Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Palaentology » Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence for young fossils

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence for young fossils

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Admin


Admin
Bryan Bissell  I most definitely have read several papers by Dr. Schweitzer as well as her critics such as Dr. Kaye who ALSO found soft tissue. He found so many in fact that he thought Darwin couldn't survive it. So he tried to excuse it with biofilm to preserve the science denying idol of Darwinsm. But Dr. Schweitzer debunked that in short order as have many others. They explicitly debunk the false claims you are making above. If you have read the papers, then you are intentionally lying.

Dr. Schweitzer identified 4 kinds of soft tissue and even critics have agreed there is soft tissue. ALL Darwinians blatantly deny the known laws of science in this area and in many other areas. ALL. ALL. ALL.

Schweitzer even found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. See videos by the actual researchers here as well as some of the soft tissue:



At one point Dr. Schweitzer remembers, "The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, You've got red blood cells. You've got red blood cells!'. It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"

Not only did they have blood vessels and structures that numerous tests have confirmed have the traits of red blood cells, during microscopic examination, they also fond that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely."



(~6:30)

She published a paper on it showing four types of soft tissue in the fossils.

"Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia.”Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present, Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner
Published 22 December 2007.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.2000

Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, "Nobody was imagining that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues… this was totally improbable….We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature's set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it’s just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years."



He’s also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years. Unfortunately, none of these evolutionists are considering that the millions of years dates for the dino fossils could be wrong. That concept is one which is not allowed to be wrong no matter how much evidence comes against it. Everything else can be wrong, including everything we know about science...but evolution and it's claims can't possibly be wrong.

Many researchers agree that this conflicts with everything we know about the processes of science.
"I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences?" said John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, lead author of one of the studies. "That's just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones."

Leading evolution experts on a NOVA program agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years:



The new finding will be viewed skeptically, admitted one of the researchers involved in the two studies. "It's very, very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there's an absolute time limit to anything that's protein or DNA," said Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University.

Matthew Carrano, a dinosaur curator at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in either study, said the protein findings are robust. "Here are the pieces of the protein. If you're going to refute this you have to explain how these pieces got in there," Carrano said in a telephone interview. "It's not another molecule mimicking the protein and giving off a similar signal. This is the actual sequence."

Jeanna Bryner, T. Rex Related to Chickens, LiveScience (http://news.yahoo.com/.../sc.../trexrelatedtochickens) See also: Sharon Begley, T. Rex and His Family, Newsweek, April 23, 2007

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html

Are there more cases of soft tissues in fossils?
1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we'd find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did.

2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds.
A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar.
http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-in-fossil
http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html

B) DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
http://creation.com/article/419

C) http://creation.com/a-165-million-year-surprise

D) Salty Saga
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../v23/i4/saltysaga.asp

E) In addition, we have much evidence that dinos lived with man:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL648C2EAD205F397C (videos 4-20)

RESEARCH PAPERS BY SCHWEITZER
***Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

***Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract

**Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187; 2. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Teran Arce F, Horner JR. 2007.

**Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein. Science 316: 277-280; 3. Mary H. Schweitzer et al. 2005.

**Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307: 1952 - 1955.)

** W.I. Stanton, 'Wootton Bassett: fame at last for mud springs', Geology Today, 11(5):172, September--October, 1995. M. McNamara, P. Orr, S.L. Kearns, L. Alcalá, P. Anadón and E. Peñalver-Mollá,

**'Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail', Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published online before print 14 October 2009.

***See also: Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b.
http://www.meas.ncsu.edu/faculty/schweitzer/schweitzer.html

Remember that Dr. Schweitzer says she found 4+ different types of soft tissues and says, "It looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certain looks like cells and it acts like cells". She affirms that she has observed capillary structures and vessels. She says that they can take vessels and squeeze them out into solutions. She has only the slightest of reservations that they need to do some chemical analysis to be 100% sure. But, her attitude throughout the video is that she's 98% certain it's soft tissue, cells, capillaries and vessels and she has NO CLUE how to explain this happening and it flies in the face of all science she knows of (of course referring to evolution science). But, if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck...well you know the conclusion.

Dr. Kaye subsequently published a paper calling Dr. Schweitzers findings just biofilm. Near the beginning of his page, he says this:
"Four categories of tissues were initially discovered in 2005 [1]: (A) Clusters of spheres that showed an iron-oxygen elemental signature appeared red under the light microscope. (B) Soft, branching, tube-like structures that contained spheres. (C) Free floating osteocytes complete with fillapodia and (D) a filamentous mass that remained pliable and elastic. Subsequent tests using immunochemistry showed positive for proteins [3]. Three of these structures were found commonly in this survey and discussed below."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

He goes on to argue that the soft tissue Dr. Schweitzer had found was not really soft tissue. It was just biofilm that had replaced the soft tissue and appeared to be soft tissue but was actually biofilm.

But, note the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm.He was looking for soft tissue like Schweitzer found and found so much of it that he felt it couldn't match evolution.: "But as Kaye examined more fossils, he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone. Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years, he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz {who told him it must be biofilm}." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

He's basically saying that the soft tissue was contradicting evolution and since evolution can't be wrong it was impossible for what he found to be soft tissue in fossils, no matter how good the evidence is. This is a very strong case of bias if I’ve ever seen it.

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye’s dissent.
"The idea that biofilms are completely and solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana. Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens, for example, and the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells, she says.

“There really isn’t a lot new here, although I really welcome that SOMEone is attempting to look at and repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording (and spelling and grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations.
“Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation, forms a testable hypothesis about the observation, gathers data, and the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined and retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times, it is strengthened, and eventually moves to become a theory, one of the strongest statements in science.
“If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis and the data put forth by another researcher to support it, one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original, and
3. produce new data that, in addition to the original, more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original. That is the progression of science. Hypotheses are continually being reformulated in this way, because science IS a process, and undergoes revision as new data become available.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

“While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed, and find their own explanations for these, they do not address the considerable chemical and molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see, but we determined that based upon the data we had, microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data (see Schweitzer et al., 2007, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies, a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data, and controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al., 2008...Nor did they explain the internal, or ‘intracellular’ structure we report for observed osteocytes…

“And finally, they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm…the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids…We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone… While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues, we hope that the reviewers and readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

You can read more about the immunological response here:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html#Dinosaur

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis and have created a critical bridge between biology and paleontology," he says.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-07-29-fossils_N.htm

There’s another interesting point here. It is reported that Dr. Mary Schweitzer has refused to do C14 dating on the fossils because they might show a far younger age than evolution predicts. But, Dr. Kaye did. “In order to determine if the mineralized biofilms were ancient in origin, a sample of material removed from the vascular canals was subjected to 14C dating. The results were ‘greater than modern’ indicating a modern origin for the material.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002808

I wonder if he just might be right on that part after all given how there is no scientific process that can explain soft tissue lasting more than 100,000 years (and some say as little as 15,000 years…note that both of these dates are also based on evolution assumptions.). I wonder if we should follow scientific processes and the weight of evidence that points to a young age for life in so many ways or just continue having faith in Darwin’s speculations that consistently keep getting debunked by real science. I really wonder.

One more from Dr. Schweitzer's paper (and there are many more verifications of soft tissue all over the fossil record..which shows that either Chris has no clue about how to read a scientific paper at all...or he's lying).
---
The presence of soft tissues and apparent cells in 68 Ma dinosaur bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005a) was unexpected, particularly because these components retain both morphological and some functional characteristics of their original state...

(about a mammoth) These structures vary in diameter, but in morphology and location, they are consistent with mammalian red blood cells...

Some vessels remained within fibrous matrix, and round red microstructures with opaque central regions (figure 3c) similar to those previously reported (Schweitzer et al. 1997a,b; Schweitzer & Horner 1999) were observed within. Flexible vessels were not as transparent as in other specimens, but were populated with uniformly oval, red-pigmented, translucent microstructures with opaque central cores...

Dense, round microstructures, tentatively correlated with intravascular microstructures observed under transmitted light and reported earlier (figure 3p; Schweitzer et al. 2005a), were isolated to vessel spaces within the demineralized matrix. The highly fragmented vessels contained small round red microstructures (figure 3s). This study addresses the following questions: (i) how extensive is preservation of soft tissues and cells in vertebrate remains, (ii) can patterns be discerned regarding tissue/cell degradation over time...

We tested many specimens of different geological ages (Recent, Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, Cretaceous, Triassic), depositional settings (fluvial sandstone, cave deposits, loess, siltstone, mudstone, marine) and taxonomic affinity (birds, mammals, saurischian (theropod) and ornithischian (hadrosaur, ceratopsian) dinosaurs, and dicynodont) for the presence of flexible, fibrous matrix, hollow, transparent vessels, osteocytes and intravascular material. Some or all of the four elements first reported for three specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125, FMNH-PR-2081, MOR 555) and Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 794) (Schweitzer et al. 2005a), have now been identified in numerous fossil specimens from thousands to millions of years old

The above are from:
Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution.
www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract

Death of Darwinism
soft tissue: osteocytes are ‘dead ringers’ for those present in living vertebrates Cameron J Tsujita




Last edited by Admin on Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:55 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

27 What’s the Shelf-Life of DNA? on Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:53 am

Admin


Admin
What’s the Shelf-Life of DNA? 2

Many leading Darwinian scientists have agreed that by all the scientific laws of degradation that are known, there can't be any soft tissue left.

Dr. Christina Warinner of the University of Oklahoma answers this question:

What’s the shelf life of DNA?
About a month to a million years, theoretically. The decay rate of DNA depends on the conditions of its storage and packaging. Above all, it depends on whether the DNA is exposed to heat, water, sunlight, and oxygen. If a body is left out in the sun and rain, its DNA will be useful for testing for only a few weeks. If it’s buried a few feet below the ground, the DNA will last about 1,000 to 10,000 years. If it’s frozen in Antarctic ice, it could last a few hundred thousand years. For best results, samples should be dried, vacuum-packed, and frozen at about -80 degrees Celsius. Even then, ambient radiation is likely to render DNA unrecognizable before it celebrates its millionth birthday."


A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time 1

Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation of less than 1 Myr for proteins and approximately 100 000 years for DNA

The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near-edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem ‘tissue fixation’ by cross-linking or peroxidation. HB-induced solution hypoxia coupled with iron chelation enhances preservation as follows: HB + O2 > HB − O2 > −O2 ≫ +O2. The well-known O2/haeme interactions in the chemistry of life, such as respiration and bioenergetics, are complemented by O2/haeme interactions in the preservation of fossil soft tissues.

1) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741
2) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/02/dna_testing_richard_iii_how_long_does_dna_last.html

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
CREATION SCIENCE VINDICATED AGAIN—Soft tissue, DNA, Osteocytes, & Protein found in fossils millions of years old (when soft tissue can last a max of 100,000 years.

How do we estimate the age of the earth? This is not an exact science with 100% proof, since it requires some assumptions and is based on inferential science.  But, basically scientists look at processes and rates of change happening now, measure that and extrapolate back.  Again, there are significant assumptions involved in doing this, no matter whether it’s Darwinians or creationists and it’s based a lot on current knowledge which isn’t infallible. But, we can look at the weight of evidence and follow that. 

At present there are ~100 methods of dating that point to a young age for life, the earth and the universe (note that I for scientific, biblical, linguistic and logical reasons, I believe that life is about 6-10,000 years old, the earth could be old or young since there’s evidence on both sides, and the universe is likely much older than the current 13.7 billion years old). Here is a simple summary for laymen and you can click some for more in depth reasons.
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
creation.com/age-of-the-earth

One of the more technical reasons is this one:
creation.com/argon-diffusion-age

In contrast, there are ~40 methods that point to an old age for life & the earth. Already, we have 100 lines of evidence on one side, the creationist side and ~40 on the Darwinian side? Where is the weight of evidence? It’s simple math.  But, it gets worse.  Quite a few of the 40 Darwinian methods have been debunked by soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old. Why is this a problem? As Darwinian professor Dr. Schweitzer explains in a video, by every known law of science on this topic, soft tissue can’t last that long. A Nova program also cited, state that it has a maximum life of ~100,000 years, by the laws of science.

Here again creation science has been vindicated and the weight of evidence points stunningly in the direction of creation science.

The below is a summary of the topic. You can find more at:
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue (many pictures and videos here)

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html 
 
4 TYPES OF SOFT TISSUE FOUND IN MANY DINOSAUR FOSSILS

In 2003 in the Montana badlands, the famed Dr. Jack Horner was excavating a remarkably well preserved T-rex skeleton. But since the site was so remote, the only way to get it out was by breaking it and carrying it out by helicopter. They gave a piece of it to Dr. Mary Schweitzer, also an evolutionist. Suddenly, she thought she saw medullary tissue (showing that the T-rex had been pregnant). At first she couldn’t believe it because no one had ever found this tissue in a dinosaur fossil before. She wanted to look closer. So, she told her assistant to soak it in acid to get rid of some of the rock be able to study the structures better. The acid removed all the minerals and they were completely stunned to find soft pliable tissue including blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues in the fossil, all found somewhere they shouldn't be according to evolution. Dr. Jack Horner said, "It is unimaginable to find soft tissue. It was just assumed that everything had been fossilized and therefore there wouldn't be soft tissue." 


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2kMlm8ZFtI ~6:30+)

Schweitzer even found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. See videos by the actual researchers here as well as some of the soft tissue:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnDCf50

At one point Dr. Schweitzer remembers, "The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, You've got red blood cells. You've got red blood cells!'.  It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"[url=file:///E:/Downloads/Creation--soft tissue vindicates creation science--AGAIN.docx#_ftn1][1][/url][url=file:///E:/Downloads/Creation--soft tissue vindicates creation science--AGAIN.docx#_ftn2][2][/url][url=file:///E:/Downloads/Creation--soft tissue vindicates creation science--AGAIN.docx#_ftn3][3][/url]


Not only did they have blood vessels and structures that numerous tests have confirmed have the traits of red blood cells, during microscopic examination, they also fond that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone. 

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhN_ZXM_Ycg (~6:30)

Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, "Nobody was imagining that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues… this was totally improbable….We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature's set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it’s just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
 
He’s also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years.  Unfortunately, none of these evolutionists are considering that the millions of years dates for the dino fossils could be wrong.  That concept is one which is not allowed to be wrong no matter how much evidence comes against it. Everything else can be wrong, including everything we know about science...but evolution and it's claims can't possibly be wrong.


Many researchers agree that this conflicts with everything we know about the processes of science.
"I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences?" said John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, lead author of one of the studies. "That's just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones."

       The new finding will be viewed skeptically, admitted one of the researchers involved in the two studies. "It's very, very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there's an absolute time limit to anything that's protein or DNA," said Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University.
       Matthew Carrano, a dinosaur curator at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in either study, said the protein findings are robust. "Here are the pieces of the protein. If you're going to refute this you have to explain how these pieces got in there," Carrano said in a telephone interview. "It's not another molecule mimicking the protein and giving off a similar signal. This is the actual sequence."
Jeanna Bryner, T. Rex Related to Chickens, LiveScience (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070412/sc_livescience/trexrelatedtochickens) See also:  Sharon Begley, T. Rex and His Family, Newsweek, April 23, 2007

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html 

Leading evolution experts on a NOVA program agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2kMlm8ZFtI (~8:30)


This is a very big deal because already we have ~100 dating methods pointing to a young age for life and ~40 pointing to an old age for life on earth. This soft tissue is a pretty strong refutation of some of those old age methods and evidence that they are based on evolutionary calibrations and assumptions that are exponentially wrong. 


Because their find conflicted so strongly with evolution, Schweitzer’s team performed several tests to try to disprove the idea that they were blood cells including nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), Raman resonance, Raman spectroscopy (RR) and electron spin resonance (ESR). They identified the presence of heme group molecules, but the tests were not conclusive.   So, they decided to use a more sensitive detection method to detect certain very specific types of proteins, the immune system of rats.  They injected some of the T. rex extract into laboratory rats to see if there would be an immune response to the foreign T. rex material. The rats did have a very specific immune response against hemoglobin which they would not have had if it was not hemoglobin. This was confirmed by injecting plant and sandstone extracts and it showing no reactivity. 


This is very important because many observational studies with protein decay show that beyond a few tens of thousands of years, sizable portions of protein sequences cannot survive intact. They decay rapidly. So, it’s quite astounding to find significantly intact hemoglobin if it is tens of millions of years old.

Schweitzer and her team concluded:  

"The production of antibodies specific for hemoglobin in two rats injected with the trabecular extract is striking evidence for the presence of hemoglobin-derived peptides in the bone extract. . . That the antisera did not react with snake hemoglobin shows that the reactivity is specific and not artifact. . . When considered as a whole, the results support the hypothesis that heme prosthetic groups and hemoglobin fragments were preserved in the tissues of the Late Cretaceous dinosaur skeleton." 42

Dr. Sean D. Pitman writes “I think that one further study should be done.  This study should be a Carbon 14 dating of this organic material as well as other "fossilized" organic material. If any convincingly non-contaminant carbon 14 remains in any detectable amount in organic specimens supposedly millions of years old, then a real problem arises that is equivalent to finding a hominid in the Cambrian. 
Fossils, Protein and DNA, http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html (good site to check out in more detail)


Dr. Schweitzer was and still is an evolutionist, but has now published a number of papers on this (listed below) which right from the start made statements that flew directly in the face of the claims of evolution and all we know about fossilization,
“Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia.”***


We don’t have just one case of soft tissue. Mary and her researchers tried the process many times because they were so shocked…and kept on coming up with the same results…and others have also found many cases of soft tissue when they used the same processes that she did.
 
One very obvious possibility based on the weight of evidence is that the dinosaur fossils are not millions of years as Creationists have said for long. Remember that evidence from your critics is one of the highest levels evidence you can get. Creationists have evidence for their theory in MANY areas. Evolutionists very seldom do.
 
Are there more cases of soft tissues in fossils?
1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we'd find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did.
 
2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds.
A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar.
http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-in-fossil 
http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html  
 
B) DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
http://creation.com/article/419
 
C) http://creation.com/a-165-million-year-surprise
 
D) Salty Saga
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/saltysaga.asp
 
E) In addition, we have much evidence that dinos lived with man:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL648C2EAD205F397C (videos 4-20)
 
RESEARCH PAPERS BY SCHWEITZER
***Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
***Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract
**Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187; 2. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Teran Arce F, Horner JR. 2007.
**Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein. Science 316: 277-280; 3. Mary H. Schweitzer et al. 2005.
**Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307: 1952 - 1955.)
** W.I. Stanton, 'Wootton Bassett: fame at last for mud springs', Geology Today, 11(5):172, September--October, 1995. M. McNamara, P. Orr, S.L. Kearns, L. Alcalá, P. Anadón and E. Peñalver-Mollá,
**'Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail', Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published online before print 14 October 2009.
***See also: Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b.
http://www.meas.ncsu.edu/faculty/schweitzer/schweitzer.html
 
Remember that Dr. Schweitzer says she found 4+ different types of soft tissues and says, "It looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certain looks like cells and it acts like cells".  She affirms that she has observed capillary structures and vessels.  She says that they can take vessels and squeeze them out into solutions.   She has only the slightest of reservations that they need to do some chemical analysis to be 100% sure.  But, her attitude throughout the video is that she's 98% certain it's soft tissue, cells, capillaries and vessels and she has NO CLUE how to explain this happening and it flies in the face of all science she knows of (of course referring to evolution science).  But, if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck...well you know the conclusion. 
 
Dr. Kaye subsequently published a paper calling Dr. Schweitzers findings just biofilm. Near the beginning of his page, he says this:
"Four categories of tissues were initially discovered in 2005 [1]: (A) Clusters of spheres that showed an iron-oxygen elemental signature appeared red under the light microscope. (B) Soft, branching, tube-like structures that contained spheres. (C) Free floating osteocytes complete with fillapodia and (D) a filamentous mass that remained pliable and elastic. Subsequent tests using immunochemistry showed positive for proteins [3]. Three of these structures were found commonly in this survey and discussed below."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

He goes on to argue that the soft tissue Dr. Schweitzer had found was not really soft tissue. It was just biofilm that had replaced the soft tissue and appeared to be soft tissue but was actually biofilm.
 
But, note the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm.He was looking for soft tissue like Schweitzer found and found so much of it that he felt it couldn't match evolution.: "But as Kaye examined more fossils, he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone. Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years, he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz {who told him it must be biofilm}." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

 
He's basically saying that the soft tissue was contradicting evolution and since evolution can't be wrong it was impossible for what he found to be soft tissue in fossils, no matter how good the evidence is. This is a very strong case of bias if I’ve ever seen it.
 

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye’s dissent.
"The idea that biofilms are completely and solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana. Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens, for example, and the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells, she says.
 
“There really isn’t a lot new here, although I really welcome that SOMEone is attempting to look at and repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording (and spelling and grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations.
“Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation, forms a testable hypothesis about the observation, gathers data, and the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined and retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times, it is strengthened, and eventually moves to become a theory, one of the strongest statements in science.
“If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis and the data put forth by another researcher to support it, one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original, and
3. produce new data that, in addition to the original, more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original. That is the progression of science. Hypotheses are continually being reformulated in this way, because science IS a process, and undergoes revision as new data become available.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683
 
“While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed, and find their own explanations for these, they do not address the considerable chemical and molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see, but we determined that based upon the data we had, microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data (see Schweitzer et al., 2007, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies, a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data, and controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al., 2008...Nor did they explain the internal, or ‘intracellular’ structure we report for observed osteocytes…
 
“And finally, they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm…the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids…We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone… While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues, we hope that the reviewers and readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

You can read more about the immunological response here:

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html#Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Blood
 
Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis and have created a critical bridge between biology and paleontology," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-07-29-fossils_N.htm
 
There’s another interesting point here. It is reported that Dr. Mary Schweitzer has refused to do C14 dating on the fossils because they might show a far younger age than evolution predicts. But, Dr. Kaye did.  “In order to determine if the mineralized biofilms were ancient in origin, a sample of material removed from the vascular canals was subjected to 14C dating. The results were ‘greater than modern’ indicating a modern origin for the material.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808
 
I wonder if he just might be right on that part after all given how there is no scientific process that can explain soft tissue lasting more than 100,000 years (and some say as little as 15,000 years…note that both of these dates are also based on evolution assumptions.). I wonder if we should follow scientific processes and the weight of evidence that points to a young age for life in so many ways or just continue having faith in Darwin’s speculations that consistently keep getting debunked by real science. I really wonder.

 

****ON WHETHER THERE ARE CELLS IN THE STRUCTURES***
Here's some from Dr. Schweitzer's paper. Link below:

---
The presence of soft tissues and apparent cells in 68 Ma dinosaur bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005a) was unexpected, particularly because these components retain both morphological and some functional characteristics of their original state...
 
(about a mammoth) These structures vary in diameter, but in morphology and location, they are consistent with mammalian red blood cells...
 
Some vessels remained within fibrous matrix, and round red microstructures with opaque central regions (figure 3c) similar to those previously reported (Schweitzer et al. 1997a,b; Schweitzer & Horner 1999) were observed within.  Flexible vessels were not as transparent as in other specimens, but were populated with uniformly oval, red-pigmented, translucent microstructures with opaque central cores...
 
Dense, round microstructures, tentatively correlated with intravascular microstructures observed under transmitted light and reported earlier (figure 3p; Schweitzer et al. 2005a), were isolated to vessel spaces within the demineralized matrix. The highly fragmented vessels contained small round red microstructures (figure 3s). This study addresses the following questions: (i) how extensive is preservation of soft tissues and cells in vertebrate remains, (ii) can patterns be discerned regarding tissue/cell degradation over time...
 
We tested many specimens of different geological ages (Recent, Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, Cretaceous, Triassic), depositional settings (fluvial sandstone, cave deposits, loess, siltstone, mudstone, marine) and taxonomic affinity (birds, mammals, saurischian (theropod) and ornithischian (hadrosaur, ceratopsian) dinosaurs, and dicynodont) for the presence of flexible, fibrous matrix, hollow, transparent vessels, osteocytes and intravascular material. Some or all of the four elements first reported for three specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125, FMNH-PR-2081, MOR 555) and Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 794) (Schweitzer et al. 2005a), have now been identified in numerous fossil specimens from thousands to millions of years old  
 
The above are from:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/ 
 
 
Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution.   www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract


Death of Darwinism
soft tissue: osteocytes are ‘dead ringers’ for those present in living vertebrates  Cameron J Tsujita
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4qfSlPtgI&feature=related



Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

Researchers are now suggesting that iron embedded in blood proteins preserved the still-soft tissues, cells, and molecules discovered inside dinosaurs and other fossils after the creatures were buried in sediments. The ability to justify millions of years is at stake, and this study promises to do just that. What are its merits and demerits?
Publishing in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Mary Schweitzer led a team that showed how iron atoms from blood adhere to and preserve blood vessels.1 The team placed ostrich bone blood vessels in water and watched them disintegrate in less than a week. They then treated another set of ostrich blood vessels with concentrated blood, and the treated blood vessels still looked fresh after two years of sitting on the lab bench.
They postulated that iron generates chemically reactive oxy radicals that help adjacent proteins bond, preserving their overall structure in a process called cross-linking. The way a fried egg resists rotting longer than a raw, cracked egg might illustrate this effect.
“Oxy radicals also facilitate protein cross-linking in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion,” according to Schweitzer and her colleagues.1
These results are unique and compelling. But do they really justify the study authors’ claim that this iron preservation phenomenon explains how dinosaur tissues lasted for tens of millions of years?
The study authors wrote, “The HB [hemoglobin]–oxygen interactions investigated here explain both the association of iron with many exceptionally preserved fossils and the enhanced preservation of tissues, cells and molecules over deep time.”1
For an experiment to really explain an effect lasting for millions of years, shouldn’t it gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last? Only then could researchers directly compare that maximum time with fossils’ evolutionary ages. Schweitzer’s report did not show these kinds of results.





The scientific community has long shown its desperation to defend 


mainstream fossil ages against the short shelf-life of soft-tissue fossils. Will they now call upon blood iron to have preserved fossils in a way that these results don’t justify?
Iron does appear to preserve tissues, even keeping blood vessels intact at room temperature for two years. Could ironkeep soft tissues intact for millions of years? At least four reasons show why the study’s results, amazing though they are, answer with a clear “No.”
First, “Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate,” according to the study authors.1 Their procedure involved extracting and purifyingiron from blood. But ancient dinosaur and other fossils did not have the advantage of scientists treating their carcasses with a blood-soup concentrate.
Second, many of the still-fresh fossil biochemicals described in the literature do not show evidence of nearby iron. For example, researchers have encountered bone cells called osteocytes locked inside dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops horn core.2 These cells have fine, threadlike extensions that penetrate the bone’s mineral matrix through tiny tunnels called canaliculi. Could concentrated blood penetrate and preserve those almost inaccessible bone cells?
Schweitzer and her coauthors think so. They wrote, “In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB [hemoglobin] flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network.”1 Yet, the study authors did not demonstrate this supposed access, they merely asserted it.
For example, have experiments shown that canaliculi can wick blood puree, despite having tiny diameters on the order of 0.0004 millimeters? Also, how could iron-rich preservative “have access to” tiny tunnels already clogged with osteocytes? Other examples of original soft tissues without these iron particles include mummified dinosaur and lizard skin.3,4
Third, for experimental control, the Royal Society authors kept ostrich vessels in water to watch them rot.1Does this resemble the burial conditions of dinosaurs, which are mostly dry today and have been primarily dry perhaps since the day of burial? Water accelerates tissue decay by providing for microbes and by facilitating degradative chemistry. So by adding water, these scientists may have rigged their “control” sample to show a higher-than-expected decay rate difference.



The researchers then compared their hemoglobin-soaked samples to the watered-down samples and wrote, “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24000% over control conditions.”1 If both their control and test models used unrealistic conditions, then they dulled the edge of their entire argument.
Fourth, just because this iron increases the “resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion” does not necessarily mean that it increases resistance of these “fixed” biomolecules to degrading chemical reactions.1 In other words, these authors have again shown that iron inhibits microbes, but they did not show that it inhibits the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions known to relentlessly convert tissues into dust. 
Plus, though they showed how iron ups resistance to microbes for two years, they did not show that it does so for millions of years. Getting these tissues to resist enzymes and microbes is the lowest hurdle. These results fail to demonstrate the next step—getting tissues to resist the laws of chemistry for unimaginable time spans. While the study does show that iron helps preserve soft tissues, the results fall far short of the authors’ claim that this explains soft tissue persisting for millions of years. Concentrated blood and extra water may not approximate real conditions, iron is not always present with known original tissue fossils, and the scientists did not produce a useful time-to-dust estimate for their iron-encrusted tissues.
By showing that iron particles stuck to dinosaur blood vessels look similar to those attached to ostrich vessels, this research may explain how soft tissues have resisted disintegration for longer-than-expected intervals—for example, thousands of years.

Biomolecules in fossil remains

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

According to a report in the science journal The Biochemist, even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years.

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissue-preserved-by-blood/

just because this iron increases the “resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion” does not necessarily mean that it increases resistance of these “fixed” biomolecules to degrading chemical reactions.1 In other words, these authors have again shown that iron inhibits microbes, but they did not show that it inhibits the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions known to relentlessly convert tissues into dust. 
Plus, though they showed how iron ups resistance to microbes for two years, they did not show that it does so for millions of years. Getting these tissues to resist enzymes and microbes is the lowest hurdle. These results fail to demonstrate the next step—getting tissues to resist the laws of chemistry for unimaginable time spans. While the study does show that iron helps preserve soft tissues, the results fall far short of the authors’ claim that this explains soft tissue persisting for millions of years.



Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rexfinally has a physical explanation. According to new research, ironin the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.
"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Schweitzer told LiveScience. 

T. rextissue?
The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.
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.
The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.
"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.
The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron lady
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 minusculeiron 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. 

Searching for soft tissue
Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone. 
Schweitzer is set to search for more dinosaur soft tissue this summer. "I'd like to find a honking big T. rex that's completely articulated that's still in the ground, or something similar," she said. To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, she said. And they need to be tested quickly, as soft tissue could degrade once exposed to modern air and humidity.
Importantly, Schweitzer and her colleagues have figured out how to remove the iron from their samples, which enables them to analyze the original proteins. They've even found chemicals consistent with beingDNA, though Schweitzer is quick to note that she hasn't proven they really are DNA. The iron-removing techniques should allow paleontologists to search more effectively for soft tissue, and to test it when they find it.
"Once we can get the chemistry behind some of these soft tissues, there's all sorts of questions we can ask of ancient organisms," Schweitzer said.


Dinosaur soft tissue 1

In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years.




Bone cells discovered by Schweitzer, showing classic appearances including nuclei and connecting fibrils—from a [size=10]Brachylophosaurus allegedly 80 million years old!
[/size]

Dinosaur soft tissue in fossil bones!? Nearly every CMI speaker has watched incredulous looks on people’s faces as pictures from a 2005 Science magazine article flash on-screen. These show transparent, branching flexible blood vessels and red blood cells alongside soft and stretchy ligaments from a supposedly 68 million-year-old T.rex bone. The remarkable discoveries by palaeontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer have rocked the scientific world.

Time and time again


Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.2 They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.

Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.

It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin,3,4 actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.
Not only that, but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. And Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.5
Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.6
Moreover, more recent discoveries show dinosaur soft tissue in samples that are (by their own assumptions) manymillions of years older than those in Dr Schweitzer’s original 2005 discovery. As one article states:

“The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago…”7

A huge problem for the evolutionary paradigm


Believing proteins could last for tens of millions of years takes enormous faith. According to a report in the science journal The Biochemist, even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years.8 But such is the power of the evolutionary paradigm that many choose to believe the seemingly impossible rather than accept the obvious implication, that the samples are not as old as they say.

M. H. Schweitzer

These photos are from a later (2005) paper by Schweitzer which reported on the discovery of soft tissue, in addition to strengthening the red blood cell identification—see [size=10]Still Soft and Stretchy
Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”
[/size]

National Geographic’s article titled, “Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside”9 reveals that the scientific community is expecting many more examples of dinosaur soft tissue in the future. These facts have been a thorn in their side for several years now as they are incredibly difficult to explain within an evolutionary (millions of years) timeframe. Needless to say, they fit beautifully within a biblical (young earth) timescale; these are almost certainly the remains of creatures that were buried during the Genesis Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.
While this information wasn’t hidden, it certainly wasn’t promoted widely in museums or popular science programs either—and definitely not in the general press. Indeed, the majority of lay people are totally unaware of the presence of dinosaur soft tissue. This is hardly surprising: if the rocks and fossils are not millions of years old, evolutionary theory is finished. Predictably, some evolutionists lost no time in seeking to discredit the data. Dr Schweitzer (an evolutionist herself, although a fideistic theistic version10) remarked,

“I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible … . I wrote back and said, ‘Well what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”11 (Not exactly a scientific comment on the reviewer’s part.)

How to answer?


‘Bio-film! It’s bio-film!’ Desperate for an answer to this damning evidence some evolutionists claimed that the blood vessels that Dr Schweitzer had found were simply bio-film (a product of more recent bacterial action).12 This was sometimes shouted out during CMI presentations by skeptics, and anticreationist blog sites and chat rooms would give this as the ‘go-to’ answer when creationists raised the topic.
But, even if the blood vessels had been bio-film, this could hardly have explained the presence of proteins and DNA.13 In any case, though, ‘bio-film’ only rarely gets trotted out in more recent years, as Schweitzer herself has been able to present a powerful case for the blood vessels not being bio-films.14

A new way out?


Recently there has been a spate of popular level articles claiming that Dr Schweitzer may have found the answer. She had proposed this solution earlier, namely that iron might help preserve dinosaur soft tissue, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.15 Now she has ostensibly tested this idea. Here are two excerpts from one such article that help summarize this new hypothesis:

— “New research from North Carolina State University shows that iron may play a role in preserving ancient tissues within dinosaur fossils, but also may hide them from detection.”
— “Mary Schweitzer’s latest research shows that the presence of hemoglobin—the iron-containing molecule that transports oxygen in red blood cells—may be the key to both preserving and concealing original ancient proteins within fossils.”16

And these comments from another article explain further:

“The free radicals17 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.”18

In her technical paper, Schweitzer claimed:

Haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C [77°F]).19

Public impression


The power in this argument is its seeming simplicity. The ‘average Joe’ might think; “Oh I get it, iron acts as a preserving agent like formaldehyde, the stuff scientists use to embalm things. It’s like those animals preserved in jars I’ve seen in laboratories. So the iron in the dinosaur’s blood must have preserved the organic material. And scientists know what they are talking about much better than I do so dinosaur soft tissue makes sense to me …”
It’s actually very strategic. By announcing this as ‘the answer’, evolutionists may catch creationists off-balance, lessening the impact of the argument. From now on ‘Joe’ will likely not be surprised if he is presented with the facts of dinosaur soft tissue found in fossils, thinking evolutionary scientists have already explained this. The creationists are crazy to think dinosaurs died out recently!

Questions


However, even under moderate scrutiny, Schweitzer’s explanation quickly falls to pieces. In her new paper she discusses experiments that appear totally unrepresentative of the conditions under which these dinosaur remains were actually preserved. Instead, she describes what boils down to a ‘best and worse case scenario’ for soft tissue preservation.

“They soaked one group of (ostrich) 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.”20

Reading the supplementary material in her article it appears that pure hemoglobin was used, not lysed cells or materials that could be expected to mimic what would be present in an animal carcass. (Blood vessels soaked in laboratory-prepared hemoglobin is hardly representative of decomposing bones).
One might also ask how realistic a concentrated hemoglobin extract is, compared to the real world. While unrealistically concentrated hemoglobin might preserve for a time, it doesn’t follow that natural, dilute hemoglobin will act the same way. Indeed, tissues rich in blood vessels, such as lungs and gills, often decay very quickly. One infamous example is the gills of dead basking sharks that rot and slough off to form the pseudo-plesiosaur shape.21
And the suggestion that blood vessels remaining ‘recognizable’ for two years somehow demonstrates that these could last thirty five milliontimes as long requires a phenomenal cognitive leap.
Further, it is not plausible that iron could be as good a preservative as formaldehyde, which directly forms covalent cross-links between protein chains, something iron can’t do. But even if we grant that it had the same preservative power (just for the sake of the discussion), what reason is there for anyone to expect that formaldehyde could preserve soft tissues, and fine cellular details, for tens of millions of years? Embalmers of human bodies widely acknowledge that their use of formaldehyde is to slow down, not prevent, the relentless process of decomposition. The embalmed body of Lenin has been widely suspected of being faked or touched up due to it looking ‘too good’ after only some 90 years on public display. Even then, more recent photos show it looking distinctly ‘ragged’ compared to earlier shots.
It’s quite possible that the hemoglobin in Schweitzer’s experiment ‘pickled’ the blood vessels so that neither bacteria nor enzymes could degrade them. This requires a concentrated solution of the pickling agent (usually salt and acidic conditions). If this is the real explanation, then a dilute solution, as normally found in tissues, would not work anyway.
Even a concentrated solution, while it could keep it for the two years observed, would not suffice over great time spans. Because overmillions of years, even the lack of enzymatic and bacterial degradation makes no difference. DNA and proteins will eventually succumb to ordinary chemistry, especially reactions with water. Evolutionists have likewise recognized this:

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.22

A watertight argument?


Another problem for Dr Schweitzer is the burial environment. One article stated;

“If the hemoglobin were contained in a bone in a sandstone environment, keeping it dry and insulated from microbes, preservation becomes more likely.”23

Reinforcing this, another said:

“They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.”24

However, the very same porosity proposed to ‘wick away’ things would also more readily expose it to penetration by water over those millions of years, thus hastening decomposition. But in any case, even supposing that there was no exposure to water, radiation, bacteria or enzymatic attack, measurements of DNA decay rates in bone show that DNA could not have survived the alleged 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. Even frozen at –5°C (23°F), the DNA should have completely disintegrated into its individual building blocks in under 7 million years:

“However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.”25

A thought experiment


Another way to highlight the problem for long-agers, even if their ‘wicking’ arguments could solve the water problem, and even if iron wereas good as formaldehyde, is the following thought experiment (it has to be just in thought, because of the practical barrier that even several human lifetimes would not be enough to do the experiment in practice).




Take a laboratory-prepared specimen, place it in a jar full of formaldehyde (even assuming the complete integrity of the jar/seal etc), then stick it in the ground encased in rock—and just for good measure, keep the surroundings permanently frozen at 0oC. It would still be subject to the thermodynamic breakdown of such complex, fragile molecules. Atoms and molecules in a compound are always in motion, even at such freezing temperatures. For any scientist to have said prior to the Schweitzer discoveries that they would have expected blood vessels, delicate cell structures, DNA and proteins after 70 million years from such an experiment would have been inviting derision at best, psychiatric scrutiny at worst. There are very good scientific reasons behind Schweitzer’s earlier (2010) comment on videotape:

The information that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiralling out of control. Evolutionists know that they need to confront this dinosaur soft tissue matter head on, and their responses to date have been far from convincing.

“When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.”26

So what has Dr Schweitzer actually shown with her more recent ‘iron’ observations? She’s demonstrated that the iron in red blood cells apparently has some qualities that could well contribute to soft tissue preservation, at least if it is artificially concentrated. Actually, so far from being a threat to biblical creationists, this may well be a plus, in that it might help explain how such fragile things could possibly last for thousands of years. We commented earlier on her proposals before this latest experiment:

“Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years… since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.”[27]28

The bottom line?


The recent reports proposing iron as a preservative are indicators that the cat, if not yet entirely out of the bag, is at least peering out it. The information that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiralling out of control. Evolutionists know that they need to confront this dinosaur soft tissue matter head on, and their responses to date have been far from convincing.
Perhaps the most important lesson in all this is the power of the paradigm, i.e. the ideology of millions of years. The straightforward scientific response to such a discovery would have been to trust the laws and observations of science that indicate breakdown in a much shorter period, then seriously question the ‘millions of years’. However, in the face of today’s widespread secular religion such would have the ideological impact of a nuclear warhead. A world that made itself is basic to this religion, and it absolutely, definitely needs millions of years. So instead, in the face of this evidence, the desperate search has continued–for some mechanism, even part-way plausible-seeming, to give this belief system some straws to clutch at.

Technical update, 19 June 2015: Schweitzer’s idea is that iron generated free hydroxyl (.OH) radicals (called the Fenton Reaction) causing preservation of the proteins. But free radicals are far more likely to help degrade proteins and other organic matter. Indeed, the reaction is used to destroy organic compounds. It also requires that the hydroxyl radicals are transported by water. However, water would have caused hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, and very fast deamidation of the amino acids residues asparagine and glutamine. Aspartyl residue should also have isomerized to isoaspartyl residue if exposed to water. Tyrosine, methionine and histidine would have been oxidized under Schweitzer’s proposed conditions. But the dino proteins show show that these unstable residues are still present:

The dilemma is this: how did the fragment successfully become cross-linked through aqueous hydroxyl free radical attack apparently explaining peptide survival while hydrolytically unstable moieties such as Asn avoid contact with the aqueous medium—for 68 million years? If we are to accept the benefits of random aqueous hydroxyl radicals cross-linking the peptide matrix in an undefined chemical bonding, we should also accept the cost—peptide and amino acid hydrolysis.29

Biomolecules in fossil remains

Proteins may afford us the opportunity to recover genetic information from warmer environments, where attempts to recover ancient DNA are less sure of sucess2,7. In more temperate burial environ ments, osteocalcin has a predicted survival limit of 580000 years at 20C and 7500000 years at 10C .

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




Related Articles



Further Reading



References and notes




1) http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue



Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young? 1

If paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it also dies by radiometric dating. Either DNA trapped in 200 million-year-old Jurassic insect amber is young or it has some unexplained source. I argue it is young. Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young. As I’ve said many times, the radiometric date of 65 million-year-old rocks is irrelevant to the radiometric date of the actual physical tissue of a fossil. I could bury a living dog in 65 million-year-old rocks, and the age of rocks will have nothing to say of the age of the dog. The best inferences for time of death of a fossil: half-life of C-14, half life of DNA, half-life of amino acids, etc., NOT the age of the rocks they are buried in…
From Nature News

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.
Determining that rate has been difficult because it is rare to find large sets of DNA-containing fossils with which to make meaningful comparisons. To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process.
But palaeogeneticists led by Morten Allentoft at the University of Copenhagen and Michael Bunce at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, examined 158 DNA-containing leg bones belonging to three species of extinct giant birds called moa. The bones, which were between 600 and 8,000 years old, had been recovered from three sites within 5 kilometres of each other, with nearly identical preservation conditions including a temperature of 13.1 ºC. The findings are published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B1.
Diminishing returns
By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on. The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information. “This confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect,”
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

Mark Armitage was fired because his data dared to question the mainstream. And now we find dino blood with dino DNA that can’t be more than a few million years old, maybe even on the order of thousands of years with a DNA half-life of 521 years! And what about DNA insect amber? Armitage was fired, but his claims continue to be vindicated by mainstream science. His career martyrdom was not in vain. We can assume for the sake of argument the universe is old, the Earth is old, that even many fossils are old, but if some fossils are proven young (like the dinos and insects) paleontology will go into anarchy and evolutionism won’t even have a coherent chronology to go on. One does not have to be a YEC to realize the latest discoveries are good news for ID because it casts doubt on the claims of Darwinist interpretation of the fossil record


1) http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/dna-half-life-only-521-years-so-is-dino-dna-young/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
So-called 250-million-year-old bacteria revived from "Permian" salt crystals, similar to other modern bacteria:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim_Lowenstein/publication/252604774_New_evidence_for_250_Ma_age_of_halotolerant_bacterium_from_a_Permian_salt_crystal/links/00b7d535137ec1d36b000000.pdf

Weevil DNA recovered from alleged 135-million-year-old specimen in amber, still shows no 100% match to a living species:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6429/abs/363536a0.html

DNA from fossil flowers that has been reproduced twice independently:
http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/4/615.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6267/abs/344656a0.html

DNA from "Miocene" cyanobacteria:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katarzyna_Palinska/publication/40897388_Ribosomal_RNA_gene_fragments_from_fossilized_cyanobacteria_identified_in_primary_gypsum_from_the_late_Miocene_Italy/links/09e414f9794144f2d3000000.pdf

DNA studies prove that DNA cannot last past 700,000 years. Dinosaurs/Nephilim, insects in amber, and fossil flowers must therefore be less than 700,000 years old. Microevolution like Eohippus to Equus and Smilodon to Panthera may have occuured, but it is clear that separate "kinds" of animals must have been created at the same time.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
RADIOCARBON DATING BASIC INTRODUCTION


Radiocarbon (RC) or (C-14) dating of linen, cotton, bones, fossils, wood, sea shells, seeds, coal, diamond (anything with carbon) is one of the most common and well understood of the various scientific dating methods.
Carbon 14 is an isotope of carbon which is formed naturally in the atmosphere. All plants and animals have a regular intake of carbon while they are alive. When an animal or plant dies it no longer takes in carbon of any form. That plant or animal most often decays and its constituent parts break down and are eaten by scavengers, or they decay, or are washed away etc. Once in a great while under catastrophic circumstances the animal or plant is encased in some sediment, or frozen, or desiccated, or otherwise preserved quickly so that its structure and constituent parts are preserved.
We know that if we separate the carbon out of a recently dead plant or animal there will be roughly five trillion atoms of carbon 14 out of a total of 6.02x 10 23rd power atoms of carbon in a gram of pure carbon. Scientists have ways of counting the carbon 14 atoms in a sample and then knowing the total number of carbon atoms and the number of carbon 14 atoms they can figure out how old the material is. As with most scientific dating schemes certain assumptions must be made for the method to be useful. With carbon dating we usually assume that after the organisms death no more carbon is transferred into the dead material. But what happens if it is a porous material that has been exposed to rainwater soaked with decaying matter? Do we know that no extra carbon has been absorbed by the material under test? If we suspect that additional carbon has been absorbed by the speciman can we process it in such a way that we can eliminate the carbon that soaked in over time from the outside world? Can we scrape off an outer layer? can we chemically treat it to get at carbon that is in the inherent structure? Can we process it chemically to rid us of absorbed carbon? These are questions that have been worked on over the years to refine and make carbon dating the most accurate of all radiometric dating schemes. C-14 has a half life of ~5,568 years, The maximum theoretical detection limit is about 100,000 years].
Radiocarbon dating is the most accurate, most studied, most verified of all the radiometric dating schemes. One of the chief reasons for this is that absolute dates for carbon material can be absolutely independently verified for certain parts of its useful range. Radiocarbon dating is useable up to 50 to 80 thousand years depending on various factors. All the labs doing radiocarbon dating report their information and it is compiled in the "Radiocarbon journal". This journal publishes dates for materials throughout the world. It is a forum where scientists can discuss the problems, solutions and issues using this technology
There have been serious technical conferences world wide for over 50 years where scientists gather to exchange information concerning this technology. Labs do NOT get "absolute dates" as claimed by some. There is always some degree of uncertainty and often dates are given as +or- so many years from a number. For older samples the more a "calibration correction curve " is normally used. The farther back the date the more uncertainty in the date. However carbon dating is extremely useful since it covers all the years for which we have written history and also sound archealogical artifacts. The equipment can be very expensive and be overa million dollars to set up an accurate laboratory.
How do we know that carbon 14 has any accuracy at all? One method of verifying is through comparison with tree ring samples. One of the oldest species of trees in North America and also in the world is the bristlecone pine (latin name pinus longaeva). The oldest known specimans was in the range of 4800 years old. Except on extremely rare occasions the tree adds one growth ring per year. Simple counting of the rings from the tree can determine its age. Scientists have confidence in the absolute age of that tree within a tiny fraction of one percent accuracy. Material from a particular growth ring year can be extracted with a coring machine and sent to labs for carbon dating. Thus a very accurate cross check can be made.
There are two types of carbon 14 dating technologies. The original oldest one is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. The newer method of "Accelerator Mass spectrometer" ( AMS technology) requires smaller sample sizes and is more accurate. The earlier process is more prone to possibility of errors in each of the many phases. The latest technology (AMS) involves actually counting the carbon 14 atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them. This newer method uses a much smaller sample size and can provide dates going back to maybe 100,000 at best. Generally dates older than 70,000 are considered tentative ages.
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old. Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating.  All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made. In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems. If, as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be once molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones. If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14. Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem. For more information on this consult the article in this link.



PROBLEMS WITH RADIOCARBON DATING


With any radiometric dating scheme certain assumptions must be made. The first assumption made is that carbon 14 has always been produced and had the same concentration in the atmosphere. This assumption is more important the older the carbon sample is.   After 10,000 years there are no absolute calibration points such as tree rings. Another assumption is that radioactive decay rates stay the same and have always been what we measure them now to be. We have only been able to measure radioactive decay rates within the last hundred years. What is the effect of decay rates or of carbon 14 generation by a supernova. Such questions still remain incompletely answered.
One thing that is agreed upon is that if a material is claimed to be 30 million years old there should be no carbon 14 atoms left. No matter how old the carbon material is science labs almost always find some carbon 14. This problem has been studied at great length and the radiocarbon journal is filled with articles on the subject. Old carbon containing materials such as coal and marble (calcium carbonate) and diamonds have been studied: These materials were from alleged multi-million year old formations and are supposed to be that old. When one carbon dates these materials they always find some carbon 14 present. How can this be? There are several possibilities as outlined below. They are the following.Carbon 14 from the surrounding environment have been introduced into the sample. This could happen from ground water washing in or bacteria invading a sample. A hard non porous carbon material such as diamond, hard coal, or amber would make this unlikely and can be ruled out for those material

[1]The carbon 14 lab has used materials in its processing that contain carbon 14. Perhaps the sample holder had some carbon in it.

[2]Contamination during sample preparation. This is something all labs are aware of and make great efforts to avoid this problem.

[3]Error due to the machine performing and measuring results. This is not likely given the extreme care given to these many experiments by numerous people over a span of 50 years.

[4]Nuclear synthesis of carbon 14 in situ during the experiment. This has been ruled out by experts.

[5]Nuclear synthesis of carbon 14 in the coal or marble itself while laying in the ground for alleged millions of years. This has been ruled out by experts as well.

[6]Nuclear synthesis of ordinary carbon to carbon 14 while the material is in situ. In other words could the carbon material while buried, frozen or whatever be lying next to or exposed to a strong radioactive material that bombarded the carbon atoms and turned some of them into carbon 14 from carbon 16.

[7]There actually is carbon 14 in the sample being tested and the dating scheme that claims the material is 100 million years old is itself badly flawed and needs to be reexamined. The carbon 14 testing method does give a more correct and more reliable age than any other method known.

1. An excellent exhaustive study of the above problem is found in Paul Giems article in the magazine Origins Volume 51 of 2001. 
2. Use of natural diamonds to monitor C14 A.M.S. instrument backgrounds. R.E. Taylor, John Southon; Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B vol 259 (2007) Pg 282-287


http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.

Are the results a confirmation of rapid formation of the geologic column as modern sedimentology studies have predicted? 

Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words: Radiocarbon dating, dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone bio-apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna



Introduction
Bone collagen and soft tissue were recently reported as having been discovered in a Tyrannosaurus dinosaur femur bone as well as other fossil bones from the Cretaceous period of the geologic column by Mary H. Schweitzer et al. 1 This recalled the radiocarbon (RC) dating by Dr. Walter Libby's team of collagen from "dense mid-shaft femur bones" of twelve extinct saber tooth tigers, [Smilodon] from the LeBrea Tar Pits of Los Angeles CA.2 The RC ages for extracted bone collagen for Smilodon femurs ranged from 12,650 ±160 to 28,000 ±1400 RC years BP (Before the Present). According to Dr. Libby, the inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age."3
It is common practice to determine the age of bones by radiocarbon (RC) dating of extracted bone collagen but not of dinosaurs because they are assumed to have become extinct 65 million years BP and, therefore, too old for RC dating. Nonetheless, dinosaur bone apatite had been successfully RC dated in the late 1980's/early 1990's and significant amounts of C-14 were detected and reported. The data was challenged by Thomas Stafford as poor science due to assumed contamination from modern C-14 with younger surficial calcium carbonate.4
Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) dating of dinosaur bone bio-apatite from 170 grams of bone fragments and milligram surface scrapings of an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur gave ages of 25,750 ± 280 and 23,760 ± 270 respectively.5 No collagen was detected and only bone bio-apatite was RC dated. Bone bio-apatite can be unreliable due to potential contamination from calcium carbonate replacement containing modern or dead carbon [unless carefully pretreated]. However, a study of the 100 cm. of clay above the bones by Wayne and Doug Wilder6 indicated no contamination as carbon [from the flesh] apparently migrated away from the bones with 0.5% C immediately above and only 0.1 % C, 30 cm. well above the bone strata; this suggests that the RC date for the bones was reliable as clay acts as a barrier. The age of the clay was estimated to be between 5000-50,000 years old by J. DeVilbiss.7 According to Ceranowicz et al. amber from aTriceratops burial site in Wyoming USA gave an AMS RC date of >46,450 RC years BP and, for Baltic amber from Poland and Russia, > 55,690 and >49,210 (RC) years BP respectively. The Wyoming amber, assumed as late Cretaceous, gave a younger C-14 age than the Baltic amber (40 M years BP).8
In Eurasia three hundred and sixty RC dates are tabulated from many sources based upon C-14 dating of bones [~130], tusks & molars [~190] and soft tissue [~40] by Yurij Vasil'chuk et al.9 On the Eurasian continent the dates ranged from 9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP. All were less than 40,000 RC years except for 21; most of the latter 21 were about the same age as for unfossilized wood from drill core samples deep in the permafrost of Prudhoe Bay Alaska: (a) 43,380 ± 380 RC years at 60m depth 10 (b) 25,500 RC years and 29,200 RC years for the same sample of tamarack wood [Larix laricina (DuRoi) K. Koch] at 122m depth (F. R. Johnson)11 and (c) >43,300 RC years BP at 183 m depth (E. R. Rodgers).12 Vasil'chuk et al. summarized these extensive mammoth RC dating studies but collagen content was not discussed. It's important to note that the authors concluded: "There was no statistical RC difference between the bones and that of the organic material and dating of mammoth bones is [thus] reliable."13 S. L. Vartanyan et al. reported on C-14 dating of small mammoths on Wrangell Island in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia: The eight mammoth bones, tusks and teeth gave RC ages at 4000 to 5000 RC years BP using purified collagen.14
Examples of other magafauna RC dates include 50 mammoths buried together near Hot Springs, South Dakota, USA. A date of ~26,000 years BP was obtained for bones that were devoid of collagen. According to the authors K. M. Thompson and L. D. Agenbroad, "The warm spring waters that infiltrated the sinkhole leached out the collagen in the bones."15 The RC ages for a musk ox carcass frozen in Alaskan, USA, muck gave dates of 24,140 ± 2200 years and 17,210 ± 500 RC years BP respectively for scalp muscle tissue and hair according to R. Stuckenrath Jr. et al.16 Dung of ground sloths in Rampart Cave ranged from 10,800 to 40,000 RC years BP as reported by A. Long et al.17


Significant age discrepancies between C-14 and other radiometric techniques
In spite of sometimes erratic C-14 dates, there are far more controversial dates when C-14 datable material or historical dates for magma flows are compared with potassium/argon dates. One case in point came from the study of tektites in Victoria, Australia [Lake Torrens and Lake Eyre regions] called australites. According to J. F. Lovering et al., the K/Ar dates for tektites ranged from 700,000 B.P. to 860,000 years BP. 18 The K/Ar dating of tektites from Indonesia, Thailand, Indochina and Philippines agreed. Fission-track dating ranged from 30,000 to 800,000 BP and was interpreted as consistent with K/Ar ages. Younger ages for fission tracks were ascribed to partial annealing of fission tracks by reheating on the earth's surface. One of their team members, E. D. Gill, had RC dated charcoal and calcareous nodules as they were found with "australites." 19 Thus Lovering et al. concluded: "Although RC ages were inconsistent, field work on geology of australite occurrences favored the ‘younger' C-14 age of charcoal believed associated with australites, as well as geologic evidence, indicated age between last glacial and 6000-7000 BP." 20
The authors continued: "RC ages of calcareous nodules, from soil horizon in which australites were found, scatter around 13,000 ± 3000 BP." 21 Thus the tektites fell between 6,000 and ~13,000 RC years BP. These >50 times younger RC dates suggest that a major asteroid impact occurred in that region only several thousand years ago not 800,000 years BP. Three dacite components from the final lava flow of A.D. 1986 for Mt. St. Helens in the United States ranged from 350,000 to 2,700,000 years BP using K/Ar dating according to G. Berthault. 22 It is also interesting to note that K/Ar direct dating of tektites from cores in the Chesapeake Bay Impact gave 35.5 million years according to C. W. Poag 23 and G. S. Gohn et al. 24 Had carbon-datable material been RC dated from the cores such as shells, carbonized wood, amber, charcoal and bones, would they have discovered a date much closer to the present as with the australites or as with the wood buried deep in the Prudhoe Bay permafrost? RC dating of core drilling specimens from the more famous Chicxalub crater in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico should also be RC dated since the explosion of the volcano or asteroid that produced that crater is thought to have caused the supposed demise of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago.

Furthermore, fossil materials other than dinosaur bones and amber that should be free of C-14 but contain significant amounts include anthracite coal, fossil natural gas, fossil wood and marble resulting from the metamorphism of limestone. All contain some corrected percent of modern C-14 (PMC'S). Some examples from many references include: marble, 0.060-0.932 PMC, A.P McNichol et al. ;25 anthracite, 0.358 PMC . R.P. Beukins et al ;26 fossil CO2, 0.0.09-0.13 PMC, A.T. Aerts -Bijma et al. ;27 and wood, 0.342 PMC, R. P. Beukins et al .28 The apparent RC ages for the above range from roughly 35,000 to >49,000 RC years BP. C-14 dates for carbon-containing material from the Chesapeake Bay or Chicxalub core samples would be useful for comparison.
Controversial radiometric dates have been recorded for material from Hawaiian volcanic eruptions in 1800-1801 and the Hawaiian magma there gave dates of 1.41 and 1.60 million years BP according to G.B Dalrymple. 29 Moreover, natural diamonds thought to be "greatly in excess of 100 million years" gave apparent variable RC dates of "64.9 ± 0.4 ka BP to 80.0 ± 1.1 ka BP. Six fragments from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical C-14 values – 69.3 ± 0.5 ka – 70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP as reported by Taylor and Southon. 30

Materials and Methods
Geology of the Montana Badlands: Most of the strata are the brownish-grey sediments of the Hell Creek formation thought to date back 65 million years (when the Rocky Mountains were rising in the West and there was much volcanic activity). At that time, much of the region was part of river-plains similar to the present southeastern United States with sub-tropical climate and vegetation of the Cretaceous period or the Age of Reptiles. Rivers draining the Western Mountains deposited layer upon layer of sediments which over alleged millions of years compacted to form the sandstones, mudstones, clays, and shales that form the Montana Badlands landscape according to the Makoshika State Park web site. 31

Geology of the Triceratops and Hadrosaur excavation sitesThe Triceratops and Hadrosaur femurs were found in popcorn clay. The term, popcorn clay is non-technical. It looks like popcorn. It usually refers to any clay that swells and shrinks. The color varies from grey to grey-green to green to tan; it is found in distinct thick strata. It contains much volcanic material such as bentonite, or clays such as montmorillonite or vermiculite. It is very slippery in wet, and crunchy in dry condition, according to paleontologist Otis Kline. 32
Triceratops and Hadrosaur locations: The exact location for the Triceratops femur is 47 degrees 6 minutes & 18 seconds North by 104 degrees, 39 minutes & 22 seconds West. This is on private land in Dawson County, Montana being located in the NW ¼ of NE ¼, Sec. 32, T.16 N., R.56 E. Regarding elevation, the GPS unit showed 647 m. The highest nearby point is approximately 201 m southwest of the find and is 669 m above sea level. The location of this RC dated Triceratops singular femur bone is just over 2.4 km east southeast from Otis Kline's 37 acre research station that has been geologically mapped. No other bones were found with the femur. The elevation appears to be the same as the Triceratops being excavated on Kline's "Lone Ridge" for the past three summers where no femur bones were discovered. Possibly the RC dated femur bone belongs to the Triceratops remnants from "Lone Ridge." Thus testing for C-14 in other bones seems to be the next step in the ongoing research. The Hadrosaur location was in a dry wash which flows into Frank Creek, then into Glendive Creek and then into the Yellowstone River just North of Glendive Montana in the NW ¼, NE ¼ of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana about 13 km south-east of the Triceratops location according to Otis Kline (2). Photos a-d in Fig. 1 and Fig 2 were taken during excavation for the Triceratops femur. Photos were unavailable for the Hadrosaur femur excavation.


Fig. 1



Fig. 1a -1d (right) shows the sequence of extracting the Triceratops femur. In Fig.1-d it rests on the pedestal of earth after excavation and before adding the protective coating.
Photos (1) of actual excavation are shown in Fig. 1a to 1d as the Triceratops femur bone was being extracted from about 1 m in depth, which was about 20 m below the top of the Montana Badlands [60 m of strata designated Cretaceous]. In light of the discovery of soft tissue in a T-Rex from the Montana Hell Creek Formation and RC dates for other fossils in the geological record it was decided to examine the bone interior of this femur, as Libby's team did with Smilodon and Schweitzer et al. did with the T-Rex "hind limbs." The Triceratops femur bone was discovered in what is called "popcorn clay." Since the bone was so huge (122 cm long and 20 cm through the shaft area) and completely intact [hard, and neither crushed nor deformed, ideal for extracting possible bone collagen] it was sawed open in late July 2005 near the proximal end, as shown in Fig. 3.


Fig. 2



Fig. 2a to 2d shows the support system including Plaster of Paris and wooden support base. The Triceratops femur was resting on a layer of popcorn clay in an apparent, almost aseptic sand and fine clay matrix.
It can also be seen from Fig.1a that the femur was located very close to the surface. Because of its proximity to the surface, the paleontologists had to contend with some roots of living plant material before reaching the bone. Perhaps the most informative documentation of Figs. 1 and 2 is that they show the sequence of excavating a 122 cm long Triceratops femur from discovery, to pedestal, to plaster, to separation.


Fig. 3a-3c



FIGURE 3. Photos 3a-3c are of Triceratops femur bone during and after sawing; photo 3d is a portion of Glendive MT Dinosaur and Fossil Museum field research station; photomacrograph 3e is of material from bone interior containing bone collagen.
Fig.3a shows the Triceratops femur dissection using carefully cleaned saw with the bone supported by wood frame and plaster of Paris cast. Identification of the femur was made by comparing with photos and descriptions from a standard paleontology text-book and comparison with a young adult femur, 107 cm long. 33


Fig. 3d



Inspection of the femur cross section in Fig.3b revealed dried up Haversian systems and very little apparent mineralization. Samples from different interior locations were easily removed by hand with a with a stainless steel scoop-type instrument as shown in Fig.3c and placed in plastic bags for further study. Fig.3d shows the typical terrain for this area of the Montana Badlands which is a dinosaur graveyard. 


Fig. 3e
The famous 27,000 acre Makoshika State Park near Glendive MT is only a few kilometers away. Fig.3e is photomacrograph of interior material from the dense mid-shaft of the Triceratops sampled for testing for the presence of collagen and C-14.

Radiocarbon dating methods: Both the C-14 conventional and Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) methods were employed as recommended by E. E. M. Hedges for ensuring RC dates are valid in situations demanding a careful investigation or try to pinpoint an absolute RC date. 34 There was also quite sufficient bone material to take large samplings as required for the conventional C-14 testing method. In the case of the conventional method, Hedges wrote: "One advantage however, appears to be that handling of larger samples induces less laboratory contamination enabling in rare circumstances, older dates than those obtained by AMS to be measured." As for the AMS technique he continues: "The AMS technique does frequently have some very important advantages when it comes to validating a date, however, and these should be emphasized. First, different chemical fractions can often be extracted from the same sample, and enough to permit repeat dates to be made if the first measurement is suspect in any way. Both these approaches are invaluable in increasing confidence in the reliability of a date.35
The modified Longin method by Kh. A. Arslanov et al.,36 and C. H. Sullivan et al.37 was used for extraction of collagen for both dinosaur femur bones; it combines two methods of purification as follows as described by Arslanov et. al. "The bones were mechanically cleaned and washed, then pulverized and treated at low temperature (4-6 C) by 2-3 fresh solutions of 0.5-1.0 N HCl for a few days (depending on preservation condition) until mineral components dissolved completely. We washed the collagen obtained in distilled water until no Calcium was detectable. We then treated the collagen with 0.1 N NaOH at room temperature for 24 h, and washed it again in distilled water until neutral. We treated the collagen with a weak HCl solution (pH = 3) at 80 – 90 C for 6-8 h. Finally, we separated the humic acid residue from the gelatin solution by centrifugation, and the solution was evaporated. Benzene was synthesized from the dried gelatin by burning in a "bomb" or by dry pyrolysis, using the standard methods ----."38

Results of radiocarbon dating:
The RC ages listed in Table 1 are accompanied by corrected percent of modern carbon and other pertinent RC factors for most of the RC dates. The conventional and the AMS testing methods were applied to different samples from both dinosaur femur bones as noted in Table1.
The modified Longin method was used for extraction and purification of collagen for Sample Tri. GX-32372-AMS testing of this interior portion of the shaft area of the Triceratops. The results were an RC age of 30,890 +/- 200 RC years BP for 30 mg of bone collagen from an 8.4 gram interior specimen. The percent of collagen was 0.3 % of the original 8.4 g sample.
A much larger sample of 146 grams was collected for the conventional C-14 analysis from the bone interior adjacent to the ~ one cm very hard outer portion; the outer bone was coated with PVAc preservative. A RC age of 33,830 +2910/-1960 for Tri.GX-32647- conv. was conventionally tested for C-14 after benzene/acetone, acid, alkali, acid pretreatments to remove possible remnants of PVAc coating (old carbon) and any young C-14 as per procedures recommended by the lab director and in RC literature.
Again the modified Longin method was used for extracting 0.7 mg of collagen from the 2.8 g sample of Hadrosaur femur from its interior, sample Hd GX-31950-AMS with a date of 1950 +/- 50 RC years BP. This was the very first sample from either bone that was dated so it was apparent that more experimental testing would be required.
For sample: Hd. GX-32739-Conv. A much larger bone sample, 160 grams, was tested for C-14 by extracting the total organic carbon (`500 mg) and pretreated with acid, base, acid with a date of 22,380 +/-800 RC years BP using the conventional method.
Another sample of about thought to be 100 grams had been sent in before Hd. GX-32739-conv for dating using the conventional method. However there was only 300 mg of total carbon in this sample, insufficient for the conventional method so it was dated using the AMS method. The date for GX-32678-AMS was 22,990 +/- 130 RC years BP. This was in very close agreement with the GX-32739.
The next four dates (Hd UGAMS-01935, 01936, 01937, 01938) came from one 56 gram sample of Hadrosaur bone and arrangements were made to divide the above sample into different portions to date: bio-apatite, charred bone, any collagen and any impurity that might be discovered. Again we obtained old RC dates for bio-apatite (portion pretreated with 1 N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates); charred bone (pretreated with 5 % HCl, dilute NaOH and dilute HCl again) and purified bone collagen. The oldest date was for the bio-apatite fraction and the youngest date was for purified collagen but all were essentially the same (see Table 1). A similar date was obtained for the contaminant Hd UGAMS-01938 as was obtained for Hd GX-31950 (Table 1). The oldest date was for the bio-apatite fraction.




Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages
Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).
Collagen and soft tissue were detected in dinosaur bones which is "exceptional preservation" and should not be there after so long a time period as 65 M years.39
Harvard scientists have confirmed that proteins from the collagen detected in the famous T-Rex (2005) was definitely collagen as determined by sequencing the fraction. Thus there is no reason to believe that what our lab has extracted is NOT collagen.40
Collagen, inside Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones was tested successfully for C-14. Collagen from a second Triceratops femur bone from Montana likewise contained collagen and C-14 in 2008. 41
Bio-apatite was also successfully tested for AMS C-14 after careful pretreatment w/HAc (acetic acid) to remove possible old and young CaCO3 contamination.
Bone collagen and bone bioapatite and/or total bone organics gave concordant C-14 dates after careful extraction and purification of those fractions as noted in Table 1.
W. Libby, who received the Nobel Prize for his C-14 research showed there is no possible way that bone collagen can be contaminated.42
T. Stafford's data has shown that weak acid insoluble collagen and total Carbon, HAc and alkali treated Domebo Mammoth bone agreed within about 5% of the most expensive purification treatment methods for obtaining the oldest RC ages. 43
Collagen content for the Triceratops femur was same as that for Kennewick man's first metatarsal, namely 0.3% as shown by F. P. McManamon. 44 The former gave an RC age of 30,890 ± 200, the latter 8,410 ± 40 years BP. Collagen was extracted from the dinosaur femur and purified by the widely used "Modified Longin method" (weak acid insoluble collagen method).
Crushed bone containing bio-apatite was treated with mild HAc (acetic acid) to remove surficial carbonates that could give false younger or older ages before the final dilute HCl treatment to evolve CO2 for testing. Bio-apatite is calcium carbonate that replaces bone calcium phosphate during the life of the dinosaur or other animal.
In essence RC dating methods could give major false old RC ages rather than false young RC ages because labs have eliminated sources of major young contamination. Also, we really don't know the actual C-14 concentration during the period when dinosaurs and some magafauna lived together. In other words the ratio of formation of cosmogenic C-14 is not known in the past. But, major young contamination is most unlikely. Why? RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids with alkaline pre-treatments or acetic acid pre-treatments under vacuum for young or old surficial calcium carbonates. So, young contamination is most unlikely for dinosaur and megafauna bones.
Of course the most important point or results of this research is that there are measurable amounts of C-14 in samples supposedly free of C14. Calculated RC dates are not absolute dates but they do correspond to the official C14 procedures as noted above. It can then be argued that it is far more probable that the atmosphere could have been much more depleted of C-14 content 1000's of years ago compared to today's content. Why? Because the protective quality of a much stronger magnetic field strength 1000's of years ago could have caused a much lower rate of C-14 formation compared to the current rate. In other words a half life of 1400 years implies a stronger magnetic field 1000's of years ago which would have inhibited the formation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere; this could make the dinosaurs and many megafauna seem much older than reality.45 The real ages for dinosaurs and some magafauna thus could be 1000's of years younger than the concordant RC years we obtained for dinosaur bone collagen and bio-apatite. We cite three references as possible indicators of this probability.
Radiocarbon research has shown that when an environmental factor is significantly depleted of C-14, living plant life gave old ages of 4000 to 25,000 RC years. Also, the variation in RC ages in fossil bones and plant life, including dinosaurs and megafauna, found in essentially the same strata can be explained by differing but very strong magnetic field strength; therefore the actual RC age would depend on each dinosaur's or megafauna's source of food and water. This effect involves strong magnetic field C-14 depleted plant life or even primordial carbon being ingested by plants through water or gas and eaten by animals. Animals that eat such plants would have less C-14 content thus causing an apparent older than expected RC age. A few examples include a living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts, 10,000 RC years BP as reported by B. Huber;46 plants growing in Montezuma well water 17,300 to 24,750 RC years BP as reported by J. G. Ogden III;47 and, a lab experiment by A. Long in which a 4000 RC year date for plant life resulted when subjected to gas from an ancient carbon dioxide source.48

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND REBUTTALS (Actual quotations or paraphrases)
(1) OBJECTION: "A possible reason for radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones is that collagen contains nitrogen atoms as well as carbon and hydrogen. Irradiation from the Uranium atoms in the soil surrounding the dinosaur femur bones or absorbed in the dinosaur bones through the action of water percolating through the bones could continually over millions of years keep changing the existing nitrogen into C-14.49
REBUTTAL: Bone bio-apatite, which is calcium carbonate, has NO nitrogen yet the RC age for the same bone is concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen. A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond (1) as analysis shows there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from uranium sources to change nitrogen into C-14.
(2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50
REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones.
(3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51
REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable coming from a top scientist in a major field of science.
(4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52
REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions.

(5) OBJECTION: "The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment and learned testimonials are irrelevant to interpreting the data."54
REBUTTAL: This statement naturally follows from a firm belief in biological evolution and long ages and must be ignored in favor of research by unbiased scientists who will test for C-14 in dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue from the Western United States; thousands of the bones sit untested in dozens of museums. By testing for C-14 they will then know if these anomalous RC ages are valid. Furthermore since there are fossil human-like footprints with dinosaurs in alleged 100 M year old Cretaceous limestone 55/56 and distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide 57 it is paramount that scientists test for C-14 in dinosaurs world-wide to see if C-14 in dinosaur bones is a world-wide phenomenon. Truth in science emerges in experimentation and keen observations.
(6) OBJECTION: Because of radiometric dating of volcanic material in many strata of the geologic column, the demise of the dinosaurs was extended from an assumed 12 million years by S. Hubbard58 in 1924 to 65 million years in the 1990's in the Colorado Hell Creek Cretaceous formation by G. B. Dalrymple.59
REBUTTAL: Both time periods are 480 to 2600 time greater than that with direct C-14 dating of the dinosaurs and other fossils from Texas to Alaska. Other examples include: (a) In RC dating the fossil human-like footprint impressions in Mexico S. Gonzalez et al. obtained ages of about 27,000 to 40,000 RC years for shells etc.60 But Renne et al. used K/Ar and Ar/Ar on volcanic material obtained dates of 800,000 and 1,300,000 years61 respectively or about 300 to 480 times greater than that for C-14. (b) For the distinct and pristine fossil human footprints in Texas, in the United States, the alleged geologic age is 108,000,000 years or 2900 times older than that obtained for two RC dates of ~37,500 RC years for carbonized wood in the clay between the limestone strata. 62
How then can one believe radiometric dating of moon rocks, meteorites and ancient strata which has established an age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years?63 With all its problems how can radiometric dating be of any value to the study of earth's chronology? Contrast the above long ages of millions and even billions of years with the results of applied paleohydraulic analyses to geologic formations in Russia (examples are the Crimean Peninsular and the North West Russian platform) and in the United States (The Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon) by G. Berthault.64 "In the case of the [Russian] Platform it is shown that the time it takes for the sediment to deposit would have been no more than 0.01 % of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale."65 In the case of the Tonto Group in the United States: "Sedimentology analysis and reconstruction of sedimentation conditions of the Tonto Group reveals that deposits of different stratigraphic sub-divisions were formed simultaneously in different litho-dyanmical zones of the Cambrian paleobasin." If this data were applied to the time scale for depositing the entire sedimentary strata then 0.01% of 600 M years would be only 60,000 years maximum. All the above RC and Paleohydraulic data demonstrates the lesson taught by geological historian Gabriel Gohau that "time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and NOT by orogenesis of biological revolutions. The conclusion: Evolution, as conceived by its proponents, cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time," suggests G. Berthault.66
What then is needed to further demonstrate the fallacy of radiometric dating? Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that radiometric half lives change with variables we don't yet understand. In other words the half life is not a constant and could have been quite different in the past, compounding the additional problems with which we are already familiar. C-14 dating of fossils and paleohydraulic studies of the geologic column strata are thus far more reliable methods of chronology than radiometric dating although a similar problem may exist with C-14 dating as previously discussed.

Conclusions and Recommendations
(1) Conventional or AMS RC dating methods were successfully used to date collagen from inner dinosaur bone structures where collagen, soft tissue and blood proteins will more likely be discovered and/or suspected using coring or dissection procedures to collect samples. Testing of several dinosaur bones from 1990 to the present demonstrated the presence of significant amounts of C-14 for both bone collagen and bone bio-apatite in the range of 22,000 to 33,000 radiocarbon years.
(2) Conventional or AMS RC dating methods can be used as survey tools to date bone bio-apatite content of bone fragments that are stored with the large bones in museum storage facilities world-wide. If there are no preservatives to be removed it is advisable to first pre-treat crushed fragments with hot dilute HAc (acetic acid) under vacuum to remove surficial calcium carbonate before using the stronger HCl to collect the CO2 from CaCO3 [bio-apatite]. This will allow for rapid survey evaluations without excavations.
(3) Based on concordant RC dates for AMS testing of the Acrocanthosaurus 67 surface scrapings can be used in place of bone fragments or bone collagen from dissection and coring of museum specimens. Of course the bones must be treated to remove possible preservatives. The data herein confirms the original indicator research from 1990 for the first dinosaur bones ever tested, the Acrocanthosaurus excavated near Glen Rose, Texas in 198468 and the Allosaur excavated in Colorado in 1986.69 The RC date for an Hadrosaur bone from the Colville River bone beds of Alaska containing organic material, possibly collagen, was 31,030 +230/-22070; this date is almost identical to the RC dates for collagen extracted from the Triceratops from Montana and the Allosaur from Colorado in 2008.
(4) Most scientists have concluded that catastrophic events of some sort caused the demise of most dinosaurs, but when? It is hoped that this paper has stripped away some of the confusion by showing that the time line for the extinction of dinosaurs appears to be similar to that for many megafauna. It is also hoped that with the publication of these data, more and more scientists will become involved in RC dating of fossils, including dinosaur bones and drill core samples containing wood and shell. As noted earlier, an australite fall of 6000 to 13,000 RC years BP not 800,000 radiometric years ago. 71 Furthermore it is suggested in a recent article J. Kennett 72 that a RC date for the demise of most megafauna is 12,900 RC years BP. Thus based on the many RC dating anomalies cited in this paper and in others, it would appear that the rate of deposition of sediments has been considerably faster than assumed by many scientists such as C. Officer who wrote, "…a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical.73
(5) In the report on the Doheny Expedition of 1924 dinosaurs were thought to have been extinct for 12 million years. 74 But in the latter part of the 20th century 65 Million years was the well excepted length of time since their extinction. But, as Hubbard, the director of the expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon of the Grand Canyon, wrote after he discovered a depiction of a dinosaur on the canyon walls: "The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur (Diplodocus) on the wall of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain.75 The French archaeologist Claude Jacques discovered a "Stegosaur-like animal on the wall" along with well known animals of modern times in the Ta Prohm Buddhist temple dedicated in AD 1200 in Cambodia. 76 There is a Torosaurus type dinosaur on a 1700 year old floor mosaic in Israel with a man throwing a rock at it; and, on a 1300 year old demolished Jewish temple in Syria there is a bi-pedal Cryolophosaurus type dinosaur with a lion attacking a horse on a temple column. 77 The famous Palestrina Nile Mosaic from100 BC contains that is thought to be a dinosaur along with other possible extinct animals. 78 John Damascene 79 claimed 1300 years ago that "dragons" were real and lived in his time and they came in all sizes; some were huge and some had horns. These are just a few examples of many realistic depictions of dinosaurs within the history of man that are also depicted in modern paleontology books based on study of their bones. One major question arises: Why are C-14 dates for dinosaur bones some 20,000 to 25,000 RC years older than these depictions? More research is needed.
(6) All C-14 results were well within the detectible range of the C14 method, and therefore surprisingly young. Indeed, RC studies of dinosaurs in this paper show that bone bio-apatite, bone collagen and pretreated organic material in dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska contained significant quantities of C-14 with conventional ages of 22,380 ± 200 to 33,830 +2910/-1960 RC years BP. This RC age range are the same RC ages as saber tooth tigers (from 12,650 ±160 to 28,000 ±1400 RC years BP for 12 specimens), mammoths (9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP for ~360 specimens in Eurasia) and ~26,000 years for 50 mammoths in South Dakota USA) as noted in the introduction. Even sloth dung in a cave ranged between 10,000 to 40,000 RC years BP according to A. Long, et al. 80 Radiocarbon dates for buffalo collagen and wolf bone in the Yukon, Canada were dated at 30,810 ± 975 and a wolf skull at 27,920 ± 650 from the same strata as reported by C. R. Harrington et al. 81 so all must have lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs; and, by deduction, with man.
Therefore to address these apparent chronological anomalies, account needs be taken of the evolving situation in geology and paleontology. Experiments in stratification by G. Berthault challenging the principles of stratigraphy and hence the geological time-scale could help to provide an answer. 82/83 The assumption that dinosaurs are over 65 million years old, for instance, is directly related to ages of rocks determined inter alia by the principle of superposition of strata. If this principle is questioned, as is the case, so are the ages of the fossils in the rocks that are contingent upon it. This report indicates the existence of residual carbon 14 in fossils normally excluded by the RC dating method because of their supposed age. Advances in sedimentology now allow the possibility of reconsidering the ages allocated by stratigraphy as science pursues another major question: Why are there distinct dinosaur depictions world wide that are depicted on many matrices only 500 to 3000 years BP within recorded history yet we obtain RC dates in the range of 22,000 to 33,000 years BP. Could there be flaws in the RC method theory as well as the geologic column and long age radiometric dating methods? Could the real ages for these dinosaur bones be much younger than reported here? Chronology is a very intriguing topic which requires much additional research. Most scientists should enjoy trying to answer such intriguing questions.

