Hadrosaur blood vessel structures likely to be endogenous

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Hadrosaur blood vessel structures likely to be endogenous

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:06 am

According to new research by Dr Mary Schweitzer and others published in the Journal of Proteome Research. That is, what has been observed - blood vessel or blood vessel like structures - does not appear to be biofilm contamination, thus some means of preservation of protein molecules over many millions of years in some dinosaur fossils must presumably exist (unless perchance one or two dinosaur species died less far back in Earth time despite the probable asteroid hit and the probably independently occurring massive volcanism around 65 million years ago).
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-blood-vess ... ossil.html

So how have young earth creationist bloggers reacted (and did they mention that similar proteins to those found in the remains of this dinosaur have been found in their assumed modern chicken and ostrich descendants)?

http://fundamentalistscience.com/?p=261 (David Bump - a fairly straight, factual and quite thorough account)
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14112#more-14112 (Dr Jay Wile - ditto)
http://crev.info/2015/12/breaking-dino-blood-is-real/ (David Coppedge or someone else at CREV - although the background and the latest findings are described, this is basically a piece of propaganda)
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/12 ... m=facebook (an appalling piece of poisonous and dishonest propaganda by 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen, accusing people of being 'science deniers' and piggy-backing on the CREV article; see below, apparently an addendum has very recently been added to this)

So what's wrong with the CREV article at (3)? Well he appears to declare - with the article's eye-catching and sensationalist title - that what's been found is 'real blood' (ergo the remains 'cannot' be ancient and therefore 'are' no older than 6,000 years). I believe the confusion this generates is intentional. He really should be making clear that contamination has seemingly be ruled out so therefore the structures are real ie endogenous to the original dinosaur. And the text in green at the end is a rant. Millions of years of time have been falsified (and likewise evolution)! The Earth is 'young'! Today's scientists will continue to deny the obvious. But a revolution is needed, and readers of the CREV blog must hold up these findings in the faces of young scientists so as to make sure the revolution comes - and future science will embrace a 6,000 year old Earth!

As for Sorensen (4), I sent him the following message (via his other main blog) pointing out more than 10 LIES in his rant (he of course has failed either to publish in full or to deal properly with my message, even though he did print an earlier message where I first accused him of ten lies without actually specifying what the lies were):
"Hate mail from a stalker just in : "You are a vile liar and a disgrace to Christianity. How many lies does your piece contain? TEN. (I also showed that CREV article to Mary Schweitzer by email. She was not impressed. And she - unlike you I fear - is a Christian.)" What *lies* are there? If anyone can point them out, I'd like to know. -CBB"

As well as a pathological liar, you are also a coward. You cannot bear to discuss this with me directly. You rant about me on a blog where I cannot defend myself.

"Evidence supporting an old Earth has been iffy for a long time. [LIAR] Uniformitarian geologist Charles Lyell (a lawyer by trade) wanted to free the science of geology from Moses, and famously gave his own estimates of the rate of erosion for Niagara Falls despite evidence to the contrary. Today, there is deceptive reporting in paleontology.

Dishonesty is not surprising. After all, atheists and other anti-creationists are opposed to the biblical worldview, and are living up to their own ethical standards. [LIAR: ALL YOU POINT TO IS ONE BAD PIECE OF JOURNALISM - NOT A WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY AMONG SCIENTISTS TO LIE.] In addition, they don't look too kindly on scientific evidence that refutes long ages, and microbes-to-minerologist evolution requires huge amounts of time. Ain't happening, but they need the time for their Just So Stories [LIAR]. There have been numerous challenges to long ages of late from many places, so evolutionists are getting a mite cranky and circling the wagons to defend their failed paradigms.

One of the biggest challenges to long-age geology is the fact of soft tissues and blood in dinosaurs (see "Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists"). When material supporting a young Earth is published, especially the dinosaur material, anti-creationists go on a jihad [LIAR; ATTACKING WILFUL LYING IS A DUTY NOT A JIHAD.]. At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, I made this post with the latest video by Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues, and received the usual fact-free responses from trolls that needed to be removed.[LIAR; THE RESPONSE BELOW IS NOT 'TROLLING']

On December 1, 2015, Creation-Evolution Headlines shared a report that was released that same day confirming "80 million year old" hadrosaur blood vessels were really and truly blood vessels. I shared this news, and as expected, various trolls attacked. One was as dense as a singularity [LIAR]. He said...

"Hi there.! Do read this article... you would know that recovery of soft tissues from extremely old dinosaur fossils isn't unexpected, though rare. For instance, partial blood tissues have been recovered from a late cretaceous T-rex. But if you can indeed prove that this is testimony for the fact that the earth is young as opposed to scientifically tested dating methods, by all means submit your research paper up for peer reviews and collect your Nobel Prize".

Why do these clowns keep doing the "Nobel Prize" nonsense? Anyway, he didn't read the article [LIAR], and wanted to refute it with an old, irrelevant link to secularists' speculations. When he was challenged by another person to check out peer-reviewed creationist material, he blustered, "'peer reviewed' [lack of capitalization in the original] as in reviewed by the scientific community? Go ahead, prove it, and collect your Nobel Prize". There he goes with the "Nobel Prize" horse apples again. Aside from making no sense, creationists have published material that has been peer-reviewed in secular and creationist circles [LIAR, IN THE CASE OF DINO BLOOD VESSELS 'PROVING' A 'YOUNG' EARTH]. This kind of prejudicial conjecture from Liars4Darwin© [LIAR] is not impressing anyone with sensibilities. I predict more empty rhetoric from these intellectual giants all over teh interwebs.

In addition to being science deniers [LIAR], anti-creationists are known for lying [PROVE IT]. They also use logical fallacies to distract and manipulate people into avoiding the evidence that creationists present [LIAR]. If you study on it for a spell, you might agree with me that both lying and manipulation take away choices, which may be why we detest being on the receiving end of such practices. Manipulation contains an emotional element, too. Either way, you can't make an informed decision if you're prevented from knowing the whole story [HYPOCRISY - YOU NEVER EVER GIVE PEOPLE THE WHOLE STORY. YOU ARE A STINKING HATE-FILLED HYPOCRITE.].

Anti-creationists hate having their religion of evolution challenged, so they lash out instead of examining the evidence [LIAR]. It wouldn't do for them to admit that the evidence shows that there is a Creator, geologic evidence supports the global Noachian Flood instead of uniformitarianism [LIAR], astronomy refutes secular cosmology [LIAR]...they don't want that. But the truth remains despite their persistent machinations. Yippie ky yay, secularists!"

Another email has been sent to a select audience, exposing your unChristian North Korean government style antics. And no I haven't copied it to you - so you cannot this time pretend that you didn't read it (or bottle out of reading it).

Because you are a North Korean government style blogger you will of course NOT publish this response, NOT deal with its contents, and PRETEND that this message does not even exist. Deny reality in other words."

(Close to 18 HOURS after receiving my second message - suggesting he had some difficulty knowing how to respond, or he fell asleep even though it was not bedtime in New York City - Sorensen has just said on Facebook that he has made an addendum to his blog post after an 'atheopath' - that's what he is calling ME of course - proved some of his content 'right'.)

However, Bob's addendum only serves to incriminate him FURTHER. Instead of providing a detailed response, he falsely accuses me of being a 'liar' - because, according to him, the lies by Bob that I specifically identified are 'not' lies at all but merely areas of 'disagreement'. No Bob - they were LIES. Until you can demonstrate otherwise (and I am prepared to say WHY they are lies, if it is not already obvious, if you insist). And then he prints only PART of my message - a very small part where readers will only see my condemnation WITHOUT seeing my prior JUSTIFICATION of my condemnation - ie he insults everybody by Quote Mining me.

Only the fools who read his angry and arrogant blog posts and 'like' them will be convinced by his antics (oops that's the blog's whole raison d'etre how silly of me...).

He accuses me, clumsily, of manipulation. But - contrary to his assertions - he has proven ME right. I said that he would 'NOT' deal with my message's contents. He has NOT dealt with my message's contents and instead badmouthed me in order to try and justify himself. Which is what happens with any criticisms that are made by people unfortunate enough to live under totalitarian regimes.

I do not believe Sorensen is really a saved Christian. He is evil. I have said this before. Too many times to count in fact. I have previously identified his pathological lying about his critics on this site. There is a whole thread devoted to his misbehaviour. Even by YEC blogger standards, which scarcely/rarely meet a New Testament 'biblical' standard, his behaviour is WITHOUT parallel.
Posts: 7883
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Hadrosaur blood vessel structures likely to be endogenous

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:44 am

Welcome US friends (or UK-based night owls).

Which is more interesting? The science of dinosaur remains? Or the behaviour of Cowboy Bob?

But in THIS thread, if it continues, I will try to stick to the SCIENCE.
Posts: 7883
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Hadrosaur blood vessel structures likely to be endogenou

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:50 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/12 ... -real.html
'Brian Thomas Interviewed on Real Science Radio about Dinosaur Soft Tissues.'
http://kgov.com/icr-brian-thomas-on-con ... od-vessels
http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2015/2 ... BEL247.mp3 (just listened to this so you don't have to)
Unfortunately Sorensen and co led me to think with the blog title that Thomas had something of substance to say about the recent paper in the Journal of Proteome Research entitled 'Mass Spectrometry and Antibody-Based Characterization of Blood Vessels from Brachylophosaurus canadensis'. But the ideologue Thomas mostly just nitpicked about whether the scientists found 'blood vessels' or something like 'blood vessels' claiming that they are now admitting it's the former (however they have now ruled out biofilm contamination from bacteria or fungi as was already suspected to be the case). Thomas then talked about dinosaur remains in general, attacking the conclusions of mainstream scientists (egged on by a sympathetic interviewer). They also spoke about a previous 2015 paper in Nature Communications about preserved fibres and cellular structures in ancient dinosaur specimens. And discussed various proteins.
"Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen." No, Bob. The last seventeen words are a total falsehood and are sheer propaganda. It would OF COURSE be possible for creatures to have gone extinct within the last 6,000 years on a 4.5 bn year old Earth. Indeed it has happened. Think eg dodos. But don't think dinosaurs since the pattern of the fossil record clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Only an ideologue would judge the age of a planet by when a species (or indeed hundreds of species within one grouping of animals) might have gone extinct there.
Posts: 7883
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest