Creationist scholar receives big settlement

Querius, yup. That's pretty much it. It's been a while since I had a discussion with such a disingenuous slimy breed of Atheists. Vy

Vy, You mean the words.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Obviously to master over the words conveys enormous power in any conversation, verbal or written! ;-) However despite all this power, it seems that goodusername has conceded the argument. -Q Querius

You might start by actually reading Vy’s posts.

I'm starting to understand him. You need a bit of clairvoyance because you might just misinterpret what the little details in his posts mean to him. Vy

As to the presumed current lack of evidence for the existence of dino nucleotides, that's because it's treated like the rest of Darwinian pseudoscience - "if it doesn't fit our assumptions, dump it". Here:

To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been contaminated. That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know when they're on the right track, given that there are no living dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.4

This image makes the self-affirming Darwinian reasoning clearer. So if it doesn't fit the myth that birds are relatives of dinos and that they have some relation to crocs, goodbye DNA sample. This reminds me of your response to my request on giving me a list to support your claim that earlier dino DNA research showed most were contamination.

In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique. These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).

So what we have here is: - you claiming the existence of dino soft tissue isn't really a problem because some mammoth fossils are BBQable despite the fact that we find mammoths fossils older, as old as and younger than said BBQable mammoths making such a link absolutely nonsensical. - you being unable to substantially support your claim that Darwinists were justified in outright denial of the validity of Schweitzer's soft tissue discovery on the basis of your terribly unsupported claim that many, MANY of the previous discoveries turned out to be contamination. - you claiming that the list and links I provided to support my claim that Darwinists denied the existence of dino DNA by grasping onto crap experiments and the logical deduction that soft tissue and DNA can't last that long is a invalid because of failed links and a weird interpretation of the word "denier". - you claiming I claimed that insistence on the existence of non-dino DNA is unnecessary because you believe they exist and that "I was talking about dinos! diNOS! DINOS!!!" Hmm... In case you haven't noticed, you haven't answered this:

Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.

Oh wait, I'm misinterpreting the fact that your dogmatic insistence on "I was talking about dinos! diNOS! DINOS!!!" isn't because you feel a sense of confidence in being able to explain the existence of fossil DNA, right? Vy

I don’t think it is very testable. So your belief that amino acids can survive billions of years is based on...blind faith? Got it.

That’s why I don’t really put much stock in such studies that try to determine what will happen to tissue or molecules after millions or billions of years.

So you're bringing up tissues but I was talking about amino acids.

(Heaven only knows where you got the “500 million Darwin years” from).

You do realize there have been experiments on how long amino acids can last, right? The only thing that would keep amino acids around for more than a few million Darwin years is a perfect not-too-hot, not-too-cold, not-too-wet, not-too-disturbed...essentially, naturalistically impossible Goldilocks environment.

I only mentioned the study in case you were under the impression that amino acids are believed to last no longer than proteins.

Is it that you don't realize you've not supported this assertion?

I mentioned the amino acids because they seemed, by far, the most interesting thing mentioned in the article. Was it something else you found interesting?

While I could post shiny graphics highlighting how they used more than mere "amino acids" to compare them to modern microbes, I realize it'll be a waste of time. There's hardly any getting behind that selective blindness system.

I seem to recall addressing this. And yes, it’s… so… very… strange… that the third paragraph in #11 was only about dinosaurs. I’m starting to think you’re trolling.

Oh no, I'm trying to understand where you got the idea that because you posted "dino", I and anyone discussing fossil DNA with you has to refer to "dino" when the very fact that it being dino is as significant as it being "giant Jurassic mammal/worm thingy". It's like you complaining about me bringing up U-Th dating and its relation to C14 if we were in a discussion about C14 dating. I'd also like you to point exactly where I said "goodusername, so you don't believe fossil DNA has been discovered"

No.

smh

Yes.

So it's like the list then. Got it. Vy

goodusername,

So you’re assuming that the other times I included the w (including the post you responded to) were all typos?

No, it was an experiment. Reasonable people wouldn't try to defend their spelling errors and typos.

That’s ok, I’ve been doing enough troll-feeding this thread and I’m worried that they might start handing out fines.

Substantive information, in contrast to vacuous assertions and rhetoric, do not constitute trolling or baiting. A crucial point in evaluating the significance of purportedly ancient tissue and erythrocytes involves the question of their ability to survive background radiation. This is why Mary Schweitzer bothered to conduct experiments with ostrich bones. However, it seems like you're unable or unwilling to distinguish between the effects of ionizing radiation and convection heating on tissue, employing vast numbers of hapless ASCII characters in a hopeless defense against Vy, who actually knows what he's talking about. So, do you want to give it a try or concede the argument? -Q Querius

Querius,

Oh you mean like you did in @41?

So you're assuming that the other times I included the w (including the post you responded to) were all typos?

You’re welcome, but are you sure that you don’t even want to take a wild guess at the difference in effects on tissue between ionizing radiation and convection heating? After all, it’s pretty fundamental to what you’re arguing against.

That's ok, I've been doing enough troll-feeding this thread and I'm worried that they might start handing out fines. goodusername

goodusername,

Objections to what?

You might start by actually reading Vy’s posts.

I know her name has a w. That’s why I put a w in her name.

Oh you mean like you did in @41?

That’s ok. The spelling lesson was enough for one day.

You’re welcome, but are you sure that you don’t even want to take a wild guess at the difference in effects on tissue between ionizing radiation and convection heating? After all, it’s pretty fundamental to what you’re arguing against. -Q Querius

Vy,

So still no answer to “This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how”? Got it.

I don't think it is very testable. That's why I don't really put much stock in such studies that try to determine what will happen to tissue or molecules after millions or billions of years. (Heaven only knows where you got the "500 million Darwin years" from). I only mentioned the study in case you were under the impression that amino acids are believed to last no longer than proteins.

I went back to the article I linked and realized how presumptious “In other words, I think they found amino acids” was.

I mentioned the amino acids because they seemed, by far, the most interesting thing mentioned in the article. Was it something else you found interesting?

How is this an answer to my questions? You ask where I got the idea that you believe you don’t believe in the existence of other fossil DNA from your comments so try and focus on the questions and not attempting to dance around them. Here they are again:

Let's see the list of things I haven't addressed...

When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK.

I seem to recall addressing this. And yes, it's... so... very... strange... that the third paragraph in #11 was only about dinosaurs. I'm starting to think you're trolling.

Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with “dino” as a search term?

No.

Did you even read through the article in #13?

Yes.

Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking “Look, we haven’t found dino DNA just stuff ‘consistent with DNA-like stuff’ so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn’t done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn’t help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA”? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.

This pretty much confirms the trolling. (At least I hope that's what's happening.) goodusername

?? No, as I’ve stated, I believe they have found evidence that dna is present in dino fossils, and although they haven’t been able to do any sequencing, I believe that they will.

OK. Is that the only part you were able to see during the lapse in your selective blindness system? :/ Vy

And you accuse me of lacking reading skills?

Absolutely, you're yet to show evidence to the contrary. I will admit that I may have misjudged the context of the "I don't know" quote though reading through both articles makes me think its existence in the fossil DNA/soft tissue page was to give him the benefit of the doubt on his outright denial of dino soft tissue. Vy

Ah, you’re referring to this post: ... Let’s see, the first paragraph is about sequencing dna of… dinosaurs. The second paragraph is about dna of… dinosaurs. The fourth paragraph is again about… dinosaurs. What’s the third paragraph about? Hmm, the third paragraph doesn’t explicitly say dinosaurs, but does have an “And” to indicate I’m adding to a previous thought – perhaps adding to the previous sentence about dino dna? – and has “soft tissue” in quotes – what famous soft tissue is out there? So from where are the “bits of protein” that I’m talking about (bearing in mind the subject of the OP, and that I mention “microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils” in the very next sentence)? I know! I must be making the hilariously ludicrous claim that we’ve never found dna in any fossil of any kind, something routinely done – yeah, that makes much more sense than… dinosaurs. Yes, dinosaurs would be so very strange.

Boy, I couldn't have said it any better than this:

*facepalm*

How is this an answer to my questions? You ask where I got the idea that you believe you don't believe in the existence of other fossil DNA from your comments so try and focus on the questions and not attempting to dance around them. Here they are again:

When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK. Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with “dino” as a search term? OK. Did you even read through the article in #13? Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking “Look, we haven’t found dino DNA just stuff ‘consistent with DNA-like stuff’ so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn’t done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn’t help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA”? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.

Vy

??

So still no answer to "This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how”? Got it. I went back to the article I linked and realized how presumptious "In other words, I think they found amino acids" was.

Taking advantage of the unique capabilities of STXM-based XANES spectroscopy at the carbon and nitrogen K edges to perform in situ experiments at the submicrometre scale, the present study shows that, in addition to the fine-scale morphologies, the molecular biosignatures of some Gunflint organic microfossils have been exceptionally preserved. In fact, despite the 1.88-Gyr-long geological history that they experienced, Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils exhibit C- and N-XANES spectra sharing strong similarities to those of modern cyanobacteria and modern micro-algae. Despite a higher content of aromatic compounds compared to modern microorganisms, these microfossils exhibit a quite high content of oxygen-based functional groups (carbonyl, phenolic, carboxylic and hydroxyl groups). In addition, these microfossils still contain amide functional groups (absorption feature at 288.2?eV), which were likely to be involved in the proteinaceous compounds synthetized by the once living organisms15,52,53. Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils exhibit quite high N/C values. These values may be secondary, that is, may result from diagenetic processes. In fact, inorganic nitrogen in fluids can be incorporated within kerogen molecular structures during diagenesis at temperatures as low as 100?°C57. Yet, although higher than those of modern micro-algae, the N/C of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils are comparable to those of modern cyanobacteria. It thus can be assumed that the Gunflint organic microfossils initially exhibited high N/C values as do modern cyanobacteria and some modern marine microorganisms showing N/C as high as 0.25–0.30 (refs 58, 59). The high N/C of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils may thus result from their exceptional preservation. The molecular signatures of Triple Junction, Mink Mountain and Discovery Point organic microfossils have not been that well preserved. In fact, the Raman and XANES data reported here show that these organic microfossils are more ‘mature’ than the ones from Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach, that is, they exhibit a higher aromaticity and contain less sulfur-, nitrogen- and oxygen-rich moieties49,50. In particular, these organic microfossils do not seem to contain amide, hydroxyl nor carbonyl functional groups. One explanation could be that the organic microfossils investigated here were initially chemically different and/or experienced variable decay60. In other words, they may have been originally composed of different organics, which may have followed different reaction pathways during diagenesis. Yet, morphologies, bulk mineralogy and silicon isotopic compositions suggest comparable depositional and burial histories. Another possibility would be that they have experienced different oxidation conditions: oxic conditions have been shown to be detrimental to the preservation of biosignatures14 and the association of Kakabeka Falls, Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils with nitrates and iron oxides suggests that oxygenated fluids have circulated27. Yet, Schreiber Beach and Kakabeka Falls organic microfossils exhibit very similar molecular signatures, even though only the latter are associated with nitrates. ... As the differences reported here are very similar to those resulting from thermal maturation49,50, the simplest explanation remains that they result from the different burial temperature conditions experienced by the organic microfossils investigated. Interestingly, with increasing maturity, a shift from 285.1 to 284.9?eV is observed for the aromatic/olefinic peak whereas the phenolic/carbonyl peak shifts from 286.7 to 286.4?eV. These shifts may result from the incorporation of heteroatoms in newly condensed aromatic units and from condensation reactions between amino acids and phenolic groups, respectively49,50. In any case, the present contribution demonstrates that a slight increase of diagenetic temperatures may be responsible for the significant degradation of fossilized molecular signatures. Regardless of their high N/C, to which inorganic nitrogen may contribute, the molecular signature of Discovery Point organic microfossils appears less pristine, that is, more degraded, than those of Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils (Figs 8 and 9), even though they experienced similar diagenetic temperatures (that is, 210–230?°C; Fig. 4). The possibility that Discovery Point organic microfossils were initially different from the other investigated Gunflint cherts cannot be entirely ruled out, even though nothing supports it (see above). In contrast, as illustrated by the similar XANES signatures of modern micro-algae (E. gracilis) and modern cyanobacteria (G. violaceus), prokaryotes such as the ones fossilized within the investigated Gunflint cherts probably originally exhibited very similar XANES signatures. The presence of nitrates might explain the better preservation of Triple Junction organic microfossils compared with those of Discovery Point. Yet, Kakabeka Falls and Triple Junction organic microfossils are also associated with nitrates but exhibit C-XANES spectra very similar to the nitrate-free Schreiber Beach and Mink Mountain organic microfossils, respectively (Figs 8 and 9). The postdepositional circulation of oxygenated fluids, which led to the precipitation of iron oxides27, may have also been responsible for the molecular degradation of organic microfossils. Yet, Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils exhibit very similar C-XANES spectra (Fig. 6), even though only the latter are associated with iron oxides. Thus, the degree of molecular preservation of Gunflint organic microfossils is not correlated to the presence of nitrates and iron oxides. Alternatively and more probably, the higher maturity of Discovery Point organic microfossils could be related to the nanoscale association between organics and carbonates revealed by TEM, Raman and XANES analyses (Figs 3, 4 and 6). Among the Gunflint organic microfossils investigated, only the ones from Discovery Point exhibit such nanoscale association. It has previously been reported that the presence of calcium carbonates during high-temperature organic maturation processes may favour the formation of turbostratic (graphitic) carbons37,61, through the formation of calcium hydroxide and calcium carbide, especially under nitrogen-rich atmosphere62,63. This reaction pathway has been observed at high temperature; thus, such a scenario remains highly speculative in the present case. In any case, although dedicated and thorough experimental investigations appear required, the present study illustrates the potential impact of mineral phases on the preservation/degradation of fossilized molecular signatures. Altogether, the present contribution shows that the molecular signatures of the organic microfossils from the 1.88-Ga Gunflint cherts have been preserved, although they experienced temperatures of about 150–170?°C. Such preservation can be qualified as exceptional, as amide groups derived from protein compounds can still be detected. Amide groups are indeed generally lost during the very first stages of burial, either consumed by heterotroph organisms or thermally degraded at low temperature (<< 100?°C)64. ...

Vy

Vy,

So giving him credited for being humble enough to say he didn’t know about dino soft tissue is unrelated to his initial claims and denial of soft tissue on the basis of a baseless experiment? Bravo!

And you accuse me of lacking reading skills? Here’s the paragraph: “PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, "I don't know," which in itself does not prove that he is wrong nor that I am right, but it is pretty funny that the simplest of anatomy designs could stump one of the world's leading Darwinists.” I’ll grant that the website is very poorly written, and so there is ambiguity as to what he was responding to, but If you click the link to the “RSR Trochlea Challenge” they give there (one of the ones that actually works!) you’ll see what he said “I don’t know” to: “PZ Responds to Our Trochlea Challenge: "...Enyart has challenged me to explain how this feature evolved. I have an answer. It’s easy. I don’t know. I don’t see any obvious obstacle to an arrangement of muscles evolving, but I don’t know the details of this particular set." Bravo!

When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of proteinthat last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK.

Ah, you’re referring to this post: “I remember in the 1980s some scientists speculating that with new technology that was coming out that we may soon be able to find and sequence dino dna from fossils. This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park in 1990. Decades later we’re still waiting for a single dino nucleotide. And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.” Let’s see, the first paragraph is about sequencing dna of... dinosaurs. The second paragraph is about dna of... dinosaurs. The fourth paragraph is again about... dinosaurs. What’s the third paragraph about? Hmm, the third paragraph doesn’t explicitly say dinosaurs, but does have an “And” to indicate I’m adding to a previous thought - perhaps adding to the previous sentence about dino dna? - and has “soft tissue” in quotes – what famous soft tissue is out there? So from where are the “bits of protein” that I'm talking about (bearing in mind the subject of the OP, and that I mention “microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils” in the very next sentence)? I know! I must be making the hilariously ludicrous claim that we’ve never found dna in any fossil of any kind, something routinely done – yeah, that makes much more sense than... dinosaurs. Yes, dinosaurs would be so very strange. *facepalm*

You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA.

?? No, as I've stated, I believe they have found evidence that dna is present in dino fossils, and although they haven't been able to do any sequencing, I believe that they will.

You seem to think amino acids can survive on Earth past at best, 500 million Darwin years

?? goodusername

This is your answer to my question of what led you to believe that I believed that we’ve never retrieved dna from any fossils of any kind?

Interesting. When you made this comment, "And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.", you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK. Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with "dino" as a search term? OK. Did you even read through the article in #13? Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking "Look, we haven't found dino DNA just stuff 'consistent with DNA-like stuff' so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn't done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn't help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA"? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we've found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.

So you CAN read. Notice it’s about how long DNA can last? And?

What were you responding to in #11. X & Y: We walked across the street. You: You raced across the skies screaming loudly. X & Y: ? Here's an audio recording of us on our journey. Here's an article showing it's impossible for humans to do such. .. .. .. .. .. .. You: What? Whatever gave you the idea that I didn't believe humans don't race across the skies? I was referring to you not humans. X & Y: What?" Vy

Fascinating how you say that about the amino acids tests but not the dna tests.

This is your answer to "This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how"? You seem to think amino acids can survive on Earth past at best, 500 million Darwin years, so there's something substantial and testable you're obviously seeing in the article. While it'd be nice to point out how flawed such an idea is, I realize I'm discussing with someone who'd read "We were walking on the street" and translate it "We raced across the skies screaming loudly". Vy

For crying out loud. Yes, try and read… it’s exactly as I described – no quotes

Really? What you said is consistent with ...

P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn…..r-morsels/

... a link to an article where he claims contamination is a better explanation (which if I'm reading it right is a claim based on Kaye's baseless experiment) ...

It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited.

... with this in the article I linked to ...

PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, “I don’t know,”

---

But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-)

*facepalm*

other than an “I don’t know” that is completely unrelated to dino tissue.

So giving him credited for being humble enough to say he didn't know about dino soft tissue is unrelated to his initial claims and denial of soft tissue on the basis of a baseless experiment? Bravo!

We see claims about what’s at his website but no quotes. So guess what?? I actually went to his blog and posted what I found.

You may have to his to house and had a genuine heart to heart for all I care but that doesn't change the fact that your claims were outright false.

The rest of the article makes more claims (no quotes) with links that are dead or don’t back their claims.

Awwww! Sorry but we have better things to do that catalogue the websites with Darwinists shooting themselves in the foot at the waybackmachine. You've managed to ignore everything before PZ Myers and pretty much everything after the 's' in the name as it appeared in the article.

Why on earth did you think posting it again would help?

Like I said before, based on your responses we're talking about two different lists. Vy

Querius,

Seems like Vy has slam-dunked your objections.

Objections to what?

Yes, a lot of people do understand the significance. That’s why there was such push-back on Mary Schweitzer’s discovery (her name includes a w, by the way) as Vy has so aptly demonstrated to you.

I know her name has a w. That's why I put a w in her name.

I can help you. Let’s start with the question you haven’t answered:

That's ok. The spelling lesson was enough for one day. goodusername

Vy,

You’ve been dancing around the fact of the impossibility of soft tissue and fossil DNA surving past a few million years with crap about mammoths and appeals of future discoveries and you ask this?

This is your answer to my question of what led you to believe that I believed that we’ve never retrieved dna from any fossils of any kind?

So you CAN read. Notice it’s about how long DNA can last?

And?

Try and read:

For crying out loud. Yes, try and read… it’s exactly as I described – no quotes, other than an “I don’t know” that is completely unrelated to dino tissue. We see claims about what’s at his website but no quotes. So guess what?? I actually went to his blog and posted what I found. The rest of the article makes more claims (no quotes) with links that are dead or don’t back their claims. Why on earth did you think posting it again would help?

This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how?

Fascinating how you say that about the amino acids tests but not the dna tests. goodusername

goodusername, Seems like Vy has slam-dunked your objections.

I don’t understand the significance. Not even close. But then, does anyone else? Experts were all over the map prior to such discoveries as to whether such findings were possible or not, and almost all of them now accept the findings. Do they understand the significance?

Yes, a lot of people do understand the significance. That's why there was such push-back on Mary Schweitzer's discovery (her name includes a w, by the way) as Vy has so aptly demonstrated to you. I can help you. Let's start with the question you haven't answered: Ok, how about just a sentence or two describing the difference between the effects of ionizing radiation on tissue as compared to convection heating? -Q Querius

You said

I quoted an article with them saying very clearly it was impossible so your "response" was utterly irrelevant even more so by the fact the article I quoted preceeded your "popular" experiment and the fact that said experiment was baseless and has been absolutely refuted.

What on earth did I say that led you believe that I making the absolutely ludicrous claim that we’ve never retrieved dna from fossils of any kind?! Such work is routine now and probably done, literally everyday, and has been done for decades.

You've been dancing around the fact of the impossibility of soft tissue and fossil DNA surving past a few million years with crap about mammoths and appeals to future discoveries and you ask this?

What, pray tell, was “And oh, it IS DNA” in #12 a reply to if not my claim about dinosaur nucleotides – in the very previous post – and the only time I mentioned such a thing until that point? #13 says “Some more even in stuff older than dinos.”

While I can requote my posts for the umpteenth time highlighting the parts you seem to be blind to, I have better things to do.

#16 isn’t you

So you CAN read. Notice it's about how long DNA can last?

so maybe you mean #17, except there’s nothing about dna there.

*facepalm*

... ? ... ? ... ?

???

What did I miss about Myers? They give no quotes of him talking about dino soft tissue, and most of the trail of links were dead. At the links that did work I didn’t see anything by him denying that dino soft tissue had been found. So I did my own search to see what he said on the issue.

Try and read:

PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, "I don't know," which in itself does not prove that he is wrong nor that I am right, but it is pretty funny that the simplest of anatomy designs could stump one of the world's leading Darwinists. PZ, being severely out-of-date on what is the greatest paleobiology discovery yet, as late as November 2011 doubted the existence of dinosaur soft tissue by critically writing about "Will's rants here" regarding dinosaur soft tissue for which Myers linked to his long out-dated report of "a good alternative explanation: this is an example of bacterial contamination producing a biofilm." (Update: As late as August 2013, still in denial, PZ continues to irresponsibly suggest the falsified biofilm hypothesis.) If PZ weren't a soft tissue denier (or doubter) he would have instead indicated that the biofilm interpretation against actual primary tissue had been repeatedly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. Like LoR's AronRa, Myers didn't mention all the confirming studies, and he preferred to keep telling the story, although contrary to the latest science, that is far more comfortable to Darwinists. (And regarding Carbon 14 PZ Myers, like so many evolutionists have, went on to mock Will and me for our $23,000 grant offer to Jack Horner to carbon date his dinosaur fossil, which PZ says, "makes no sense at all," even though peer-reviewed studies are now carbon dating dinosaur soft-tissue fossils.)

Perhaps I need crayons.

Just as you cherrypicked the list –

Er, nope that's clearly you.

although by then there isn’t much of a list left.

Kneejerk?

I agree. Just in case it isn’t clear (as I’m not sure what if anything is at this point) I agree that dino soft tissue has been found.

But for some reason you keep claiming this unrelated and refuted link is a response to a comment based on an article that preceeded said link. Sheesh!

The site explains that. Earth has an atmosphere that protects the amino acids from galactic radiation.

This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how? Vy

Querius, In that case let me just save you the trouble and say: I don’t understand the significance. Not even close. But then, does anyone else? Experts were all over the map prior to such discoveries as to whether such findings were possible or not, and almost all of them now accept the findings. Do they understand the significance? Would you say that Schweitzer understands the significance? How about the ID proponents here (most of whom I think are old earthers)? goodusername

Vy,

What? Are you sure you’re replying to my posts?

You said: “Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because “previous experiments” found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop.” So I quoted the very Darwinist that did the most famous experiment claiming that the dino tissue was contamination and asked if he sounded like your characterization. So yeah, it was a response to your post.

You got that from comments #12, #13, #16 and a whole lot of others with links to fossil DNA and soft tissue? Really?

What on earth did I say that led you believe that I making the absolutely ludicrous claim that we’ve never retrieved dna from fossils of any kind?! Such work is routine now and probably done, literally everyday, and has been done for decades. What, pray tell, was “And oh, it IS DNA” in #12 a reply to if not my claim about dinosaur nucleotides - in the very previous post - and the only time I mentioned such a thing until that point? #13 says “Some more even in stuff older than dinos.” #16 isn’t you, so maybe you mean #17, except there’s nothing about dna there.

I didn’t realize fossil dino DNA existed in a vacuum.

?

Um nope, we (excluding probably you) have been talking about fossil DNA and tissue, dino or otherwise. See comments #9 and #16.

I have been clear about what *I’m* talking about. When I wrote that “we’re still waiting for a single dino nucleotide.” That meant dinosaur nucleotides. Not algae that are a fraction of the age of dinosaurs.

I don’t remember mammoths being dinos.

?

You don’t say? Perhaps this ought to have been enough to point that out:

?

So you’re selectively blind and an adorable cherry picker. Great! When you get to reading the part about PZ Myers (that involves more than just glancing and seeing his name “PZ Myers” btw) then you have an argument.

What did I miss about Myers? They give no quotes of him talking about dino soft tissue, and most of the trail of links were dead. At the links that did work I didn’t see anything by him denying that dino soft tissue had been found. So I did my own search to see what he said on the issue.

Based on your response to terribly cherrypicked portions of it, I’m not sure the list I posted is the one you read.

Just as you cherrypicked the list – although by then there isn’t much of a list left. The [Ir]rationwiki site is rather indefensible though: Get on the ball guys!

As for your link to Kaye’s incredulity, read this and pretty much every paper on soft tissue which clearly debunk his claims.

I agree. Just in case it isn't clear (as I'm not sure what if anything is at this point) I agree that dino soft tissue has been found.

Why do you think it would, assuming the billion Darwin years were not imaginary, last longer?

The site explains that. Earth has an atmosphere that protects the amino acids from galactic radiation. goodusername

Should amino acids last that long?

Good question.

I remember a study saying that amino acid remains of life on Mars should last “only” a billion years because of the lack of an atmosphere that would block galactic radiation.

And how does a pretty much untestable study on an imaginary billion year old past of another planet help?

How much longer would they last on Earth? I couldn’t find that study again, but I did find this that mentions the study: http://www.space.com/32962-ali.....ation.html

Why do you think it would, assuming the billion Darwin years were not imaginary, last longer? Vy

As for your link to Kaye's incredulity, read this and pretty much every paper on soft tissue which clearly debunk his claims. "Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues" from a Darwinist is not even a teeny tiny bit convincing. I see Kaye based his argument on C14 dating, so again, did you miss this from comment #25:

I do know what’s not possible though, carbon 14. But alas, it’s in almost all of them. “It’s contamination, stuff stuff ..”, right?

Vy

The first quote on the page: “Switek wrote, “The supposed dinosaur leftovers may be microfossils created by bacterial biofilms…”. That’s the sort of thing that gets someone on this list as a “Denier”?

Hmm, I'm beginning to realize I wasn't wrong in thinking you're selectively blind.

P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....r-morsels/ It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited. But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-)

So you're selectively blind and an adorable cherry picker. Great! When you get to reading the part about PZ Myers (that involves more than just glancing and seeing his name "PZ Myers" btw) then you have an argument.

From the list it sounds like all one has to do is express any skepticism at any time for any reason to be a “DENIER”! I guess such folks have to be on the list or it’d be too short to even bother having a list.

Wow! I must have imagined this:

Nigel Deplege, commented at Discover Magazine's site against a challenge by Bob Enyart, posted Sept. 1, 2011. Published evolutionist Deplege wrote, "...soft dinosaur tissue has never been discovered or reported. What you perhaps refer to is the discovery of fossilised impression of soft tissue structures." If Nigel (or any of these evolutionists listed) contacts Real Science Radio admitting error, we will post his admission here.

Or this:

YEC's continued claim there was "soft" tissue found, represents a failure to even read the peer reviewed papers. No organic material was ever found. The material that was found was calcified, which became "soft" after a bath in acid. Learn to read!"

Or the [Ir]rationwiki article that despite being updated numerous times continues to make the same dumb claim. Some great logic you got there.

I didn’t claim that there weren’t deniers, just that they were a minority

Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that? Even if there are such folks they’re a pretty small minority.

---

(and the list hardly changes my mind about that)

Based on your response to terribly cherrypicked portions of it, I'm not sure the list I posted is the one you read. Vy

This has a section that lists many of the problems from reports of retrieved ancient DNA in the 1990s due to contanimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

Er, nope. I don't need a Wiki (???) article on probablymaybeshouldabe ancient DNA contamination stories. Read:

Please provide such a list for “many of the claims turned out to be contamination”.

---

Scheitzer and I are surprised to hear that we aren’t Darwinists. ????

*facepalm*

Here’s an article about the scientist, Thomas Kaye, that made the most famous claim about dino soft tissue being biofilm contamination: http://phys.org/news/2008-07-n.....rvive.html “Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in the previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.”

What? Are you sure you're replying to my posts?

Do you still agree with your characterization?

Absolutely.

I’m not sure why you posted this. My claim was that we haven’t found a “single dino nucleotide”. You responded with “And oh, it IS DNA.” To which I responded “but so far (AFAIK) haven’t been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing.”

Wow! You got that from comments #12, #13, #16 and a whole lot of others with links to fossil DNA and soft tissue? Really? I didn't realize fossil dino DNA existed in a vacuum.

So we were talking about dinosaurs, not 1.4m year old algae dna.

Um nope, we (excluding probably you) have been talking about fossil DNA and tissue, dino or otherwise. See comments #9 and #16. I don't remember mammoths being dinos.

Cool find, but if I’m reading the article right, they didn’t find soft tissue, but rather “molecular signatures of some organic microfossils” and “amide groups likely derived from protein compounds”. In other words, I think they found amino acids.

You don't say? Perhaps this ought to have been enough to point that out:

Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.

How about TWO BILLION Darwin years?

Vy

Vy,

OK, you’ve made this claim quite a few times. Time to put up or shut up.

This has a section that lists many of the problems from reports of retrieved ancient DNA in the 1990s due to contanimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

Really? Did you miss this:

No, as I’ve said, that many believed we wouldn’t find any soft tissue while others believed we’d be sequencing dino DNA long by now shows how little we know about tissue preservation.

Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because “previous experiments” found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop.

Scheitzer and I are surprised to hear that we aren’t Darwinists. ;-) Here’s an article about the scientist, Thomas Kaye, that made the most famous claim about dino soft tissue being biofilm contamination: http://phys.org/news/2008-07-notion-dinosaur-soft-tissues-survive.html “Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in the previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.” Do you still agree with your characterization?

Here’s an extensive list of soft tissue deniers in the past and present.

The first quote on the page: “Switek wrote, "The supposed dinosaur leftovers may be microfossils created by bacterial biofilms...". That’s the sort of thing that gets someone on this list as a “Denier”? P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/30/tyrannosaur-morsels/ It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited. But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-) From the list it sounds like all one has to do is express any skepticism at any time for any reason to be a "DENIER"! I guess such folks have to be on the list or it’d be too short to even bother having a list. I didn’t claim that there weren’t deniers, just that they were a minority (and the list hardly changes my mind about that) and weren’t representative of Darwinism then (and especially now as you acknowledge).

As for your assertion that we’ve only been able to find “material consistent with DNA”, good luck with the denial.

I’m not sure why you posted this. My claim was that we haven’t found a “single dino nucleotide”. You responded with “And oh, it IS DNA.” To which I responded “but so far (AFAIK) haven’t been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing.” So we were talking about dinosaurs, not 1.4m year old algae dna. But I guess that still makes me an “outright denier.” :-) For the record I believe that dino nucleotides will eventually be found. Although I’m starting to think that they might have to use more frog dna than originally anticipated.

How about TWO BILLION Darwin years?

Cool find, but if I’m reading the article right, they didn’t find soft tissue, but rather “molecular signatures of some organic microfossils” and “amide groups likely derived from protein compounds”. In other words, I think they found amino acids. Should amino acids last that long? I remember a study saying that amino acid remains of life on Mars should last “only” a billion years because of the lack of an atmosphere that would block galactic radiation. How much longer would they last on Earth? I couldn’t find that study again, but I did find this that mentions the study: http://www.space.com/32962-alien-fossils-mars-europa-radiation.html The link above did update to say that - in the soil near the surface - most are destroyed in only 20 million years. But again, that’s because of Martian conditions. goodusername

goodusername,

For one the former [background radiation] causes ionization. Don’t really have the time so if you want more I’ll give you a website.

Ok, how about just a sentence or two describing the difference between the effects of ionizing radiation on tissue as compared to convection heating? Just wanted to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you actually understand the profound significance of finding soft, pliable tissue that’s purportedly 65 million years old or more in some cases. -Q Querius

Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.

How about TWO BILLION Darwin years? And no: - not "deep inside the bones" - not "at an ideal preservation temperature of 5 ºC" ;) Vy

As for your assertion that we've only been able to find "material consistent with DNA", good luck with the denial. And yes, "the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna." Mammoths! ;) Vy

Here's an extensive list of soft tissue deniers in the past and present. Please provide such a list for "many of the claims turned out to be contamination". Vy

Ah, you only meant in the past.

From [Ir]rationalwiki's article:

A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[14] has since been shown to be mistaken,[15] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old

So no, not in the past. More like no Darwinist worth his salt but then again there's really no difference between such a Darwinist and your average Darwinist.

So they now believe that dino tissue has been found. That sounds like there were skeptics (for good reason as many of the claims turned out to be contamination) and were won over through subsequent experimentation.

OK, you've made this claim quite a few times. Time to put up or shut up.

Kind of how things are supposed to work.

Really? Did you miss this:

“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside,” announced National Geographic in an eye-catching title. Based on the work of Mary Schweitzer, who announced soft tissue in a T. rex bone last year (06/03/2005), a “phenomenon, which was once thought impossible,” the article suggests that many species may have DNA and proteins remaining available for analysis.

? Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because "previous experiments" found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop. Carry on with your mental gymnastics.

Do you have any names or actual quotes in mind (I take it that the quotes you used were scare quotes).

Link above and below. Vy

Querius,

Oh good. So what’s the difference between the effects of background radiation and cooking something in an oven?

For one the former causes ionization. Don't really have time so if you want more I'll give you a website.

Did I say a single large dose?

No, so maybe I misunderstood goodusername

I wasn’t implying that they are the same

Oh good. So what's the difference between the effects of background radiation and cooking something in an oven?

only that you couldn’t replicate the effect of radiation over long periods of time by simply giving a single large dose.

Did I say a single large dose? -Q Querius

Querius,

This brings us back to my asking you to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. Well?

I think the question was meant for me. I wasn't implying that they are the same, only that you couldn't replicate the effect of radiation over long periods of time by simply giving a single large dose. If that does work than I was wrong, I'll try to look that up when I have a chance. If you have a good source on that I'll take a look at it. goodusername

Mary Schweitzer's ostrich bone experiments were intended to show that the minuscule amounts of iron in hemoglobin could shield the tissue inside the bone from . . . background radiation. This brings us back to my asking you to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. Well? -Q Querius

Vy,

Of COURSE no Darwinist now would dare claim soft tissue and DNA from dinos are actually due to contamination, the evidence is overwhelming and can’t be logically hand-waved away like they did in the beginning. They do dance around it with ostrich experiments though ????

Ah, you only meant in the past. So they now believe that dino tissue has been found. That sounds like there were skeptics (for good reason as many of the claims turned out to be contamination) and were won over through subsequent experimentation. Kind of how things are supposed to work. Do you have any names or actual quotes in mind (I take it that the quotes you used were scare quotes). goodusername

Hoho, what fun! I love a good piñada party for volunteers from the Mighta Coulda Musta Darwinists in Denial(tm) or MCMDiDs. And I'm still waiting for goodusername to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. I'm not holding my breath. LOL -Q Querius

What about #6?

Should be #16.

No, that dino tissue has been found seems pretty well established. Who’s claiming that every reported case of such is from contamination? Even if such people exists, it’s certainly not the view of the vast majority.

Again, you're kidding right? My comment @18 in response to your assertion @14 that if you think of BBQable mammoths, dino soft tissue shouldn't be "too shocking. Maybe it is to others":

Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was “biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue”, I doubt it.

Is it clear now? Sheesh! Of COURSE no Darwinist now would dare claim soft tissue and DNA from dinos are actually due to contamination, the evidence is overwhelming and can't be logically hand-waved away like they did in the beginning. They do dance around it with ostrich experiments though ;) Vy

Vy,

Comment #6 and Mary Schweizer’s experiment and a whole lot of other still exist despite your denial.

What about #6?

You’re kidding right? :-/

No, that dino tissue has been found seems pretty well established. Who's claiming that every reported case of such is from contamination? Even if such people exists, it's certainly not the view of the vast majority. goodusername

So what’s the lesson here? Does this mean that this mammoth is magnitudes of order older than other remains of mammoths found? Maybe some died weeks while others died millions of years ago? Or maybe it means that the environment has effects on decay rates that we don’t understand yet?

*facepalm*

Maybe you know that. But I don’t, and Mary Schweizer doesn’t. Hopefully we’ll get to see who’s right.

Comment #6 and Mary Schweitzer's experiment and a whole lot of other still exist despite your denial.

Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that?

You're kidding right? :/ Vy

Vy,

Tell me, how BBQable is this mammoth?

So what's the lesson here? Does this mean that this mammoth is magnitudes of order older than other remains of mammoths found? Maybe some died weeks while others died millions of years ago? Or maybe it means that the environment has effects on decay rates that we don't understand yet?

So you claim but we KNOW it can’t last for 65 million years.

Maybe you know that. But I don't, and Mary Schweizer doesn't. Hopefully we'll get to see who's right.

There’s “concern” and then there’s outright denial.

Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that? Even if there are such folks they're a pretty small minority. goodusername

I was responding to the usual contention that such findings aren’t possible, and were unanticipated ...

... by making a connection between the "freshness" of frozen mammoth fossils and dinos then claiming the existence of the former justifies the latter. Tell me, how BBQable is this mammoth?

In fact, we know very little about how tissue preservation works

So you claim but we KNOW it can't last for 65 million years. Not even close. For example, the collagen in some of these fossils are 18 times older than they are supposed to be.

and so don’t know what’s possible

Mary Schweitzer did an ostrich experiment for 2 years, the results in a LAB weren't impressive. I do know what's not possible though, carbon 14. But alas, it's in almost all of them. "It's contamination, stuff stuff ..", right?

and some not only anticipated that we’d find soft tissue but thought we’d find much more than we have so far.

Like DNA and soft tissue we're finding in fossils that were tucked away for years because their Darwinian ideology didn't let them think it was worth searching for soft tissue? Nice try.

It’s hand-waving to say that given the rate at which some mammoths are fossilizing I’d expect at least microscopic bits of protein left after millions of years?

BBQable mammoths! Therefore 65 million year old soft tissue. Why? BBQable mammoths ... Pretty clear. ;)

So concerns about contamination are quite warranted.

There's "concern" and then there's outright denial. Vy

Here’s another scientific experiment. Cook a roast in 1/1000th the time by applying 1000x the heat.

Really? Do you believe that background radiation is the same thing as heat from an oven? Do you even know what the difference is? -Q Querius

Querius,

The argument that “it must be due to contamination” is sacrificing scientific data on the altar of your ideology.

I haven't seen anyone make such an argument, and I have little doubt that dino tissue has been found.

Here’s a scientific experiment. Take a fresh cow femur. Subject it to the equivalent of 65 million years of radiation at the current level. See what you get. I bet you won’t get any stray bits of protein.

Here's another scientific experiment. Cook a roast in 1/1000th the time by applying 1000x the heat. ;-) goodusername

Look up background radiation. Everything that old should either be stone or powder by now. The argument that "it must be due to contamination" is sacrificing scientific data on the altar of your ideology. Here's a scientific experiment. Take a fresh cow femur. Subject it to the equivalent of 65 million years of radiation at the current level. See what you get. I bet you won't get any stray bits of protein. Instead of fiddling the data, just cut to the chase. Close your eyes tightly to the mounting evidence, and admit that it doesn't matter what's discovered. Nothing can shake your faith in the current Darwinistic paradigm. -Q Querius

Vy,

Read through the comments again and ask yourself what your comment in #11 was responding/referring to.

I was responding to the usual contention that such findings aren't possible, and were unanticipated. In fact, we know very little about how tissue preservation works, and so don't know what's possible, and some not only anticipated that we'd find soft tissue but thought we'd find much more than we have so far.

Again with the Dawkinian hand-waving.

It's hand-waving to say that given the rate at which some mammoths are fossilizing I'd expect at least microscopic bits of protein left after millions of years?

Maybe but so what?

So concerns about contamination are quite warranted. goodusername

Um, ok. An explanation for what? You seem to be using the word in a way I haven’t seen before.

And you seem to be reading my post with a very strange interpretation. Read through the comments again and ask yourself what your comment in #11 was responding/referring to.

If you’re just referring to the dinos, and agree that the mammoths are thousands of years old, than why are the dinos so degraded compared to the mammoths when they should be roughly the same age by YEC timing? It’s merely replacing one mystery with another. We should be digging up dino carcasses, not breaking open bones hoping to find microscopic pieces of protein left. We should also be sequencing dino DNA. Where’s jurassic Park?

Frozen dinos?

at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.

Again with the Dawkinian hand-waving.

And contamination is a major problem precisely because we have become so good at detecting tiny pieces of protein and DNA. The air is filled with the stuff, and new technology can detect it. Indeed, many cases of reports of found dino soft tissue and DNA have turned out to be contamination.

Maybe but so what? Vy

Vy,

This is consistent with Dawkins-type hand-waving explanations:

Um, ok. An explanation for what? You seem to be using the word in a way I haven't seen before.

Is it being “not that old” part of the range of possibilities?

For both the dinos and mammoths? Maybe. But it doesn't seem likely that there are still mammoths walking around. Most likely they are thousands of years old (I think even most YECs agree with that). If you're just referring to the dinos, and agree that the mammoths are thousands of years old, than why are the dinos so degraded compared to the mammoths when they should be roughly the same age by YEC timing? It's merely replacing one mystery with another. We should be digging up dino carcasses, not breaking open bones hoping to find microscopic pieces of protein left. We should also be sequencing dino DNA. Where's jurassic Park? Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there'd be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.

Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was “biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue”, I doubt it.

Maybe some felt that way, others thought we'd be sequencing dino DNA by now. Kind of shows how little we know about tissue preservation. And contamination is a major problem precisely because we have become so good at detecting tiny pieces of protein and DNA. The air is filled with the stuff, and new technology can detect it. Indeed, many cases of reports of found dino soft tissue and DNA have turned out to be contamination. goodusername

"Nature’s sneery summary..." No surprise there. The Nature journal has been in steady decline for quite some time. It is nothing but an atheist rag at this point. Truth Will Set You Free

Why would you have taken it as an explanation?

This is consistent with Dawkins-type hand-waving explanations:

IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.

---

I have no idea how such dino material lasts for so long, just as I have no explanation for how mammoth carcasses last for thousands of year. But considering the latter, the former isn’t too shocking IMO.

Is it being "not that old" part of the range of possibilities?

Maybe it is to others.

Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was "biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue", I doubt it. Vy

CLAVDIVS,

That’s not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s.

Are we talking about DNA? If so, how does the research by Bunce et al fit in?

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. [Source: nature.com — 2012]

Origenes

This story takes me back to the story of Dr. Edward Hedin at Ball State a few years back: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/ball-state-university-intelligent-design-my-7-disappointments/ ayearningforpublius

Vy,

When did hand-waving become an explanation?

Why would you have taken it as an explanation? I have no idea how such dino material lasts for so long, just as I have no explanation for how mammoth carcasses last for thousands of year. But considering the latter, the former isn't too shocking IMO. Maybe it is to others.

And oh, it IS DNA.

Yes, they have found "evidence for material consistent with DNA" but so far (AFAIK) haven't been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing. goodusername

Some more even in stuff older than dinos. Vy

And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.

When did hand-waving become an explanation? "Oh, little protein bits. Meh, move along, nothing to see here" And oh, it IS DNA. Vy

I remember in the 1980s some scientists speculating that with new technology that was coming out that we may soon be able to find and sequence dino dna from fossils. This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park in 1990. Decades later we're still waiting for a single dino nucleotide. And bear in mind that the "soft tissue" we're finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn't seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week. goodusername

That’s not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s.

??? Vy

tjguy @ 7

It’s like evolutionists saying “Well, what do you know. DNA and soft tissue CAN be preserved for millions of years.” That idea goes against everything we know about DNA and soft tissue ...

That's not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s. CLAVDIVS

Queries @1: “What’s forgotten here is that Armitage deliberately and blatantly violated scientific ethics! ________________________________________________________________ To destroy true scientific evidence, is allowing dark forces to triumph over true scientific investigation. By ignoring good scientific common sense evidence, like being unable to make a monkey from a none-monkey etc., etc., etc., is blatantly and deliberately applying a constricting iron band around the heads of students to make them see common (descent) sense; humans come from non-humans. Or by almost universal blind faith in common descent, dark forces of injustice prevail, similar to those used by the Soviet Union to brain wash and persecute. Both ID and creationism have felt the force of such measures. For example: Jerry Bergman: http://www.icr.org/article/book-review-slaughter-dissidents/ http://crev.info/2016/10/mark-armitage-wins-legal-victory/ including David Coppedge, thanking the Discovery Institute for their support in his discrimination case relating to Intelligent Design. And, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.V_ZQfCQ8Yso It would seem that ID must be included for deliberately violating scientific ethics! “Troubled and confusing times,” is what humans have come to by believing in evolutionism. Like begets like, monkeys only beget monkeys is a true science; experimentally sound, proved in the field, verifiably and conclusively proved true elsewhere. Confused ethics and times indeed. mw

I can understand CSUN's consternation because the very inconvenient data Mr. Armitrage found is very difficult to answer from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, at this point, there is no answer. (except for a 2 year experiment that shows that iron from blood has some preservation capacities. But that is hardly enough evidence to justify extreme extrapolation into 70 million years worth of preservation power.) It reminds me of the joke where a patient comes to see a doctor and says "Doc, I have a problem. I'm dead." The doc says "No your not. I'll prove it to you. Can dead men bleed?" The guy says "No, of course not." Whereupon the doctor proceeds to prick his finger and draw blood. He says "Look you are bleeding!" The guy answers and says "Well, what do you know! Dead men can bleed!" It's like evolutionists saying "Well, what do you know. DNA and soft tissue CAN be preserved for millions of years." That idea goes against everything we know about DNA and soft tissue, but age is a non-negotiable for evolutionists. Without that, their theory is blown out of the water and completely destroyed. tjguy

Querius at #1 That is an excellent tirade! InVivoVeritas

Correction. I said the triceratops was 28,000 years, but, according to carbon dating, it's 33,000 +/- 3,000 years. bb

Good for Mark! I love this guy and saw him speak last year. He is the first to submit dinosaur tissue to a medical lab to perform a standard chem-20. His results were fascinating. He also carbon dated his find to 28,000 years at most. Here's a video about the settlement from Mark's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuGfMG9TDKA This might be an earlier instance of the same presentation that I saw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDV_MTQSxg bb

Querius @1, LOL! Vy

What's forgotten here is that Armitage deliberately and blatantly violated scientific ethics! In order to keep his job, he simply needed to destroy any evidence that was not compatible with the current scientific narrative. As a result of his irresponsible actions, he caused deep embarrassment to CSUN, potentially opening up the university to ridicule, which could threaten critical funding. In a case like this, it's not unthinkable that Armitage should be banned for life from any contact with educational institutions or impressionable children under 24 years of age. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable that his punishment should include incarceration for the social disruption and severe mental anguish for which he was clearly culpable. Likewise, the judge in this case should be impeached for not being able to distinguish between the anti-discrimination rights legally granted to minority religions and Armitage's fundamentalist creationism that he hid under the guise of real science. The damage that he has caused is incalculable, but the scientific community needs to draw together in these troubled and confusing times. Doing so will once again allow science to triumph over the dark forces of superstition and coercion. ;-) -Q Querius