Acknowledgements:
Thanks are extended to all of the members of our team, including Dr. Wayne Frair, biologist, and Dr. Robert Bennett, physicist, who provided valuable assistance in preparing this paper; Bill White, engineer, and Beatrice Dunkel, fossil hunters; Joe Taylor, Director of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton, TX, and Otis Kline director of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, Glendive, MT, who were instrumental in obtaining the femur bone specimens; Randy Berg, Jan Satola, Tom Ryan, and Paul Langdon for their encouragement and reference discoveries; Hugh Owen for editorial advice.



Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Did Humans Walk the Earth with Dinosaurs? Triceratops Horn Dated to 33,500 Years


A Triceratops brow horn discovered in Dawson County, Montana, has been controversially dated to around 33,500 years, challenging the view that dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago.  The finding radically suggests that early humans may have once walked the earth with the fearsome reptiles thousands of years ago.
The Triceratops brow horn was excavated in May 2012 and stored at the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. The Museum, which has since 2005 been in cooperation with the Paleochronology Group, a team of consultants in geology, paleontology, chemistry, engineering, and education, sent a sample of the outer portion of the Triceratops brow horn to Head of the Paleochronology Group Hugh Miller, at his request, in order to carry out Carbon-14 dating. Mr Miller sent the sample to the University of Georgia, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, for this purpose. The sample was divided at the lab into two fractions with the “bulk” or collagen break down products yielding an age of 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite yielding an age of 41,010 ± 220 years [UGAMS-11752 & 11752a]. Mr Miller told Ancient Origins that it is always desirable to carbon-14 date several fractions to minimize the possibility of errors which Miller requested and that essential concordance was achieved in the 1000's of years as with all bone fractions of ten other dinosaurs.
Triceratops, a name meaning “three-horned face”, is a genus of herbivorous ceratopsid dinosaur that is said to have first appeared during the late Maastrichtian stage of the late Cretaceous period, about 68 million years ago in what is now North America, and became extinct in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. However, scientists from the Paleochronology Group, who perform research relating to “anomalies of science”, maintain that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago and that there is substantial evidence that they were still alive as recently as 23,000 years ago.


Classical reconstruction of a Triceratops (Wikimedia Commons)

Until recently, Carbon-14 dating was never used to test dinosaur bones, as the analysis is only reliable up to 55,000 years. Scientists never considered it worthwhile to run the test since it is generally believed that dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, based on radiometric dating of the volcanic layers above or below fossils, a method which the Paleochronology Group states has “serious problems and gross assumptions must be made”.
"It became clear years ago that paleontologists were not just neglecting to test dinosaur bones for C-14 content but were refusing to. Normally a good scientist will be curious about the ages of important fossil bones,” Mr Miller told Ancient Origins in an email.  


YouTube video explaining results of carbon testing on dinosaur bones

The results of the Triceratops Horn analysis are not unique. According to Mr Miller, numerous C-14 tests have now been carried out on dinosaur bones, and surprisingly, they all returned results dating back in the thousands rather than millions of years.

“I organized the Paleochronology group in 2003 to fill a void with regards fossil wood and dinosaur bones as I was curious as to their age by  C-14 dating.  We thus have used C-14 dating to solve the mystery why soft tissue and dinosaur depictions exist world-wide. Our model predicted dinosaur bones would have significant C-14 and indeed they did in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years BP,” Mr Miller added.


Results of C-14 tests on dinosaur bones provided by the Paleochronology Group.

Numerous independent researchers have long argued that there is evidence man and dinosaur once walked the Earth together, such as hundreds of ancient artworks and artifacts that appear to depict dinosaurs, long before modern science had pieced together dinosaur fossils and conducted analyses to produce detailed reconstructions of their appearance.


Top left: Relief carving at Angkor Wat, Cambodia (1186 AD). Top Right: Textile from Nazca, Peru (700 AD). Bottom: Tapestry in the Chateau de Blois (1500 AD)

However, even more intriguing is the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. In the March 2005 issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her team announced the discovery of soft tissue inside a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, a controversial finding considering scientists had thought soft tissue proteins degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. After recovery, the tissue was rehydrated by the science team and testing revealed evidence of intact structures such as blood vessels, bone matrix, and connective tissue. 
More recently, Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson published results of a microscopic analysis of soft tissue from a Triceratops horn in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Histochemica. Mr Armitage, a creationist, claimed that the preservation of cells is a scientific impossibility if the dinosaur really walked the Earth over 66 million years ago. On this basis, he opened a discussion with colleagues and students about the implications of such a finding being that the creationist perspective is correct and that dinosaurs existed much later than mainstream science maintains, a move that promptly saw him fired by the University of California.
While the Paleochronology Group says it is not “of any particular creed or denomination”, there are undoubtedly those with creationist beliefs among the group, a fact which critics may say could bias their results. Nevertheless, the group has urged any and all scientists to replicate their results by carrying out rigorous C-14 testing on any dinosaur sample.  

“Every sample tested yielded significant original Carbon-14 by extensive cross-checking of their ages in bone collagen, bulk organics and carbonate from bone bioapatite on AMS units and obtained concordance.  Thus, the overwhelming  odds are that most if not all unpetrified or even supposed petrified dinosaur bones in museum and university collections will show the same result,” Mr Miller told Ancient Origins. “We urge therefore that all those in charge of such collections see if they can replicate our findings. The implications are immense.”

The challenge, so far, has been met with rejection, and previous attempts to publish C-14 test results were repeatedly blocked. Raw data without interpretation was blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals.  The Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, who conducted ‘blind’ C-14 tests on dinosaur bones, without knowing what they were, refused to conduct further C-14 tests after finding they were testing dinosaur bones.  Paleontologist Jack Horner, curator at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies, who excavated the Tyrannosaurus Rex remains that contained soft tissue, even turned down an offer of a $23,000 grant to carry out a C-14 test on the remains. 

“[T]he public should be made aware that the discovery of soft tissue, C-14 in dinosaur bones and dinosaur depictions world-wild renders current beliefs about how old they are obsolete,” said Mr Miller. “Science is about sharing evidence, and letting the chips fall where they may.”

While there is a possibility that the C-14 test results were a result of contamination or error, (even though the results were replicated and rigorous pre-treatments were carried out by the University of Georgia to control for this), or are perhaps due to some other factor not currently understood by science, it seems reasonable to expect scientists to attempt replication of such groundbreaking test results. Failure to investigate or even acknowledge such significant findings unfortunately suggests that some scientists are more interested in holding on tight to current perspectives, rather than seeking to advance knowledge and understanding in this field.
Featured image: Triceratops horn discovered in Dawson County, Montana, which yielded C-14 results of around 33,500 years.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/humans-walk-earth-dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Still Soft after 551 Million Years?

Original soft-tissue fossils continue to challenge mainstream understanding of how and when fossils formed. Secular researchers described dozens of them over the years, from mummified skin and dried red blood to still-purple retinas, and they assign them ages of tens of millions of years. However, the science of tissue decay clearly does not permit these long ages.
For example, lab bench tests that accelerate tissue decay under high temperatures place a maximum age of fewer than one million years on some of the most resilient proteins, assuming the fossil proteins were kept cold and sterile during the entire process. These results call into question the “age” of the most recent discovery: original, pliable, marine tube worm tissue found in Precambrian fossils that are supposedly 551 million years old.1
Publishing in the Journal of Paleontology, three European researchers described details of delicate fossil casings that so-called beard worms manufactured long ago.2 The worms were quickly buried and locked in rock like natural time capsules. The fossil worm’s chitin-containing tubes look the same as those made by modern worms of the same type, complete with high-tech structural cross-layering of fine fibers.
The scientists first listed events that did not happen to these fossil worm casing walls. Their research ruled out preservation by various means of “mineralization” where minerals take the place of original biological material. Silicification, phosphatization, carbonization, pyritization, phyllosilicate metamorphism, and apatite permineralization all contribute to the fossilization of delicate tissues in other instances—sometimes involving bacteria in the process—but not in these Precambrian worm sheaths.
The study authors wrote, “Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary [not replaced], preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.” They described the worm sheath as still “flexible, as shown by its soft deformation.” And just to be clear, they wrote, “The body wall of S. cambriensis [fossil worm] comprises a chitin-structural protein composite.”2 The paper included close-up pictures revealing its fossilized—but not mineralized—tissues.
The idea that chitin or any unaltered biological material (soft tissue that has not yet decayed) can last longer than a million years has no direct experimental support. In fact, decay rate studies make a joke out of their deep-time age assignments.1,3 Geologists in 2011 reported original proteins and chitin in fossil sea scorpion exoskeletons—yet the fossils were supposedly 417 million years old.4 The subject of this more recent find of soft chitin and protein in marine worm fossils should again cause us to seriously question their evolutionary time designations.5
What decay rate measurements back the claim that animal proteins can last for a million, let alone half a billion, years?6 The still-flexible tube tissue of this lowly ancient marine worm matches the Flood explanation: a worldwide watery catastrophe buried these seafloor worms beneath hundreds of feet of sediments only thousands of years ago.

https://www.icr.org/article/8183/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Fossils Yield 10-Million-Year-Old Bone Marrow -- A First 1

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060725-fossil-bone.html

Fossilized bone marrow has been discovered in ten-million-year-old frogs and salamanders from an ancient lake bed in Spain, scientists announced Friday.
The specimens are the first examples of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered. They are so well preserved that the original color of the tissue is still visible.




An international team of paleontologists, spearheaded by Maria McNamara of Ireland's University College Dublin, made the find while studying the remains of more than a hundred ancient frogs and salamanders.
The discovery suggests that many other fossil bones may contain well-preserved remnants of bone marrow, the scientists say.
Although fossil remains of muscles, skin, and internal organs have been found, they are rare because soft tissues usually decay before they can be fossilized.
And when traces of such tissues are found, the original organic matter has usually been replaced by minerals during fossilization.
Not so with the Spanish amphibians.
"The marrow is organically preserved," McNamara said. "The original color of the marrow is preserved."
Like modern frogs, she says, the bones show an inner zone of yellow, fatty marrow, encircled by an outer zone of red marrow.
The find will allow "incredible insights" into the makeup of ancient animals, McNamara predicts.
The simple discovery that the marrow was red likely means that the animals made red blood cells in their bones, rather than solely in their spleens, as is the case with some modern salamanders, she says.
The team announces its discovery in the August issue of the journal Geology.

1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060725-fossil-bone.html



Last edited by Admin on Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:33 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

38 The Fossil Record on Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:19 pm

Admin


Admin
The Fossil Record

So, it seems rather clear, despite the objections of many evolutionists, to include Schweitzer herself, that a 1,000da molecule would elicit an extremely weak response at best and would not necessarily elicit a specific response to a certain type of hemoglobin molecule since surface epitopes are generally more specific in their antigenic nature than are buried epitopes (i.e., heme is somewhat hidden within a cleft of the hemoglobin molecule so 3 or 4 amino acids attached to it would also be somewhat hidden). How then is it remotely logical to suggest that a molecule weighing just over 1,000da (a heme group plus 3 or 4 amino acids) could elicit such a strong as well as specific immune response as Schweitzer et al. observed?  In light of the additional recent finds of even more striking soft tissue and blood cell preservation, it seems much more likely that such an immune response so specific for certain types of hemoglobin could only be elicited by a larger portion of intact hemoglobin than many scientists seem to even consider.  Of course, one can’t really blame them because explaining how delicate soft tissue vessels (with obvious red blood cells inside containing relatively large portions of hemoglobin molecules) could remain intact for over 65 million years seems just a little bit difficult.
All of this is a rather mute point, of course, in light of the fact that T. rex collagen has been subsequently sequenced.
“I mean can you imagine pulling a bone out the ground after 68 million years and then getting intact protein sequences?” said John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, lead author of one of the studies. “That’s just mind boggling how much preservation there is in these bones.”
The new finding will be viewed skeptically, admitted one of the researchers involved in the two studies. “It’s very, very, very controversial because most people have gone on record saying there’s an absolute time limit to anything that’s protein or DNA,” said Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University.
Matthew Carrano, a dinosaur curator at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in either study, said the protein findings are robust. “Here are the pieces of the protein. If you’re going to refute this you have to explain how these pieces got in there,” Carrano said in a telephone interview. “It’s not another molecule mimicking the protein and giving off a similar signal. This is the actual sequence.” 99
 
Of course, despite this surprising turn of events, scientists do not question the notion that the dinosaur bones really are tens of millions of years old.  They still assume the long ages and evolutionary relationship that they assumed before – as per the following passages:
A comparison by Asara’s team of the amino-acid sequence from the T. rex collagen to a database of existing sequences from modern species showed it shared a remarkable similarity to that of chickens. Amino acids are the molecular building blocks of proteins; there are 20 of them used by organisms to build proteins, and their precise order is determined by instructions found in DNA.
“I’m grateful that he was able to get the [amino acid] sequences out. That’s the Holy Grail,” Schweitzer told LiveScience. . .  Until now, family trees have been constructed from the shapes of bones and teeth, a not-always-reliable technique.”
This finding supports the idea that chickens and T. rex share an evolutionary link and bolsters previous research showing that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are living dinosaurs.
“Here we have a real molecule from a real dinosaur, and it’s much more similar to a bird than it is to anything else,” Carrano said. 99
 
 
Such finds are much more consistent with a fairly recent catastrophic burial within just a few thousand years of time. Non-catastrophic burial would allow for rapid biodegradation of such delicate soft tissues. Time itself destroys soft tissues as well as DNA and proteins in short order.  Current real-time observations suggest that bio-proteins could not remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years – 100,000 years at the very outside limit of protein decay.  The fact that such proteins are found, intact, in bones supposedly older than 65 million years is simply inconsistent with such an assumed age – by a few orders of magnitude.

http://www.detectingdesign.org/?page_id=320

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Is Soft Tissue Common in Dinosaur Bones? 1

Laboratory experiments show that DNA spontaneously and progressively disintegrates over time. Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381 2


Structures that appear to be red blood cells (left) and collagen fibers (right) found in the claw of an unknown dinosaur. (Image from paper being discussed). For scale, the white bars are 1 micrometer (left) and 5 micrometers (right).
In early June, an extraordinary paper was published in the journal Nature Communications. The paper is free to read, so I encourage you to take a look at it. The authors of the paper begin by offering a summary of the various discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. They then make this important point:

Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule. In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years. Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost.

If you aren’t familiar with the terms, “tertiary” and “quaternary” structure refer to details that determine the three-dimensional shape of a protein, which is very important for its chemical function. Essentially, the authors of the paper are saying that the individual chemicals (called amino acids) that make up the protein might still be around after 4 million years or so, but the protein will be highly degraded.
So, the authors say that according to the prevailing wisdom right now, soft tissue preservation in dinosaur bones (which are supposed to be much, much older than 4 million years) should be very rare. They decided to test this idea, and not surprisingly, they found that it was wrong. How did they test it? They looked at eight dinosaur fossils found in Cretaceous rock, which is supposed to be between 145 million and 65 million years old. The authors suggest that the fossils are 75 million years old. The important point, however, is that these bones weredefinitely not well-preserved. As one of the authors said in a news report:

They’re very scrappy, individual broken bones. I can’t even tell you what dinosaur they come from.

What they found in these “scrappy” bones is surprising, at least if you think they are 75 million years old.
Two of the fossils yielded carbon-rich structures that resemble red blood cells (shown on the left in the image at the top of this post). All soft tissue is rich in carbon, which is mostly lost during fossilization. Given the fact that the structures are rich in carbon and have the shape of a red blood cell, the authors interpret them as unfossilized (soft) tissue. In addition, four fossils contained what appeared to be fibers of collagen, which is a protein (shown on the right in the image at the top of this post). Importantly, this is exactly what we would expect to see if the collagen’s tertiary and quaternary structures were still present. In other words, it doesn’t look like the protein has been degraded significantly.
Now, of course, the authors are very cautious in their interpretation, as they should be. Nevertheless, based on what they have reported, it really does seem like they have found soft red blood cells and intact collagen fibers in almost every one of the fossils they analyzed. What does this mean? Here is what the authors say:

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 other words, the authors conclude that if they can find soft tissue in their “scrappy” fossils, there ought to be a lot of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Currently, there is no explanation as to how that can be, if such fossils are tens of millions of years old. Even Schweitzer’s attempt to claim that iron can preserve soft tissue requires an extraordinary set of conditions that would not occur very often. Indeed, the authors list that explanation as one which indicates that soft tissue preservation “should be the exception rather than the rule.”
If the authors are right, perhaps the best explanation is that such fossils are not tens of millions of years old.

1) http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13636
2) http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/DNA



Last edited by Admin on Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
More Reasons To Doubt Iron as a Preservative for Dinosaur Tissue 1





This is reconstruction of a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. (click for credit)
In 2005, Dr. Mary Schweitzer stunned the scientific community by finding what appeared to be soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that is supposed to be 68 million years old.1 Since then, many such discoveries have been made (see here,hereherehere, and here), and a recent study indicates that soft tissue is probably quite common in dinosaur fossils. It is obviously hard to understand how soft tissue could remain in a fossil for millions of years, so those who are forced to believe that these fossils are millions of years old have tried to figure out some chemical mechanism that would prevent the decay of tissue for such an incredibly long time.
Two years ago, Dr. Schweitzer herself proposed such a mechanism.2 After studying the soft tissue from both the Tyrannosaurus rex and aBrachylophosaurus canadensis fossil, she and her team noticed that the structures which appeared to be blood vessels had iron particles imbedded in them. They proposed that iron and oxygen could work together to prevent soft tissue decay, and they even did a two-year experiment with ostrich blood vessels to support their hypothesis. I wrote about that paper after I read it, and in my analysis I listed three reasons I was skeptical of their proposed mechanism. Two chemists who know much more about this kind of chemistry than me have written a detailed paper in the latest issue of Creation Science Research Quarterly, and in my opinion, they make it clear that Schweitzer’s proposed mechanism simply isn’t consistent with the data she collected.3
Dr. John M. DeMassa has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a Masters of Divinity from Liberty University. His full-time job is designing antioxidants, but he is also a part-time preacher. He teamed up with Dr. Edward Boudreaux, who has a Ph.D. in theoretical chemistry from Tulane. He spent most of his career as a professor of chemistry at the University of New Orleans but has since retired. They teamed up to analyze the chemistry required for Schweitzer’s proposed mechanism to work. In the end, they conclude that the mechanism would have destroyed some of the chemicals that Schweitzer’s team found in their samples.
For example, in the Brachylophosaurus canadensis fossil, chemical analysis revealed fragments of proteins that included the amino acid known as asparagine, which we know is unstable in the presence of water. However, in order for Schweitzer’s proposed mechanism to work, water must deliver the iron and other key ingredients to the tissue. If that had actually occurred, you wouldn’t expect to find asparagine in the same tissue. In essence, you can’t have it both ways. If you need water for the preservation of the tissue (and her mechanism does), then you don’t expect to find chemicals that are unstable in water preserved in that same tissue!
In addition, they discuss three amino acids that should have registered the presence of another key chemical (the hydroxl radical) that is required for Schweitzer’s proposed mechanism to work. Each of those amino acids should have been altered in the presence of this chemical, but they are found intact in the tissue. Once again, you can’t have it both ways. If the chemical is supposed to be there to support the preservation of the tissue, it should be there to react with all the chemicals in that tissue. In the end, then, Schweitzer’s explanation is simply inconsistent with the chemical analysis she and her team performed.
While I found DeMassa and Boudreaux’s detailed chemical discussion to be revealing, in my mind, that’s not the best part of their paper. Towards the end, they make a statement that I think is worth quoting at length.

We lastly note perhaps the most disappointing absence in Dr. Schweitzer’s analysis. Assuming that the protein substances discussed are indeed dinosaurian soft tissue, it is also true that the C,H,N,O elemental makeup of the proteins are endogenous [they come from the dinosaur itself]. As such, the samples are highly qualified for a carbon-14 analysis. C-14 should help further the discussion on the possible age of the organic material. If this genuine protein matter is 68 million years old, C-14 should be absent. If the tissue is 50,000 years or younger, C-14 will be detected. We also note in passing that C-14 presence if found and not interpreted as a young age must be interpreted as contamination making unreliable the mass spec data presented by Schweitzer.

This is an excellent point. Schweitzer is convinced that the tissue is millions of years old. If so, there should be no detectable levels of carbon-14 in it. If there are detectable levels of carbon-14 in the tissue (based on other reports, I would predict there is), that would tell her something important: the tissue is contaminated with “young” carbon-containing compounds. As a result, that would invalidate her chemical analysis of the tissue. It seems to me, then, that even if you believe without a doubt that these fossils are millions of years old, a carbon-14 analysis would still reveal something important about the tissue.

1) http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13683

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Intact Proteins Found in Fossils That Are Supposedly 8-18 Million Years Old 1






This is a picture of an Ecphora fossil. (click for credit)
Since 2005, there have been several discoveries of soft tissue in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old (see hereherehereherehere, and here). From a young-earth perspective, this is interesting, because it is hard to understand how soft tissue could be preserved for millions and millions of years.Dr. Mary Schweitzer has attempted to provide a mechanism for such preservation, but it isn’t applicable in the real world. If nothing else, I can safely say that finding such tissue was surprising to those who believe the fossils are millions of years old, but it wasn’t surprising to those of us who think the fossils are only thousands of years old.
Recently, I ran across a very interesting study that adds to the list of surprises for those who think that some fossils are millions of years old. The authors were analyzing the fossilized shells of an extinct group of marine mollusks from the genus Ecphora. Unlike many mollusk groups, the fossilized shells of the Ecphoraare colored reddish-brown.



Preserved macroscopic polymeric sheets of shell-binding protein in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod Ecphora

http://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/documents/gpl1501_SI.pdf

The authors decided to find out what produces this colorization, so they soaked the fossils in weak acid to remove the minerals. What remained were thin sheets of organic residue that had all the characteristics one would expect if they were made of proteins.
When the authors examined the sheets chemically, they found all the hallmarks of proteins. For example, they put the sheets through hydrolysis, a process that living organisms use to break proteins down into their component chemicals, which are amino acids. When the sheets were hydrolyzed, they broke down into amino acids, exactly as you would expect a sheet of proteins to do.
They also measured the percent carbon in the sheets as well as the ratio of carbon to nitrogen. In the end, they concluded:1


…the organic matter elemental and isotopic compositions are very similar to those from modern marine invertebrates. We conclude, therefore, that essentially intact shell-binding proteins have been preserved for up to 18 Ma.

This is significant, because even at temperatures of zero degrees Celsius, the hardiest proteins are not expected to be detectable in organic samples that are more than about 3 million years old.2 Nevertheless, the authors found lots of essentially intact proteins in fossils that are supposed to be up to 18 million years old!




This isn’t the first time researchers have claimed to find protein in supposedly ancient fossils. About two years ago, Robert R. Reisz and his colleagues were examining fossilized dinosaur eggs that are supposed to be about 190-200 million years old.3 They found organic residue that they thought was made of protein. However, they didn’t do nearly as detailed an analysis, so they couldn’t really say how intact the protein was. In addition, they interpreted it to be collagen, and that’s a pretty hardy protein. Dr. Rana from Reasons to believe, for example, thinks that collagen is durable enough for fragments of it to survive for millions of years.
In this current study of Ecphora fossils, however, the researchers didn’t find fragments. They found essentially intact proteins. Also, these shell-binding proteins shouldn’t be as durable as collagen, because they don’t have the same triple-helix structure. It seems to me that if you want to believe these fossils are millions of years old, you need to come up with some mechanism by which proteins can stay intact for so long.
Now I do have to point out two things. First, there was probably some decay in the proteins of these fossils, because the chemical analysis indicated that they didn’t have as much nitrogen in them as they should have. I would suspect that means some of the proteins had decayed, but others had not. Second, mostfossilized mollusk shells are chalky white, which probably means they don’t contain any intact proteins. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about Ecphora shells that helps them preserve their proteins. I hope more analysis eventually finds the process by which such preservation takes place, because that would help us get a better handle on the upper age limit of such fossils.



REFERENCES


1. J.R. Nance, J.T. Armstrong, G.D. Cody, M.L. Fogel, and R.M. Hazen, Preserved macroscopic polymeric sheets of shell-binding protein in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod EcphoraGeochemical Perspective Letters 1:1-9, 2015doi:10.7185/geochemlet.150
Return to Text
2. Nielson-Marsh, Christina, et al. , “Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance,” The Biochemist, 12-14, June 2002
Return to Text
3. Robert R. Reisz, Timothy D. Huang, Eric M. Roberts, ShinRung Peng, Corwin Sullivan, Koen Stein, Aaron R. H. LeBlanc, DarBin Shieh, RongSeng Chang, ChengCheng Chiang, Chuanwei Yang, and Shiming Zhong, “Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains,”Nature 496:210–214, 2013


1) http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13504

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Canadian researchers discover fossils of first feathered dinosaurs from North America (w/ Video)




October 25, 2012


This is an artistic reconstruction of feathered ornithomimid dinosaurs found in Alberta. Credit: Credit: Julius Csotonyi
The ostrich-like dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park movie were portrayed as a herd of scaly, fleet-footed animals being chased by a ferocious Tyrannosaurus rex. New research published in the prestigious journal Science reveals this depiction of these bird-mimic dinosaurs is not entirely accurate—the ornithomimids, as they are scientifically known, should have had feathers and wings.

The new study, led by paleontologists Darla Zelenitsky from the University of Calgary and François Therrien from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, describes the first ornithomimid specimens preserved with feathers, recovered from 75 million-year-old rocks in the badlands of Alberta, Canada.
"This is a really exciting discovery as it represents the first feathered dinosaur specimens found in the Western Hemisphere," says Zelenitsky, assistant professor at the University of Calgary and lead author of the study. "Furthermore, despite the many ornithomimid skeletons known, these specimens are also the first to reveal that ornithomimids were covered in feathers, like several other groups of theropod dinosaurs."

A densely feathered ornithomimid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada

Abstract
A recently discovered articulated partial skeleton of Ornithomimus from the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, Canada is remarkable in the extent and quality of preservation of integumentary structures including feathers. It is the first ornithomimid to preserve a tail bearing extensive plumaceous feathers that are slightly more elongate in comparison to those present on the remainder of the body. However, the underside of the tail and the hind limb distal to the middle of the femur appear devoid of plumage. Overall, the plumage pattern in Ornithomimus is similar to that of Struthio camelus (ostrich) and other large palaeognaths, indicating a probable function in thermoregulation. The specimen also preserves the body outline around the legs, including a skin contour anterior to the femur, analogous to skin webs in extant birds. Whereas the knee web of birds bridges the knee to the abdomen, in Ornithomimus it spans from the mid-femoral shaft to the abdomen, and is herein referred to as an anterior femoral web. This is the first report of such soft tissue structures in non-avian theropods. It may indicate that the resting position of the femur was positioned more anteroventrally in ornithomimids than in most theropods, and in that sense may have been transitional to the situation in modern birds.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dinosaur-found-with-preserved-tail-feathers-skin/

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-canadian-fossils-feathered-dinosaurs-north.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667115300847

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
ICR's Dinosaur Tissue Expert Brian Thomas on RSR


RSR Interviews a Leading Expert on Fresh Fossils: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart interviews Dallas science writer Brian Thomas (masters in biology), the dinosaur soft tissue expert with the Institute for Creation Research. Thomas talks about the December 2015 peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Proteome Research that breaks new ground, vocabulary wise, and without beating around the bush, or unnecessary caveats, reports directly on "Blood Vessels from Dinosaurs"! Many scientists agree with Brian and Bob's obvious assessment that dinosaur soft tissue discoveries falsify the claim that these fresh fossils are millions of years old. Bob also discusses the astounding discoveries reported on in Creation magazine, on Bats and Pitcher Plants, with the article's author, again, Brian Thomas!
* Today's Program Updates our 2013 Interview: RSR invite you to enjoy also our 2013 interview with Brian.
* A Christmas Gift for Bob: Here at KGOV, we've noticed that over at Amazon, Bob recently put on the KGOV Research Wish List a book for further investigation of one of his favorite hobbies, the 360 day year! Of course for research purposes, a used copy is just as valuable as a new copy. So if you're considering getting Bob a gift for Christimas, please consider purchasing that book, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies. For shipping, you can use the address atop the Wish List. Thanks so much!
* Factors that Lead to Tissue Decomposition: The folowing list is based on Brian Thomas' presentation at a Pittsburg creation conference in August 2013. Of the suggestions proposed by evolutionists to explain the apparent contradiction of soft tissue in allegedly million-year-old fossils, Real Science Radio suggests that you do your own scientific analysis, and figure out which of these factors are addressed by the various old-age rescue devices:
- Hydrolysis
- Chemotropism
- Microbes
- Friction
- Oxidation
- Autolysis
- Radioactive decay
- Temperature changes
- Molecular motion

* Three Related Lines of Evidence Shoring Up the Young Earth Interpretation: To complicate matters for old earthers, there is an intersection in the date regarding dinosaur soft tissue, unracemized left-handed amino acids, and short-lived Carbon 14, which must all be explained to understand the true age of fossils. (1) Significant amounts of short-lived 14c is measured indiamondsdinosaur fossilsnatural gas, and coal. (2) There's mostly left-handed amino acids (not yet decayed to a 50/50 right-to-left ratio as should happen in only thousands of years) in chert and dinosaur eggshells. (3) There's flexible and even transparent blood vessels, cells, and even T. rex and hadrosaur DNA (with a half-life of ~521 years) in dinosaur soft tissue fossils. Many such lines of evidence (multiplying as at youngearth.com) undermine the claim by evolutionists that soft tissue can last for hundreds of millions of years, and that the plentiful 14c in "ancient" specimens must come from contamination orneutron capture. This three-fold evidence helps to confirm the young earth interpretation of the data.


http://kgov.com/icr-brian-thomas-on-confirmed-dinosaur-soft-tissue-blood-vessels

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Impossible Fossil Soft Tissue Stuns Evolutionists


The only reason evolutionists think this soft tissue is 520 million years old is because they have to.
A fossil arthropod from the Cambrian explosion retains carbonized residues from its brain. How could that be? How could any original material remain after 520 million years? That’s the subject of a fascinating article by Karen Zusi in The Scientist, “To Retain a Brain: Exceptional neural fossil preservation helps answer questions about ancient arthropod evolution.”
The opening photo shows dark marks in the rock, with the caption, “This fossil of a Cambrian euarthropod [“true arthropod” or “good arthropod”], Fuxianhuia protensa, shows black traces of preserved neural tissue.” The story of its discovery 13 years ago woke up a sleeping paleontology community.
In 2002, Xiaoya Ma spent most of her days at Yunnan University in China freeing fossilized arthropods from their rocky tombs. Under a microscope, she scraped away sediment with a needle to reveal parts of the fossils that weren’t exposed during field collection. For one particular specimen, a wormlike arthropod ancestor called Paucipodia inermis, Ma saw some unusual shapes as she removed extraneous material from around the head—they resembled ganglia and nerve cords. “I didn’t initially realize what they were,” Ma says. “Slowly, slowly, it came to me that these might be brain structures.
Little did she know, Ma was about to galvanize the field of neuropaleontology—the study of fossilized brains and their evolutionary context. Researchers had published brief descriptions of fossilized neural tissue remnants as early as the 1970s, but these parenthetical notes flew under the radar, considered by most paleontologists to be curiosities at best. Ma published her manuscript describing the P. inermis fossil in 2004, and included only a small paragraph on the neural tissue (Lethaia, 37:235–44, 2004). But this time, it caught someone’s eye.
That eye belonged to Nicholas Strausfeld (U of Arizona), who was working on a book on brain evolution. He shared it with Gregory Edgecombe, a paleontologist at London’s Natural History Museum. Since then, more examples surfaced. Ma and Strausfeld returned in 2012 to China where the original specimen was found, and behold:
On their last day there, Ma and Strausfeld tracked down the fossil. “I looked at it under the microscope and said, ‘Holy sh**, this is the perfect brain, and it’s wonderful,’” Strausfeld says.
The team published a new description of the F. protensa fossil in 2012, dedicating the entire manuscript to the specimen’s brain (Nature, 490:258–61, 2012). The F. protensa nervous system closely resembled that of modern mandibulates, which include insects and crustaceans; these similarities, the researchers claimed, suggested that the key characteristics of the group’s nervous system developed much earlier than previously thought.
(See 10/11/12 entry on this.) Most interesting was the initial reaction of evolutionary scientists to the discovery.
The paper incited the larger scientific community to comment on fossilized brains substantially for the first time—but not all of the attention was positive. A half hour after the paper was published, says Ma, she had already received an email from a few of her colleagues. “They basically said, ‘It’s impossible for neural tissue to be preserved in fossils.’” She also received amixed reception when presenting her results at conferences later in the year.“We got a lot of flak,” Strausfeld remembers.
Neural tissue fossilization was rare enough for skepticism to run rampant.“The reality of these collections is that 99 percent will not preserve the nervous system,” says Edgecombe. To get the nervous system to fossilize, animals have to be buried in a series of sediment layers that slowly compress their bodies. The sediment forces water out of the tissue layers and seals out oxygen, preventing most bacteria from decaying the organic material. If everything goes well, what remains is a dewatered, flattened specimen, withsome soft tissues preserved as thin films of carbon.
Another evolutionist became convinced it was real, and found more Cambrian arthropods with preserved brains:
This growing body of literature prompted Javier Ortega-Hernández, a paleobiologist at the University Cambridge, to comb through collections at the Smithsonian Institution and the Royal Ontario Museum for fossilized neural tissue in 2014. “I thought their argument for identifying the brain, though I didn’t agree with every single interpretation, was convincingenough,” says Ortega-Hernández. “It really sold me on the idea that neural tissue could be preserved.” Ortega-Hernández published work in 2015 describing Helmetia expansa, a trilobite, and Odaraia alata, a crustacean, usingfossilized brain tissue to clarify the evolution of their heads (Curr Biol, 25:1625–31, 2015).
Seeking more evidence, Ma returned in 2014 and found 10 more fossils with preserved brain soft tissue, even with optic nerves.
“We showed really solid evidence that multiple specimens preserved neural structures,” Ma says (Curr Biol, 25:2969–75, 2015). The group alsoconducted experiments to simulate fossilization in clay, demonstrating themechanisms by which neural tissue can be retained (Philos Trans. R. Soc Lond Biol Sci, 370:doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0286, 2015). They published both results last year—and Strausfeld thinks it’s made a difference. “People are beginning to accept that brains can fossilize.”
Ortega-Hernández agrees. “[Neural preservation] is exceptional and rare, but so are feathered dinosaurs,” he says. “There is no logical reason why it should be impossible.”
The evidence is in. What will evolutionists do with it?
Several themes are in play here that illuminate the bias of materialist evolutionary scientists. For one, the discoveries date back to the 1970s, over 40 years ago, but they flew “under the radar” because none of them were looking for soft tissue; it was outside their realm of possibility. Second, the fossils appear to have been buried by a flood, such that multiple layers instantly crushed the creatures and squeezed out any oxygen, preventing bacteria from entering the entombed animals—and yet since these strata are now exposed, they should have been subject to destructive powers for a significant amount of time. Third, when the evidence became conclusive, their first reaction was, “It’s impossible.” Emails started flooding Ma’s inbox within half an hour of publication, instructing her on what is possible and what is not, as if she should not believe her own eyes.
Fourth, and most interesting, is that evolutionists cannot see or tolerate a falsification of their worldview structure. To any rational scientist who understands the destructive powers of bioturbation, oxygen and bacteria to disrupt fossils, it should be impossible to believe that soft tissue can survive 520 million years! Even a few thousand years of preservation should seem astonishing. So what do they do with the evidence? They just incorporate the anomaly into their web of belief. It’s like the joke about the man who thought he was dead. “Do dead men bleed?” his doctor asked. “No, dead men do not bleed,” he replied—upon which, the doctor poked him with a needle and they both witnessed blood oozing out. “Well, I’ll be, the mentally ill patient remarked. “I guess dead men do bleed!” We could supplement this joke with a story about the patient subsequently going out and publishing a research paper on the hematological exudations of ambulatory dead people, which the consensus Big Science journals happily publish.
We see a similar reaction here. This evidence flies right in the face of everything these evolutionists believe. For one, the carbonized tissue really cannot be in the same place for hundreds of millions of years! That should be obvious. Second, the fossils show the same neural structure as in living arthropods, so where is the evolution in all that time? Reasonably from well-accepted principles of philosophy of science, Darwinian evolution and the geological column are falsified by even one of these specimens. But what do the evolutionists do? First, they ignore it. Then, they say it’s impossible. Finally, they get all excited about what these fossils can teach them about “the evolution of the arthropod brain.” You can see why normal people can get exasperated with “consensus science.”


http://crev.info/2016/01/impossible-fossil-soft-tissue-stuns-evolutionists/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Breaking! Dino Blood Is Real


Blood vessels found in a hadrosaur said to be 80 million years old are the real original material, researchers say.
Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil” is the headline from North Carolina State University:



December 1, 2015
Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years, and the data not only confirm earlier reports of protein sequences in dinosaurs, they represent a significant advance in methodology.

The work was done using multiple methods, including high-resolution mass spectrometry. The researchers found original myosin protein. They used chicken and ostrich bones for controls: “In both the modern and ancient samples, peptide sequences matched those found in blood vessels.” A photo of the blood vessels is shown in the press release, captioned “Blood vessels from deminineralized bone of B. canadensis.


They call this “the first direct analysis of blood vessels from an extinct organism” although others have found similar tissues in other dinosaur bones (see 6/10/15). Here is the abstract of the paper in the Journal of Proteome Research:
Structures similar to blood vessels in location, morphology, flexibility, and transparency have been recovered after demineralization of multiple dinosaur cortical bone fragments from multiple specimens, some of which are as old as 80 Ma. These structures were hypothesized to be either endogenous to the bone (i.e., of vascular origin) or the result of biofilm colonizing the empty osteonal network after degradation of original organic components. Here, we test the hypothesis that these structures are endogenous and thus retain proteins in common with extant archosaur blood vessels that can be detected with high-resolution mass spectrometry and confirmed by immunofluorescence.Two lines of evidence support this hypothesis. First, peptide sequencing ofBrachylophosaurus canadensis blood vessel extracts is consistent with peptides comprising extant archosaurian blood vessels and is not consistent with a bacterial, cellular slime mold, or fungal origin. Second, proteins identified by mass spectrometry can be localized to the tissues using antibodies specific to these proteins, validating their identity. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD001738.
Mary Schweitzer is listed as co-author of but others did the primary work. Schweitzer opened up a can of worms in evolutionary circles in 2005 with her finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones (watch 60 Minutes video). Since then, many other cases have been reported.
Update 12/10/15: Live Science added its confirmation that this is original dinosaur tissue:
Now, several tests show that the specimens are the original blood vessels, making them the oldest blood vessels on record to survive with their original components, the researchers said.


The article focuses on what kind of evolutionary information might be derived from the proteins, without questioning that they survived somehow for 80 million years. It’s hard to see any evolution, though:
The researchers also tested the bones of chickens and ostriches, both of which are living relatives of dinosaurs. In both the modern and ancient samples, the peptide sequences were the same as those found in blood vessels, the scientists said.
Included among the intact proteins is myosin, a molecular motor common in smooth muscle and the walls of blood vessels. The findings thus give evolutionists a double headache: (1) explaining how delicate tissues remained intact for 80 million years, and (2) explaining why there was no evolution of these proteins between a hadrosaur and a chicken over 80 million years. Eliminating the 80 million years would solve both problems.
Evolutionary dating in Darwin Years is hereby falsified. The earth is young.
Prediction: The implications of this discovery (and others like it) are so staggering, so monumental, evolutionists will not believe it. They will either deny it, or escape to the absurd conclusion that soft blood vessels can survive for millions of years. Lay people, by contrast, will be quick to see the implications. The assumption of millions of years will persist in the science community, leading to a deeper divide between Big Science and lay people, similar to the currently-observed divide between Big Science and lay people on climate change. Unless new scientists rise through the ranks who are open to the possibility of a young earth, nothing will change until the Old Guard retires. Suggestion: to hasten the revolution, hold up these pictures in their face, and don’t let them bluff their way out of it.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

47 Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils on Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:13 am

Admin


Admin
Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767p25-carbon-14-dated-dinosaur-bones-and-non-permineralized-soft-tissue-evidences-fossils-are-young#4807

Abstract Measurable amounts of radiocarbon have been consistently detected within carbonaceous materials across Phanerozoic strata. Under uniformitarian assumptions, these should no longer contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon. Secularists have asserted that these challenging finds originate from systematic contamination, but the hypothesis of endogenous radiocarbon should be considered. Assuming these strata were largely deposited by the Noahic Flood occurring within the time range of radiocarbon’s detectability with modern equipment under uniformitarian assumptions, we hypothesized that fossils from all three erathems, including dinosaur fossils, should also contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon. Consistent with this hypothesis, we report detectable amounts of radiocarbon in all 16 of our samples. Attempts to falsify our hypothesis failed, including a comparison of our data with previously published carbon-dated fossils. We conclude that fossils and other carbonaceous materials found throughout Phanerozoic strata contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon that is most probably endogenous. 

On the basis of repeated observations of original tissues found in dinosaur and other bones, and on the basis of prior researchers’ difficulties in finding a reliable source of carbon-dead earth material to calibrate highly sensitive AMS systems, we tested 16 fossil samples for the presence of 14C. Our fossils came from seven dinosaurs, including two dates from the iDINO project’s Triceratops horn core, which had a spectacular whole sheet of soft, fibrillar tissue, and two dates from a hadrosaur vertebra, a fruit, one cartilaginous fish, one bony fish, three wood samples, and one extinct lizard. We sought to falsify the hypothesis that this radiocarbon originated from our fossil material first by comparing our amounts of measured radiocarbon to those already published, finding general concordance between our data and already published data. Second, all samples, regardless of geographic and even stratigraphic provenance, showed detectable 14C within a total age range spanning orders of magnitude smaller than the conventional age range for these fossils. In addition, some of our fossil material was not extracted from as great a depth as were certain previously published carbon-dated fossils like wood from Californian and Australian mine shafts, and yet both settings revealed very comparable age averages and ranges. Third, five different laboratories all detected radiocarbon in fossils from locations worldwide, arguing against contamination by poor lab practice or by any local anomaly. These observations are not consistent with contamination. Finally, similar levels of radiocarbon were recovered from all three erathems, consistent with the hypothesis that all three erathems contain fossils deposited during Noah’s year-long Flood only thousands of years ago. Additional tests of more material would add more data for further analyses. In particular, we plan to extend our single comparison of the 14C ratio between bioapatite and bulk bone fractions to investigate whether or not dinosaur material trends toward mimicking similar carbon isotope ratios as found in modern bone. Additional carbon dates could also reveal relative age trends across erathems.

file:///E:/Downloads/CRSQ%20Spring%202015%20Thomas%20and%20Nelson%20(1)%20(7)%20(1).pdf

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Analysis of dinosaur bone cells confirms ancient protein preservation

A team of researchers from North Carolina State University and the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) has found more evidence for the preservation of ancient dinosaur proteins, including reactivity to antibodies that target specific proteins normally found in bone cells of vertebrates. These results further rule out sample contamination, and help solidify the case for preservation of cells – and possibly DNA – in ancient remains.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-dinosaur-bone-cells-ancient.html#jCp

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Scientists extract DNA from allegedly 130-million year old weevil




As reported in the journal Nature, DNA has been successfully isolated from an allegedly 130-million year old weevil found in amber from Lebanon. The insect fossil yielded DNA of sufficient quality that it could be amplified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and subsequently sequenced, including segments of specific identifiable genetic material including 18S rRNA and the internal transcribed spacer along with their corresponding nucleotide sequences of hundreds of base pairs! These sequences were compared with genetic material from living fruitflies, mosquitos, and weevils leading to the conclusion that the DNA extracted did indeed come from the fossilized weevil. This paper claims that this discovery represents the oldest fossil DNA ever extracted and sequenced, absurdly claiming that they've extended by 80 million years the known duration of DNA. Rather, the existence of such endogenous DNA indicates that the fossil is not millions of years old, a possibility that a working scientist dare not consider aloud, regardless of the evidence, at the risk of losing his career.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution claims  that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and 
elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd? 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email

Digestive and appendicular soft-parts, with behavioural implications, in a large Ordovician trilobite from the Fezouata Lagerstätte, Morocco

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39728

Trilobites were one of the most successful groups of marine arthropods during the Palaeozoic era, yet their soft-part anatomy is only known from a few exceptionally-preserved specimens found in a handful of localities from the Cambrian to the Devonian. This is because, even if the sclerotized appendages were not destroyed during early taphonomic stages, they are often overprinted by the three-dimensional, mineralised exoskeleton. Inferences about the ventral anatomy and behavioural activities of trilobites can also be derived from the ichnological record, which suggests that most Cruziana and Rusophycus trace fossils were possibly produced by the actions of trilobites. Three specimens of the asaphid trilobite Megistaspis (Ekeraspis) hammondi, have been discovered in the Lower Ordovician Fezouata Konservat-Lagerstätte of southern Morocco, preserving appendages and digestive tract. The digestive structures include a crop with digestive caeca, while the appendages display exopodal setae and slight heteropody (cephalic endopods larger and more spinose than thoracic and pygidial ones). The combination of these digestive structures and the heteropody has never been described together among trilobites, and the latter could assist in the understanding of the production of certain comb-like traces of the Cruziana rugosa group, which are extraordinarily abundant on the shallow marine shelves around Gondwana.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum