Dinosaur soft tissue

[rwatts]

Mary H. Schweitzer, Wenxia Zheng, Timothy P. Cleland, Mark B. Goodwin, Elizabeth Boatman, Elizabeth Theil, Matthew A. Marcus and Sirine C. Fakra, A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time

- Schweitzer et al. describe how they found a potential answer to the problem.

The paper introduces the problem by describing the history leading up to its identification. That soft tissue structures

[Jorge]

structures

From above : "While virtual stability over 2 years (at least) is nowhere near a
few tens of millions of years, it certainly casts the conventional wisdom into doubt."



First of all, it's NOT just "a few tens of millions of years" - in some cases it's over 100 million years.

But that's just nit picking. A couple (2) of years is on the order of 10^-6 percent of the alleged total amount of time. This provides an excellent example of what I mean when I have referred to pseudo-science (such as Evolution) as "unrestrained extrapolation". In typical operational science, if any scientist were to extrapolate from 2 years to 100 million years --- or from 2 grams to 110 TONS (which is the same ratio) or from 2 degrees F to 100 million degrees F or ... you get the picture --- that scientist would have his/her credentials revoked. Heck, he/she would never have been awarded the credentials to begin with!

But in order to rescue Evolution and gigayears these people are given Carte Blanche to do whatever they wish! Then the results get published in "reputable scientific journals" so that an authoritative voice is accorded to them. Don't you dare then dispute these claims - if you do, you are labeled as "anti-science".

Roland, the entire thing is a sham and anyone swallowing this stupidity is a fool.
Try a bit of CRITICAL thinking (instead of blindly following) and you'll agree.
Knowing you as I do, my words will SWOOSH a mile over your head.
I'm writing this for those that still have eyes to see.

Jorge

[Roy]

But that's just nit picking. A couple (2) of years is on the order of 10^-6 percent of the alleged total amount of time. This provides an excellent example of what I mean when I have referred to pseudo-science (such as Evolution) as "unrestrained extrapolation". In typical operational science, if any scientist were to extrapolate from 2 years to 100 million years --- or from 2 grams to 110 TONS (which is the same ratio) or from 2 degrees F to 100 million degrees F or ... you get the picture --- that scientist would have his/her credentials revoked. Heck, he/she would never have been awarded the credentials to begin with!

That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

Roy

[Roy]

Since the 1960s ...

Interesting. Thanks.

Roy

[Jorge]

That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

Roy

You cannot possibly be that stupid ... or that dishonest ... or both.
Then again, on second thought ...

Read the published works on the Moon's recession and it's all there in black and white.
Your attempt to equate the two is exposed as illegitimate, R-R-R-Roy

Jorge

[Roy]

See new thread.

[Omniskeptical]

That would include anyone who extrapolates the moon's current recession rate back for more than a billion years. Jorge has just revoked the scientific credentials of every creation science organisation, most of the scientists in them, most of their on-line advocates, and of course himself.

Roy

Now he hasn't. You're just a jerk [like him] with nothing better to do. [edit: I thought Roy was talking about secular scientific organizations.]

[klaus54]

Now he hasn't. You're just a jerk [like him] with nothing better to do.

[klaus54]

You cannot possibly be that stupid ... or that dishonest ... or both.
Then again, on second thought ...

Read the published works on the Moon's recession and it's all there in black and white.
Your attempt to equate the two is exposed as illegitimate, R-R-R-Roy

Jorge

Well, you should know -- you're the TWeb expert on and prime example of both.

K54

[Omniskeptical]

Well, you should know -- you're the TWeb expert on and prime example of both.

K54

Then why bother with him? I mean even in the creationist organizations, he has the status of peeon.

[rwatts]

.... as "unrestrained extrapolation".

But in order to rescue Evolution and gigayears these people are given Carte Blanche to do whatever they wish!

Roland, the entire thing is a sham and anyone swallowing this stupidity is a fool.
Try a bit of CRITICAL thinking (instead of blindly following) and you'll agree.
Knowing you as I do, my words will SWOOSH a mile over your head.
I'm writing this for those that still have eyes to see.

Tell me Jorge


Do you think that:-

1) The iron can act as a preserver - either directly or indirectly? And,


2) The source of the iron was from the dead animal in the case of the fossil?


[rwatts]

Interesting. Thanks.

Roy

That is one thing good about trying to converse with fence posts. It forces me to look at the scientific literature and sometimes I can understand it, sort of. Besides the introductions and conclusions make for great reading.

Mind you, not that the fence posts take any notice when I write up what I have found out. But I often enjoy learning about these things.

[Jorge]

An important part of science is, of course, making sound logical inferences. Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

If you answer "yes" (as I expect), then applying the same liberal 'logic' F. Crick was also probably "on to something" when he proposed extraterrestrials as the source of the DNA on Earth. Sure, if that's how you wish to conduct your science then be my guest. Just don't involve me with it, okay?


Sure, Roland, sure. Like I said, you go ahead and practice that kind of
"science" and let me practice my kind, okay?

You apparently don't know the meaning of "unrestrained extrapolation".
Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years? Are
you freagin' kidding!!! Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.

Tell me Jorge


Do you think that:-

1) The iron can act as a preserver - either directly or indirectly? And,


2) The source of the iron was from the dead animal in the case of the fossil?


Yes, it is possible. Can that "preserver" preserve over tens of millions of years?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Basic chemistry and thermodynamics says NO. An organic molecule
with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.
Don't take my word for it - go to your local university and ask a chemistry professor.

Sorry, Roland - these people and yourself are grasping at imaginary straws for the
sole purpose of preserving certain 'Sacred Beliefs' of a Materialistic religion.
You can call that "science" if you wish, but count me out. And for that I will
be labeled "anti-science" ... go figure.

Jorge

[klaus54]

An important part of science is, of course, making sound logical inferences. Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

If you answer "yes" (as I expect), then applying the same liberal 'logic' F. Crick was also probably "on to something" when he proposed extraterrestrials as the source of the DNA on Earth. Sure, if that's how you wish to conduct your science then be my guest. Just don't involve me with it, okay?




Sure, Roland, sure. Like I said, you go ahead and practice that kind of
"science" and let me practice my kind, okay?

You apparently don't know the meaning of "unrestrained extrapolation".
Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years? Are
you freagin' kidding!!! Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.





Yes, it is possible. Can that "preserver" preserve over tens of millions of years?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Basic chemistry and thermodynamics says NO. An organic molecule
with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.
Don't take my word for it - go to your local university and ask a chemistry professor.

Sorry, Roland - these people and yourself are grasping at imaginary straws for the
sole purpose of preserving certain 'Sacred Beliefs' of a Materialistic religion.
You can call that "science" if you wish, but count me out. And for that I will
be labeled "anti-science" ... go figure.

Jorge

As always with Jorge, ideology trumps data.

He's nothing if not consistent in his blind adherence to unsupportable ideology -- which he can't even support unambiguously with Scripture!

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, "There are fools, damn fools, and Jorge."

K54

[rwatts]

Given that, are you sure that you want to stand by your claim that "they might be onto something here"? I already know your answer but I did want to extend you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

Thank you Jorge. 

Indeed I will stand by my claim because their research certainly questions conventional wisdom.

Did they note a correlation between hemo-iron and longevity? Let's
grant that they did - over a few years time. Is it possible or even
logical to extrapolate a few years into 100 million-plus years?

Although the exact mechanism of microbial inhibition by HB is not known, it has been noted in earlier works [63,64]. The iron may be directly protecting proteins by blocking active sites recognized by enzymes of degradation (supported by the increase in antibody signal after treatment with iron chela- tor), or it may be providing protection indirectly by binding to oxygen, and thus preventing oxidative damage [68,69] or outcompeting bacterial mechanisms, similar to ferritins [45].

Here, we observe the intimate association between iron (goethite) particles and soft tissues recovered from dinosaurs. In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network [70,71]; after death, HB could cause localized, haeme-based radical cross-linking in dinosaur tissues. Moreover, HB-derived haeme, previously identified in dinosaur bone [72], has recently been identified in Miocene mosquitoes, supporting the durability of this prosthetic unit [73].

There are additional ideas:-

So while there remains a humungous difference between a few years preservation and millions of years preservation, for the reasons given, they may well have found a part of the answer.

At the very least it turns conventional wisdom on its head.

If it really is so that protein half life and microbial activity mean that dinosaur soft tissue proves a recent flood, then this means of tissue fixation shows that estimated protein half-life, under some circumstance, have been waaaaaaaaaaaay underestimated.

Imagine increasing protein half-life from say 10 years to 2,400 years, or from 100 years to 24,000 years?

An organic molecule with oxygen and iron is not going to remain intact for tens of millions of years.

Conventional wisdom was that it could not remain intact for 2 years, even. The control model showed massive decay. The HB model showed virtually no decay.

If the iron particles were not associated with those tissues then you might have a point. But they remain associated with those tissues.




Think, think, think of ionic and covalent bonds
in organic compounds and what happens over time due to external
physical forces. This isn't even worth debating.



Yes it is worth debating. So what are you getting at here?