Excited YECs

Current News and Links of interest

Moderator: News Editors

Excited YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:26 pm

The excitement is over this (there's a report on the BBC News website too at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33067582):
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15060 ... s8352.html
"Abstract
Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known throughout the vertebrate fossil record, and recently, evidence has emerged that such soft tissue might contain original components. We examined samples from eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones using nano-analytical techniques; the bones are not exceptionally preserved and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains displaying ~67 nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original quaternary structure. Using ToF-SIMS, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood. Using advanced material characterization approaches, we find that these putative biological structures can be well preserved over geological timescales, and their preservation is more common than previously thought. The preservation of protein over geological timescales offers the opportunity to investigate relationships, physiology and behaviour of long extinct animals."

http://crev.info/2015/06/more-dino-blood-found/ 'More dino blood found: evolutionists in denial.'
CREV references this new article:
http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology ... ur-fossils
The CREV article is duly and dutifully flagged here:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

So what is the CREV propagandist's message for today?
"“Can soft tissue survive 75 million years?” the caption in Science Magazine reads. No, it can’t. That’s why this cannot be original dinosaur soft tissue, some evolutionists are claiming in a news article in Science Magazine by Robert F. Service: “Signs of ancient cells and proteins found in dinosaur fossils.”"

All of these links are to articles which express due scientific caution. Apart that is from the PROPAGANDA by the YEC at CREV and his YEC fan Sorensen. According to them, evolutionists are 'in denial' (today)! WHERE exactly (some may have been 'in denial' in the past)? Contrary to the creationist liar at CREV, NOBODY AT ALL is quoted in that cited article written by Robert Service as using the words "cannot be". Rather, if the liar is referring to Schweitzer (the only named scientist quoted as expressing any doubts TODAY), her reservations apparently were that the weights (of the component molecules) are not conclusive proof that the molecules being analyzed are amino acids, or that they came from a dinosaur rather than a contaminant. That is not 'denial' as falsely alleged by CREV, it is simply a scientific scepticism that has yet to be completely convinced.

And neither Coppedge nor Sorensen so far appears to want to discuss how remains of red blood cells in the dinosaur bones resemble emu whole blood. I guess it must not be important to them.

What is important? Why it's their PROPAGANDA.
"This will provide a highly visible test of evolutionists’ commitment to empiricism. If they continue to deny this, they deserve to get hammered. We’re seeing the leading edge of the toppling of evolutionists’ millions-of-years scheme, and with it, their whole theory of the history of the earth. That’s too big a price for them to pay. If history is a guide, they will continue to be in a state of denial and carry on as if nothing happened. It’s up to the rest of us to get the word out.
Creationists are also doing original research on this. Mark Armitage, who lost his job at California State University after publishing a paper on soft tissue in Triceratops horn that he found himself (11/05/14), is seeking funds to continue research. He posted a YouTube video responding to the Jurassic World claim. The osteocytes and cells he found in dinosaur bone never touch blood, he explains; therefore Schweitzer’s controversial explanation doesn’t work for bone cells. If the bone cells are young, then the rest of the soft tissue cannot be millions of years old."

If I tried to comment under the CREV blog, I would be censored (I've tried before).

Funny how it's totally 'OK' whenever YECs are in denial over eg the bipedalism of 'Lucy', or dinosaurs with feathers, or the unambiguous results obtained via radiometric dating ...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8236
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Excited YECs

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:31 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known throughout the vertebrate fossil record, and recently, evidence has emerged that such soft tissue might contain original components.
This is perhaps the most interesting bit. Following your link we find
As early as the 1970s, researchers captured images of what looked like cellular structures inside dinosaur fossils. But did the structures contain actual tissue? Proteins commonly decay hundreds to thousands of years after an organism dies, but in rare cases they have been known to survive up to 3 million years.
and proceeding to the actual paper, it becomes
Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule11, 12, 17, 18, 19. 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 years19, 20. Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved15, 16 and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost.
Besides references. several examples are mentioned.
So up to 4 million years is regarded as possible for even intact protein survival without any more dramatic finding like this one. So what are the YEC's wittering on about? How much longer than, say, 10,000 years, I ask them, would old proteins have to have survived to invalidate their absurd YEC chronology? 20.000? 100,000? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer but surely no hope of going up to even a single million years to destroy their nonsense out of hand
The full paper, of which I've only read the introduction. is here
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to News and Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron