Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

First Dinosaur Brain Discovered

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First Dinosaur Brain Discovered

    A team of British researchers has announced that they have identified the first fossilized remains of a part of a brain that came from a dinosaur that lived some 133 mya (Early Cretaceous) in what is now present day southeastern England.

    What has been described as "a plain brown pebble" was discovered in 2004 by fossil hunter Jamie Hiscocks (who has also discovered a 140 myo spider's web, thought to be the world's oldest) in some of the fluvial sediments that make up the Tunbridge Wells Sandstone located between Cooden beach and the town of Bexhill-on-Sea (often simply Bexhill) in Sussex, England (84 km or 52 mi. southwest of London).

    The fossil, which became exposed due to tidal erosion, drew the attention of study co-author Martin Brasier of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences, who asked study co-author David Norman, a dinosaur paleobiologist at Cambridge University's Department of Earth Sciences to examine it. Norman identified it as part of the endocranial cast of an iguanodontian dinosaur, a type of ornithopod dinosaur (herbivore) that could easily shift from bipedality to quadrupedality and which lived between the Late Jurassic to the late Cretaceous Period in Asia, Europe and North America.

    Examination of the small fossil using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and imaging and computed tomography (CT) scanning revealed the preservation of detailed structures interpreted as meningeal fabrics (a membrane that enveloped and supported the brain), blood vessels (including capillaries) collagen strands and possibly adjacent, superficial cortical tissues, which have been replaced by calcium phosphate (collophane) lined by, or infilled with, microcrystalline iron carbonate (siderite).

    The scans of the fossil revealed signs that the dinosaur's meninges and overall brain structure resembled those of living birds and crocodilians.

    The iguanodon appears to have died in or near a swamp or bog and ended up flipped over in it so that the top of its skull was submerged in shallow, stagnant, highly acidic, low oxygen water and partially buried in the sediment at the bottom of it. "In effect, that environment pickled the upper part of the head of the animal," Norman explained. This "pickling" allowed the tissue to eventually become fossilized.

    In reptiles today, the brain only takes up about half the space within the skull cavity being surrounded by a dense drainage system consisting of blood vessels and vascular chambers. The fact that the brain from this iguanodon was apparently pressed directly against the skull immediately raised the question of whether some dinosaurs had larger brains than was previously thought.

    Dr. Norman urges caution and suggests that the most likely explanation for the brain being directly against the skull is that as it decayed after death gravity caused it to settle against the roof of the skull cavity, in that the head decayed upside-down, and not because dinosaur brains were bigger.

    The dinosaur brain fragment was described in a special issue of the Geological Society of London honoring study co-author Martin Brasier, who died in 2014 in an auto accident





    dino brain 1.jpg
    A British two-pence coin, about the size of a U.S. quarter, is shown for size.


    dino brain2.jpg




    Further Reading:
    Last edited by rogue06; 11-05-2016, 11:33 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    Whoa.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      No wonder Hillary can't remember things.
      When I Survey....

      Comment


      • #4
        Neat! I have been following this discovery!
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          They found Shuny's Brain?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            They found Shuny's Brain?
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              A team of British researchers has announced that they have identified the first fossilized remains of a part of a brain that came from a dinosaur that lived some 133 mya (Early Cretaceous) in what is now present day southeastern England.
              I suppose none did any attempt of carbon dating? Were there any still organic remains?
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                I suppose none did any attempt of carbon dating?
                Carbon dating would be worthless considering the age of the object and the range of carbon dating.

                Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                Were there any still organic remains?
                Apparently it's completely mineralized.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  I suppose none did any attempt of carbon dating? Were there any still organic remains?
                  Carbon dating is of no use before 60,000 years ago.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Carbon dating would be worthless considering the age of the object and the range of carbon dating.
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Carbon dating is of no use before 60,000 years ago.
                    I am aware of that ideology.

                    I just don't agree with it.

                    Objects dated well beyond 60,000 years by totally unreliable methods like K-Ar or biostratigraphy or U-Pb or whatever sometimes do also contain carbon in amounts that are "datable".

                    With assumption of a carbon 14 level back when dinos or wood was breathing or eating of c. 100% of present level, we do get ages like 55,000 or 22,000 years for objects expected to be millions of years old.

                    This can in its turn be translated if as a Creationist you believe the carbon level rose.

                    For 22,000 years BP, the initial carbon level would have been too high for fitting with carbon levels of Flood year, so must be presumed as early post-Flood.

                    But 50-35,000 years BP, we can certainly be talking about minor variations of a low initial C14-level 4974 years ago.

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Apparently it's completely mineralized.
                    OK. Sometimes dinos' remains aren't.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      I am aware of that ideology.

                      I just don't agree with it.
                      Agreeing with it is not the issue. Science is not based on some agreeing nor disagreeing with it.

                      Objects dated well beyond 60,000 years by totally unreliable methods like K-Ar or biostratigraphy or U-Pb or whatever sometimes do also contain carbon in amounts that are "datable". [/quote]

                      Not true, please document your unreliable assertions.

                      With assumption of a carbon 14 level back when dinos or wood was breathing or eating of c. 100% of present level, we do get ages like 55,000 or 22,000 years for objects expected to be millions of years old.
                      No we do not get unreliable dating with standard accepted reliable scientific methods of dating. The above is simply bad science. Carbon dating is scientifically limited by the actual known half-life of Carbon 14.


                      This can in its turn be translated if as a Creationist you believe the carbon level rose.
                      If you believe?!?!?!!? There is no evidence for this.

                      For 22,000 years BP, the initial carbon level would have been too high for fitting with carbon levels of Flood year, so must be presumed as early post-Flood.
                      Ther is no objective evidence that this remotely factual, and of course no evidence for the flood itself.


                      But 50-35,000 years BP, we can certainly be talking about minor variations of a low initial C14-level 4974 years ago.
                      Minor variations do not effect the over dating methods.


                      OK. Sometimes dinos' remains aren't.
                      ALL known dinosaur remains known are mineralized.

                      All of the above is based on self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in ancient mythology.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        I am aware of that ideology.

                        I just don't agree with it.
                        It has nothing to do with "ideology" but with limitations of the test.

                        Think of it this way, if you took one of those old fashioned postal hand scales which can weigh things up to a quarter pound (roughly 113 grams)


                        and used it to try to weigh a 16 lb. bowling ball, are you exceeding the scales limitations or is it "ideology" to say it won't work?

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Originally posted by hg as cited
                          Objects dated well beyond 60,000 years by totally unreliable methods like K-Ar or biostratigraphy or U-Pb or whatever sometimes do also contain carbon in amounts that are "datable".
                          Not true, please document your unreliable assertions.
                          I gave documentation from CMI.
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            It has nothing to do with "ideology" but with limitations of the test.

                            Think of it this way, if you took one of those old fashioned postal hand scales which can weigh things up to a quarter pound (roughly 113 grams)

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]20528[/ATTACH]

                            and used it to try to weigh a 16 lb. bowling ball, are you exceeding the scales limitations or is it "ideology" to say it won't work?
                            It is ideology to pretend that the bowling ball would leave the postal scale as little affected as a feather would with a car scale (or whatever you call the things you weigh cars on in English).

                            The non-ideological and according to theory prediction for the bowling ball on the postal scale is that the arm would push up immediately and perhaps the bowling ball take the postal scale down. No one would be even slightly tempted to consider the bowling ball as "300 g" (even if that is heavy for a letter).

                            The similarily non-ideological and according to theory prediction is that an organic object 65 million years old does not have one single atom of carbon 14 left.

                            And that means the carbon dates actually obtained "the wrong way" COULD NOT have been obtained at all.

                            And yes, we are talking of carbon within the detection limit.
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Minor variations do not effect the over dating methods.
                              A variation of atmospheric carbon content between 3.9% and 2% in atmosphere 4974 years ago will yield (assuming constant decay rates which I am not disputing), by multiplication of decay to present which is 54.788%, present content in samples of

                              54.788% = 0.54788
                              * 3.9% -> * 0.039
                              * 2% - > * 0.02
                              = 0.02136732 = 2.136732 %
                              = 0.0109576 = 1.09576 %

                              This will yield a carbon dating of:

                              2.136732 % - > 31,800 years BP
                              1.09576 % - > 37,300 years BP

                              Get variation down to originally 1 %, you will get present content of 0.0054788 or of 0.54788 %, which puts the dating to 43,000 BP.

                              Since beginning of this thread, I will no longer consider it possible that 20,000 BP is from Flood, since that implies 8.898%, and 0.08898/0.54788 = 0.1624078265313572 or 16.24078265313572 % back in Flood Year.

                              A variation between 16% and 1% of present carbon 14 content would be a major one, and one I do not envisage. Hence my rejection of 20,000 BP dates as to Flood Year, they must be post-Flood.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              ALL known dinosaur remains known are mineralized.

                              All of the above is based on self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in ancient mythology.
                              I am sorry that you have a self-imposed ignorance and dishonesty with an archaic belief in scientific facts that have changed.

                              Dinosaur soft tissue has been found since then, and also remaining bone with original content, not permineralised.
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
                              4 responses
                              29 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post eider
                              by eider
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
                              41 responses
                              162 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              139 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X