Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,368 members, 7,781,003 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 07:20 AM

EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist (10925 Views)

Pastor Anoints Members With Soft Drinks As Nigerians React / Mysterious Bones Discovered At Mowe. Fossil? (Pics) / Radiocarbon In Dinosaur Bones - It Shouldn't Be There! (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by butterflylion: 9:58am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
This is exactly my point. In science, you continue to build theories, break them down if they don't stand to scrutiny. You continue the process until you get something that is foolproof. You quoted article gave about five examples of that. This is how the scientific method works.
Your guy failed to do that and he got fired.

I also noticed that your quoted article did not come with a link. I'm betting that it came from an apologist website.

Oga I am sure you saw where the website clearly stated it was a report from The University College London research team.

That was no theory but evidence of actual scientific research.

Read it again and be healed of ignorance. I say be healed! Be healed! Be healed! Ni oruko Jeeesu!

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 10:02am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
This is exactly my point. In science, you continue to build theories, break them down if they don't stand to scrutiny. You continue the process until you get something that is foolproof. You quoted article gave about five examples of that. This is how the scientific method works.
Your guy failed to do that and he got fired.

I also noticed that your quoted article did not come with a link. I'm betting that it came from an apologist website.

we are still waiting for your demonstration of 65 million years embalmment science secret.

Besides, you just said the scientist got fired
You just reemphasised the essence of the whole cover up and settling.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 10:03am On Aug 19, 2017
butterflylion:


Oga I am sure you saw where the website clearly stated it was a report from The University College London research team.

That was no theory but evidence of actual scientific research.

Read it again and be healed of ignorance. I say be healed! Be healed! Be healed! Ni oruko Jeeesu!

I earlier told him he has reading problem.

This confirms it.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by LordOfNaira: 10:26am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


"Nothing is acceptable as fool proof" you say

Yet you just told us soft tissue can be preserved by Iron for 65 million years.

Wow,
Abeg demonstrate that for us and u get a Nobel

You are the real pseudoscientist.

Stop embarrassing yourself. The guy never said iron preserves soft tissues. It was said by a paleontologist. And it was a postulation that should serve as a basis for argument. Science is not as straightforward as you people think. You cannot just feel you have discovered something and start passing it around as a theory or the truth.

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 10:33am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


"Nothing is acceptable as fool proof" you say

Yet you just told us soft tissue can be preserved by Iron for 65 million years.

Wow,
Abeg demonstrate that for us and u get a Nobel

You are the real pseudoscientist.
Apart from being a certified m0ron you are also deficient in grammar.
Please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "postulate". Then come back and correct this nonsense you have written.

You are too dull to be real.

6 Likes 2 Shares

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 10:34am On Aug 19, 2017
LordOfNaira:


Stop embarrassing yourself. The guy never said iron preserves soft tissues. It was said by a paleontologist. And it was a postulation that should serve as a basis for argument. Science is not as straightforward as you people think. You cannot just feel you have discovered something and start passing it around as a theory or the truth.
Guy thank you. That guy cannot be helped.

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 10:36am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


we are still waiting for your demonstration of 65 million years embalmment science secret.

Besides, you just said the scientist got fired
You just reemphasised the essence of the whole cover up and settling.
I beg you. Stop quoting me.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by LordOfNaira: 10:37am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
Guy thank you. That guy cannot be helped.

You are welcome, my brother. He was just so annoying.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 10:52am On Aug 19, 2017
butterflylion:


Oga I am sure you saw where the website clearly stated it was a report from The University College London research team.

That was no theory but evidence of actual scientific research.

Read it again and be healed of ignorance. I say be healed! Be healed! Be healed! Ni oruko Jeeesu!
How hard can it be to provide a link to the site?
You are just determined to win an argument. In science, nothing is etched in stone. As long as research is still going on, there is always the possibility that what we know might be wrong.
My argument has never been whether iron could preserve tissues for that long or not. No one on earth knows that for sure.
My argument has been that this guy's victory is merely a legal one and not a validation of any discovery. If you want to argue against that, then I can't help you.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by MrMontella(m): 10:55am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
This is why I try not to waste time with your kind.
If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen the part where it was written that notable molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 2005 postulated that soft tissue in dinosaurs were preserved by Iron.
This was almost a decade before this Armitage guy came up with his claims.
A renowned scientist sees something and begins to brainstorm on how it could have happened. Another person sees that same thing a decade later and says that the earth is 6,000 years old.
If you have a truly scientific mind, which of these two people will you take seriously?


Etisalat abi na 9mobile refused me internet access since yesterday.
Utter foolishness on their part, they were already masturbating on the thread, without understanding the story, even the poster sef,

5 Likes 1 Share

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 10:59am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
[s]Apart from being a certified m0ron you are also deficient in grammar.
Please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "postulate". Then come back and correct this nonsense you have written.

You are too dull to be real[/s].

Some one quoted research, you said it was from apologetics page
And you say i have grammar problems?

And then you used "postulate" to conclude that soft tissue can be preserved for 65 million years...
And used it as basis to call out the scientist who just won a case....

You are an utter Joke grin
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:04am On Aug 19, 2017
LordOfNaira:


Stop embarrassing yourself. The guy never said iron preserves soft tissues. It was said by a paleontologist. And it was a postulation that should serve as a basis for argument. Science is not as straightforward as you people think. You cannot just feel you have discovered something and start passing it around as a theory or the truth.

Yeah, he never said it
But he used it as a basis to call out a discovery made by a scientist.
Instead of trying to face the truth that those bones can never be 65 million years old, he chose to call the discovery "pseudoscience"....

Please remove the chunk in your eyes, and read the thread properly before writing anything.

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 11:05am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


Some one quoted research, you said it was from apologetics page
And you say i have grammar problems?

And then you used "postulate" to conclude that soft tissue can be preserved for 65 million years...
And used it as basis to call out the scientist who just won a case....

You are an utter Joke grin

You no get shame this guy?
I know you love to have the last word.
Take your best shot now because our discussion has ended on this thread.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Ranchhoddas: 11:06am On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

Utter foolishness on their part, they were already masturbating on the thread, without understanding the story, even the poster sef,

The thing just tire me.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:12am On Aug 19, 2017
Ranchhoddas:
You no get shame this guy?
I know you love to have the last word.
Take your best shot now because our discussion has ended on this thread.

Sharrap there.
Anything you are exposed on, and have nothing more to say

You take this route.
Foolishness, instead of you to quietly admit that those bones can never be 65 million years old, you decided to dig up "foolish postulations".

Then telling us they were mere "postulate" when it was time to back up.

Get out of here,
Joker

1 Like 1 Share

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by butterflylion: 11:16am On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

Utter foolishness on their part, they were already masturbating on the thread, without understanding the story, even the poster sef,


What was there not to understand? Is it not true that a supposed 65milli years fossil still had soft tissue in it? Did the research submission I posted not declare such an impossibility?

Why was this scientist not ever sacked earlier and they had to wait for him to declare his observations and then sharply he was fired with religion as the excuse?

Na you no understand the story and the conspiracy.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:18am On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

Utter foolishness on their part, they were already masturbating on the thread, without understanding the story, even the poster sef,


You can preserve soft tissue for 65 million years yet you have problems believing people can come back to life from dead.....

Your own ignorance comes with hypocrisy!

1 Like 1 Share

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by butterflylion: 11:23am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


You can preserve soft tissue for 65 million years yet you have problems believing people can come back to life from dead.....

Your own ignorance comes with hypocrisy!

