils that are estimated at 30 m. to 250 million years. Evolutionists cannot adequately explain how such bacterial organisms and DNA could survive this length of time. Furthermore, the amber fossils encased in the sap have never revealed intermediate forms, but have revealed insects that are the same today as they were supposedly millions of years ago. Evolution will undoubtedly skirt this issue, and likewise do their best to bury the evidence. To accept the proposed possibility of soft tissue being preserved for millions of years requires far more faith imaginable than the creationist. The account of a recent global catastrophe is a far more logical assertion. How does this affect evolution? If evolution were to admit the truth about the evidence, soft tissue findings cannot be interpreted as a scientific anomaly, but as evidence for the recent existence of dinosaurs. The best examples of mummified humans are a mere 2000 to 2500 years old, and 10-15 thousand years for mammoths, who reveal signs of deterioration. What about 70 millions years of deterioration?

#9 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

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

Posted 27 March 2005 - 05:30 PM

Tim said:

To assume that 70 million year old soft tissue & DNA of a T-Rex survived because it was protectively encased within "bone" is near delusional. Bacteria and DNA are also found within amber fossils that are estimated at 30 m. to 250 million years. Evolutionists cannot adequately explain how such bacterial organisms and DNA could survive this length of time.


There are many things science cannot currently explain. Most of what we know now was once "unexplainable" also.

BTW- the folks who found the soft tissue said they are looking to see if there's DNA present, not that they have found it.

Furthermore, the amber fossils encased in the sap have never revealed intermediate forms, but have revealed insects that are the same today as they were supposedly millions of years ago.


While it's true that many insects found in amber are members of existing GENERA, many extinct SPECIES have been found in amber.

This link says that only 10%-15% of insects found in amber are members of existing species.

AMBER LINK

Here is another link that talks about an extinct ant found in amber (right here in my home state!):

ANT LINK

Evolution will undoubtedly skirt this issue, and likewise do their best to bury the evidence.


I believe the folks who discovered the soft tissue and reported it to the media ARE "evolutionists". Doesn't sound to me like they are trying to bury the evidence.

The account of a recent global catastrophe is a far more logical assertion.


Except for the fact that the geological evidence does not support that particular global catastrophe.

The best examples of mummified humans are a mere 2000 to 2500 years old, and 10-15 thousand years for mammoths, who reveal signs of deterioration.


Sure you want to go with that 10-15 thousand years for mammoths? That sounds right to me, but some others may disagree with you. :rolleyes:

#10 mailboxhead

mailboxhead

    Newcomer

  • Newcomer
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 March 2005 - 09:05 PM

Bacteria and DNA are also found within amber fossils that are estimated at 30 m. to 250 million years. Evolutionists cannot adequately explain how such bacterial organisms and DNA could survive this length of time


I cant find any cases of dna being found in amber fossils that are greater than @30 mya, which puts it before dinosaurs existed. You also have to remember that the dna that is found is degraded to the point where it is just snippets of dna. The reason that it lasted so long is that it has been encased, and shielded from anything that would break it down faster.

So, the claim is that soft tissues survived for 65,000,000 years. To my fairly nimble mind the hubris needed to even suggest such a thing is beyond belief.


It is still too early to tell, but from what i've seen it appears that the organic material in the tissue has been replaced by inorganic material and remained elastic through a special process of fossilization. from the abstract of the paper where this find was published: "Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience. " (Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, Jan K. Toporski. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955 , 25 March 2005).

#11 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2005 - 01:59 AM

Hi Tim and mailbox head. Welcome to the boards :rolleyes:.

#12 Guest_Yehren_*

Guest_Yehren_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2005 - 03:04 PM

One interesting thing is that the small amount of hemoglobin that had suvived those millions of years was injected into a rabbit.

It produced antibodies to it. The antibodies thus produced could determine to what organisms the T-rex was most closely related.

It turns out that it was most closely related to birds, not modern reptiles.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June 1997
Evolution

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone

Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶

"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues. "

Birds are the closest living relatives to theropod dinosaurs. Imagine that. Another confirmation of evolutionary theory.

#13 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2005 - 03:09 PM

It is indeed far too early to answer all questions... about this surprising find, and about others to come. But science will postulate (and publicize as examples of evolution) nonetheless...

But if a YEC had predicted that dinosaur fossils with soft tissues and musculature and cell material would be found, and he made that prediction last year ... I dare say that many anti-YECs would have merely gotten a laugh at his expense.... till now.

The amber examples of extinct species are of course true. However the significance of this (ie how different a population is to make it a distinct species and what that proves in the case of encased insects) ... can still be a matter of spirited debate.

I have a few dozen amber pieces myself chosen to contain many embedded insects. To my untrained eye, the encased insects all look surprisingly modern, but what others could see there I cannot say.

I'd like to get them dated. How expensive would that be I wonder.

#14 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

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

Posted 28 March 2005 - 04:23 PM

I'd like to get them dated. How expensive would that be I wonder.

View Post


The American Musuem of Natural History in NY City used to have (maybe they still do) one day a year when people could bring in artifacts, fossils, etc., and the museum staff would try to identify it.

I think there's a pretty good natural history museum in Toronto; maybe they do the same thing.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 March 2005 - 08:17 PM

But if a YEC had predicted that dinosaur fossils with soft tissues and musculature and cell material would be found, and he made that prediction last year ... I dare say that many anti-YECs would have merely gotten a laugh at his expense.... till now.

View Post



I suspect that your right, but it would be wrong to take a public opinion above a professional opinion (the scientist may not have taken this point of view).

Fossilisation can mean many things from a foot print, to mineralisation replacement to preservation in tar pits, all giving very different types of fossils.

But on the other hand the fact that no one did make such a claim I suspect, is because it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances required to preserve soft tissue for centuries is about the same for millennia.

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2005 - 03:45 AM

But on the other hand the fact that no one did make such a claim I suspect, is because it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances required to preserve soft tissue for centuries is about the same for millennia.


Perhaps that's because such conditions don't exists.....

Terry

#17 Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*

Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2005 - 05:58 AM

But if a YEC had predicted that dinosaur fossils with soft tissues and musculature and cell material would be found, and he made that prediction last year ... I dare say that many anti-YECs would have merely gotten a laugh at his expense.... till now.

But why would a YEC predict that? YECs must have some hypothesis in their heads about why almost everything fossilizes solid after only a few thousand years. Whatever that process is, it obviously fossilizes things solid. So why would a YEC necessarily predict an exception to the rule?

~~ Paul

#18 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:15 AM

But if a YEC had predicted that dinosaur fossils with soft tissues and musculature and cell material would be found, and he made that prediction last year ... I dare say that many anti-YECs would have merely gotten a laugh at his expense.... till now.

But why would a YEC predict that? YECs must have some hypothesis in their heads about why almost everything fossilizes solid after only a few thousand years. Whatever that process is, it obviously fossilizes things solid. So why would a YEC necessarily predict an exception to the rule?

~~ Paul

View Post


That was, quite obviously, a rhetorical question. I have seen examples of objects that have fossilized in a little over a hundred years.

#19 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:21 AM

If Dr. Horner and his associates want to claim that soft tissue was preserved for seventy thousand thousand years, then let them show a mechanism by which that is possible. But let them also leave off just-so stories. The facts, gentlemen, only the facts.

I say again, that it does not matter what appears before the evolutionist's eyes: he will not receive it because his carefully constructed, self justified, world view would have to be abandoned.

#20 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:27 AM

I should also say that I think these outrageous claims will soon be abandoned. Not because there were no soft tissues preserved, but because they are, by old earth apologists, completely indefensible.

Keep your eyes open, gentlemen, for another example of data outside what is required to defend a position being conveniently dismissed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users