Wa gbayi! cheesy

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Nobody: 11:37am On Aug 19, 2017
Biologos Logo

Search

Common Questions
Blogs
Resources
Forum
“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

October 19, 2015 | By Scott Buchanan (guest author) on Faith and Science Seeking Understanding




INTRO BY JIM: Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made worldwide headlines in 2005 for announcing that she had discovered soft tissue preserved in 65 million year old dinosaur fossils. Those who deny the scientific evidence for the old age of the earth have attempted to leverage this discovery to cast doubt on dating methods. But that is a misrepresentation of her findings. Scott Buchanan has meticulously poured through the details of Schweitzer’s work and presented it on the blog, Letters to Creationists. He gives us here a summary of the issues. See also our interview with Schweitzer herself on the blog last year.



For fossils as old as dinosaurs (over 65 million years), the conventional wisdom has been that no original proteins from once-living cells could remain. If the delicate structure of soft body parts is discernable in a fossil, that is normally because these parts were converted to some type of hard mineral during the fossilization process. However, over the past two decades, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has rocked the world of paleontology by presenting visual evidence of soft tissues recovered from the interior of dinosaur bones, and biochemical evidence indicating that these are in fact the remnants of the original cells and structures from within the dinosaur bone pores. For instance, here is a network of blood vessels, containing little round red things that look like red blood cells:



High magnification of dinosaur vessels shows branching pattern (arrows) and round, red microstructures in the vessels. Source: Schweitzer, et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”, Science, 307 (2005) 1952. Reprinted with permission.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old – and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue”. For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways:

TISSUES AND PROTEINS IDENTIFIED IN DINOSAUR BONES

These remarks pertain mainly to thigh bones from two dinosaur specimens, a T. rex (approx. 68 million years old) and a duckbill hadrosaur (approx. 80 million years old). In both cases, the fossils had been buried in sandstone (which may help wick away destructive enzymes from the corpse) and the fossils were analyzed within a relatively short time after excavation, which minimized degradation from sudden exposure to a new set of environmental conditions.

After dissolving away the mineral portion of the bone with weak acid, various types of flexible structures were recovered. They conform to the microscopic pores of the bone in which they had resided, so they are mainly viewed under a microscope. These structures include transparent, branching hollow vessels corresponding to the blood vessels found in modern animals (e.g. ostriches), and also what look like modern osteocyte (bone) cells. Various biochemical tests have indicated that these structures are composed of animal protein, showing that they derive from the original dinosaur tissue, as opposed to being merely biofilms produced by microbes which invaded the bone pores.

The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity.

Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years. In contrast, the ostrich vessels in plain water showed significant degradation within three days, which is more than 240 times faster degradation than with the hemoglobin. The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles.

Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.

WIDE VARIATIONS IN TISSUE DECAY RATES

There are plenty of other examples of wide difference in the rates of tissue degradation, besides the ostrich blood vessels cited above. For instance, raw meat may spoil in a few days at room temperature, but will keep for weeks in a refrigerator, and for years if it is frozen or (in the case of country hams) if it is treated with salt and smoke. All the flesh can decay off a human face within a month if a body is left outside. However, this chap found in a Danish peat bog looks pretty fresh after more than 2200 years, demonstrating a difference of more than 25,000 (1 month versus 2200 years) in decay rates:



Tollund bog-man. Source: "Tollundmannen" by Sven Rosborn. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Thus, protein and soft tissue decomposition rates vary enormously, depending on the conditions. Some academics have done lab studies of protein degradation using accelerated conditions of high temperature and high acidity, but it is not valid to extrapolate those results to proteins locked in the pores of dinosaur bones. The reality is that we don’t know, with any precision, how fast proteins degrade under the conditions found in dinosaur fossil bones. Thus, it is incorrect to claim that we know that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in any form for 80 million years. In contrast, the rates of nuclear decomposition of elements have been measured over and over again, and found to be essentially constant. As discussed in the main article, there are a few conditions where nuclear decay can be accelerated, but these conditions are known and predictable, and do not apply to the rock layers in Montana where these dinosaur fossils were found. Thus, it is absurd and insupportable to set aside the radioactive dating of these rock layers because some partly degraded soft tissue has been found in dinosaur fossils from those layers.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world.

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say

Both the author and Mary Schweitzer are Christians.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Nobody: 11:39am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


You can preserve soft tissue for 65 million years yet you have problems believing people can come back to life from dead.....

Your own ignorance comes with hypocrisy!

Different types of soft tissue exist, skin is different from cartilage and I like how you and butterflylion fail to of cannot see the distinction
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:42am On Aug 19, 2017
LightandDarkness:
Biologos Logo

Search

Common Questions
Blogs
Resources
Forum
“Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

October 19, 2015 | By Scott Buchanan (guest author) on Faith and Science Seeking Understanding




INTRO BY JIM: Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made worldwide headlines in 2005 for announcing that she had discovered soft tissue preserved in 65 million year old dinosaur fossils. Those who deny the scientific evidence for the old age of the earth have attempted to leverage this discovery to cast doubt on dating methods. But that is a misrepresentation of her findings. Scott Buchanan has meticulously poured through the details of Schweitzer’s work and presented it on the blog, Letters to Creationists. He gives us here a summary of the issues. See also our interview with Schweitzer herself on the blog last year.



For fossils as old as dinosaurs (over 65 million years), the conventional wisdom has been that no original proteins from once-living cells could remain. If the delicate structure of soft body parts is discernable in a fossil, that is normally because these parts were converted to some type of hard mineral during the fossilization process. However, over the past two decades, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has rocked the world of paleontology by presenting visual evidence of soft tissues recovered from the interior of dinosaur bones, and biochemical evidence indicating that these are in fact the remnants of the original cells and structures from within the dinosaur bone pores. For instance, here is a network of blood vessels, containing little round red things that look like red blood cells:



High magnification of dinosaur vessels shows branching pattern (arrows) and round, red microstructures in the vessels. Source: Schweitzer, et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”, Science, 307 (2005) 1952. Reprinted with permission.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old – and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue”. For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways:

TISSUES AND PROTEINS IDENTIFIED IN DINOSAUR BONES

These remarks pertain mainly to thigh bones from two dinosaur specimens, a T. rex (approx. 68 million years old) and a duckbill hadrosaur (approx. 80 million years old). In both cases, the fossils had been buried in sandstone (which may help wick away destructive enzymes from the corpse) and the fossils were analyzed within a relatively short time after excavation, which minimized degradation from sudden exposure to a new set of environmental conditions.

After dissolving away the mineral portion of the bone with weak acid, various types of flexible structures were recovered. They conform to the microscopic pores of the bone in which they had resided, so they are mainly viewed under a microscope. These structures include transparent, branching hollow vessels corresponding to the blood vessels found in modern animals (e.g. ostriches), and also what look like modern osteocyte (bone) cells. Various biochemical tests have indicated that these structures are composed of animal protein, showing that they derive from the original dinosaur tissue, as opposed to being merely biofilms produced by microbes which invaded the bone pores.

The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity.

Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years. In contrast, the ostrich vessels in plain water showed significant degradation within three days, which is more than 240 times faster degradation than with the hemoglobin. The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles.

Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.

WIDE VARIATIONS IN TISSUE DECAY RATES

There are plenty of other examples of wide difference in the rates of tissue degradation, besides the ostrich blood vessels cited above. For instance, raw meat may spoil in a few days at room temperature, but will keep for weeks in a refrigerator, and for years if it is frozen or (in the case of country hams) if it is treated with salt and smoke. All the flesh can decay off a human face within a month if a body is left outside. However, this chap found in a Danish peat bog looks pretty fresh after more than 2200 years, demonstrating a difference of more than 25,000 (1 month versus 2200 years) in decay rates:



Tollund bog-man. Source: "Tollundmannen" by Sven Rosborn. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Thus, protein and soft tissue decomposition rates vary enormously, depending on the conditions. Some academics have done lab studies of protein degradation using accelerated conditions of high temperature and high acidity, but it is not valid to extrapolate those results to proteins locked in the pores of dinosaur bones. The reality is that we don’t know, with any precision, how fast proteins degrade under the conditions found in dinosaur fossil bones. Thus, it is incorrect to claim that we know that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in any form for 80 million years. In contrast, the rates of nuclear decomposition of elements have been measured over and over again, and found to be essentially constant. As discussed in the main article, there are a few conditions where nuclear decay can be accelerated, but these conditions are known and predictable, and do not apply to the rock layers in Montana where these dinosaur fossils were found. Thus, it is absurd and insupportable to set aside the radioactive dating of these rock layers because some partly degraded soft tissue has been found in dinosaur fossils from those layers.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world.

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say

Both the author and Mary Schweitzer are Christians.

Already debunked above

Follow this quote

butterflylion:


Oga I am sure you saw where the website clearly stated it was a report from The University College London research team.

That was no theory but evidence of actual scientific research.

Read it again and be healed of ignorance. I say be healed! Be healed! Be healed! Ni oruko Jeeesu!

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Nobody: 11:47am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


Already debunked above

Follow this quote


Where is the link? If you read my post you will see that Schweitzers team demonstrated it's possibility through experiments.


"Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years. In contrast, the ostrich vessels in plain water showed significant degradation within three days, which is more than 240 times faster degradation than with the hemoglobin. The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles."

So debunked is hardly the word I would use, more like open to debate. And in addition, you are basically arguing with the research of an evangelical Christian not an atheist scientist here grin
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:48am On Aug 19, 2017
LightandDarkness:


Different types of soft tissue exist, skin is different from cartilage and I like how you and butterflylion fail to of cannot see the distinction

Oga, no soft tissue can last long like that.


Unless you dont know the relationship between elements that make up living tissues

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by MrMontella(m): 11:50am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


You can preserve soft tissue for 65 million years yet you have problems believing people can come back to life from dead.....

Your own ignorance comes with hypocrisy!
The two things are totally unrelated,, stop the apples to oranges bull.

2.. Your thread was of the idea that they paid him to cover up some truth or so and that he discovered a new thing... Both of which are totally false.

So Mr oga,you have no point

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:51am On Aug 19, 2017
LightandDarkness:


Where is the link? If you read my post you will see that Schweitzers team demonstrated it's possibility through experiments.


"Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins. Schweitzer’s group performed a dramatic experiment to demonstrate this effect, using modern ostrich blood vessels: the blood vessels which were incubated in a solution of hemoglobin (extracted from the red blood cells of chicken and ostrich) showed no signs of degradation for more than two years. In contrast, the ostrich vessels in plain water showed significant degradation within three days, which is more than 240 times faster degradation than with the hemoglobin. The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles."

So debunked is hardly the word I would use, more like open to debate. And in addition, you are basically arguing with the research of an evangelical Christian not an atheist scientist here grin

So an experiment of 2 years no degradation is what you used to compare 64 million years?
Hian undecided

Even some formaldehyde experts will beat that.
Oga, please dont force yourself on science.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:53am On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

The two things are totally unrelated,, stop the apples to oranges bull.

2.. Your thread was of the idea that they paid him to cover up some truth or so and that he discovered a new thing... Both of which are totally false.

So Mr oga,you have no point

Exactly, thats why he was fired
And thats what he told the court
And the court agreed with him

This must be hard for you to swallow.
I know undecided
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by MrMontella(m): 11:53am On Aug 19, 2017
butterflylion:


What was there not to understand? Is it not true that a supposed 65milli years fossil still had soft tissue in it? Did the research submission I posted not declare such an impossibility?

Why was this scientist not ever sacked earlier and they had to wait for him to declare his observations and then sharply he was fired with religion as the excuse?

Na you no understand the story and the conspiracy.
Keep your victim persecution syndrome posts to yourself sir.


Read and understand, ranchhoddas has already cleared your above.
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 11:56am On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

Keep your victim persecution syndrome posts to yourself sir.


Read and understand, ranchhoddas has already cleared your above.
Simple question
Why did the university loose the case?
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by MrMontella(m): 11:57am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


Exactly, thats why he was fired
And thats what he told the court
And the court agreed with him

This must be hard for you to swallow.
I know undecided
I know thinking is not your forte .
Carry on with your display....

He was fired because he discovered a new thing, yeah right, tell that to Mary who discovered hers on a three a decade ago, and didn't lose her job!
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by Nobody: 11:57am On Aug 19, 2017
felixomor:


So an experiment of 2 years no degradation is what you used to compare 64 million years?
Hian undecided

Even some formaldehyde experts will beat that.
Oga, please dont force yourself on science.

It demonstrates that the model does hold credence and it not simply a hypothesis, it seems you're the one forcing yourself on science as you were very comfortable accepting butterflylions sulphur, methionine, oxidation research from ICR without any link?

Anyway if you again read the article I posted.

"Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.

WIDE VARIATIONS IN TISSUE DECAY RATES

There are plenty of other examples of wide difference in the rates of tissue degradation, besides the ostrich blood vessels cited above. For instance, raw meat may spoil in a few days at room temperature, but will keep for weeks in a refrigerator, and for years if it is frozen or (in the case of country hams) if it is treated with salt and smoke. All the flesh can decay off a human face within a month if a body is left outside. However, this chap found in a Danish peat bog looks pretty fresh after more than 2200 years, demonstrating a difference of more than 25,000 (1 month versus 2200 years) in decay rates:



Tollund bog-man. Source: "Tollundmannen" by Sven Rosborn. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Thus, protein and soft tissue decomposition rates vary enormously, depending on the conditions"

There are several factors controlling degradation rate, so do you know with absolute certainty that it is impossible for soft tissue to be preserved 65 million years especially after research has been published showing hemoglobin slowed down blood vessel degradation at a factor of 240?
Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 12:02pm On Aug 19, 2017
LightandDarkness:


It demonstrates that the model does hold credence and it not simply a hypothesis, it seems you're the one forcing yourself on science as you were very comfortable accepting butterflylions sulphur, methionine, oxidation research from ICR without any link?

Anyway if you again read the article I posted.

"Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus, several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.

WIDE VARIATIONS IN TISSUE DECAY RATES

There are plenty of other examples of wide difference in the rates of tissue degradation, besides the ostrich blood vessels cited above. For instance, raw meat may spoil in a few days at room temperature, but will keep for weeks in a refrigerator, and for years if it is frozen or (in the case of country hams) if it is treated with salt and smoke. All the flesh can decay off a human face within a month if a body is left outside. However, this chap found in a Danish peat bog looks pretty fresh after more than 2200 years, demonstrating a difference of more than 25,000 (1 month versus 2200 years) in decay rates:



Tollund bog-man. Source: "Tollundmannen" by Sven Rosborn. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Thus, protein and soft tissue decomposition rates vary enormously, depending on the conditions"

There are several factors controlling degradation rate, so do you know with absolute certainty that it is impossible for soft tissue to be preserved 65 million years especially after research has been published showing hemoglobin slowed down blood vessel degradation at a factor of 240?

Butterflylion clearly showed u a reasearch link that debunks what u copied
And even explaining the chemistry behind why soft tissue cant last 65 million years.

I even buttressed it.
Even the strongest formaldehyde cant last that long.

You can all but pretend you dont see that

1 Like

Re: EVOLUTION SPOILER!: Soft Tissue In Dinosaur Fossil, University Settles Scientist by felixomor: 12:04pm On Aug 19, 2017
MrMontella:

I know thinking is not your forte .
Carry on with your display....

He was fired because he discovered a new thing, yeah right, tell that to Mary who discovered hers on a three a decade ago, and didn't lose her job!

Cant u see when it was time to address the topic, you copped out with the 2nd paragraph of yours.

Thats why you will never make sense

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)

Archbishop Ede: I Did Not Announce Lift On Ban Of Religious Activities In Enugu / PHOTOS From 'The Experience' In Lagos. / Anambra Anglican Priest Makes U-Turn, Rescinds From His Pro-Polygamy Movement

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 99
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.