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

Just wondering ...

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

  • Just wondering ...

    Just wondering if any of the Evo-Faithful here have a believable explanation for this recent find. The physics/chemistry of bio-pigments completely disallows lasting anywhere near 100 million years (heck, even 1 million years would be a stretch).

    http://www.icr.org/article/10194

    So, any of you Evo-Faithful wanna try "explaining" this find?

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Just wondering if any of the Evo-Faithful here have a believable explanation for this recent find. The physics/chemistry of bio-pigments completely disallows lasting anywhere near 100 million years (heck, even 1 million years would be a stretch).

    http://www.icr.org/article/10194

    So, any of you Evo-Faithful wanna try "explaining" this find?

    The explanation is you're a moron who didn't read the original paper and is just vomiting back the usual YEC stupidity from ICR.

    An Exceptionally Preserved Three-Dimensional Armored Dinosaur Reveals Insights into Coloration and Cretaceous Predator-Prey Dynamics
    Brown et al
    Current Biology, Vol 27, Issue 16, 21 August 2017, P. 2514-2521

    Abstract: Predator-prey dynamics are an important evolutionary driver of escalating predation mode and efficiency, and commensurate responses of prey [1–3]. Among these strategies, camouflage is important for visual concealment, with countershading the most universally observed [4–6]. Extant terrestrial herbivores free of significant predation pressure, due to large size or isolation, do not exhibit countershading. Modern predator-prey dynamics may not be directly applicable to those of the Mesozoic due to the dominance of very large, visually oriented theropod dinosaurs [7]. Despite thyreophoran dinosaurs’ possessing extensive dermal armor, some of the most extreme examples of anti-predator structures [8, 9], little direct evidence of predation on these and other dinosaur megaherbivores has been documented. Here we describe a new, exquisitely three-dimensionally preserved nodosaurid ankylosaur, Borealopelta markmitchelli gen. et sp. nov., from the Early Cretaceous of Alberta, which preserves integumentary structures as organic layers, including continuous fields of epidermal scales and intact horn sheaths capping the body armor. We identify melanin in the organic residues through mass spectroscopic analyses and observe lighter pigmentation of the large parascapular spines, consistent with display, and a pattern of countershading across the body. With an estimated body mass exceeding 1,300 kg, B. markmitchelli was much larger than modern terrestrial mammals that either are countershaded or experience significant predation pressure as adults. Presence of countershading suggests predation pressure strong enough to select for concealment in this megaherbivore despite possession of massive dorsal and lateral armor, illustrating a significant dichotomy between Mesozoic predator-prey dynamics and those of modern terrestrial systems.
    From the paper

    The dorsal integument is well preserved as an organic film derived from the keratin sheaths over the osteoderms, integumentary scales, and the epicuticle of hinge regions between scales. The distribution of the film correlates well to the expected distribution of melanin, a pigment that has been found to preserve in a number of vertebrate integumentary structures [6, 18, 19]. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDAX) analyses reveal that the organic material is present as solid to finely granular material with desiccation cracks scattered in a matrix largely composed of siderite cement (Figure S3ii; see also STAR Methods and Supplemental Observations Under the Electron Microscope). No apparent melanosomes are preserved. Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS) reveals spectra of negative secondary ions that have an overall relative secondary ion intensity similar to previously studies of fossil melanins (Figure S3iiiA; see also STAR Methods and Supplemental Results from the TOF SIMS). Principal-component analyses demonstrate that there is a significant contribution of sulfur-bearing secondary ions to the organic material in TMP 2011.033.0001, which spread the nodosaur samples distinctly from other fossil melanin samples (Figure S3iiiB). These secondary ions have been identified for sulfur-bearing pheomelanin (benzothiazole) previously [19]. Pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (py-GC-MS) afforded pyrolysates with assemblages of small nitrogen-, oxygen- and sulfur-containing heterocyclic and aromatic molecules characteristic of eumelanin (e.g., pyrrole, indole, N-methylpyrrole, and methylphenol). Of special note is the presence of significant amounts of benzothiazole (Figure S3iv), which is diagnostic for pheomelanin. Although sulfur may be incorporated into melanin secondarily [20] to yield thiophenes, which are also observed and could similarly be derived from pheomelanin, this process is not known to give rise to benzothiazoles [20] (see also STAR Methods and Supplemental Results of Pyrolysis GC-MS).
    This isn't the first time traces of melanin have been found in dino fossils. Apparently it's just the first time the YECs noticed and decided to squawk about it.

    Comment


    • #3
      From the references cited in the linked article:

      Paleobiologist Jakob Vinther, an expert on animal coloration from the U.K.’s University of Bristol, has studied some of the world’s best fossils for signs of the pigment melanin. But after four days of working on this one—delicately scraping off samples smaller than flecks of grated Parmesan—even he is astounded.
      We identify melanin in the organic residues through mass spectroscopic analyses and observe lighter pigmentation of the large parascapular spines, consistent with display, and a pattern of countershading across the body.
      It is important to appreciate that what they see is not the actual colours, but the residues that would be expected 100 million years later. To see the science behind it, this article may be useful:

      http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...ct-animal-was/
      To see if this trend holds true for fossils, Vinther and colleagues aged melanin that was extracted from the feathers of nine living species of birds. By replicating the high temperature and high pressure conditions under which fossils form, they could observe the way fresh melanin changes during geologic burial and fossilization. “We were able to see how melanin chemically changes over millions of years, establishing a really exciting new way of unlocking information previously inaccessible in fossils,” first author Caitlin Colleary of Virginia Tech explained in a statement. Additionally, the team analyzed the molecular makeup of fossil melanosomes using an instrument called a time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometer.

      The artificially aged melanin ended up resembling chemical signatures found in well-preserved fossils ranging in age from 20 million to 300 million years. “The correlation of melanin color to shape is an ancient invention,” Vinther said. “We now know how melanin is preserved and we have the methods to confidently detect it.”
      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Just wondering if any of the Evo-Faithful here have a believable explanation for this recent find. The physics/chemistry of bio-pigments completely disallows lasting anywhere near 100 million years (heck, even 1 million years would be a stretch).

        http://www.icr.org/article/10194

        So, any of you Evo-Faithful wanna try "explaining" this find?

        Jorge
        Jorge,

        The issue here is that what is real will be 100% consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry as we uncover them except perhaps for that which is the result of purely miraculous supernatural intervention. Not some. All. The track record of YEC 'problems' with an old earth is as follows: causes for what we observe are invariably found. This is consistent with the simple reality of a 4.5 billion year old Earth/13.7 billion year old universe as current evidence supports. There are so many actual facts inconsistent with a 6 to 10,000 year old earth and universe that have no possibility of ever being explained outside of a creation made by divine fiat with intent to give the impression of an Earth 4.5 billion years old and a universe 13.7 billion years old that the YEC conception of creation simply has no support at all.

        That doesn't mean your beliefs about how to read and interpret scripture are necessarily invalid, but it does mean that you have essentially no recourse for explaining the current state of the universe using science. The only sane perspective that is consistent with your take on scripture is creation with the appearance of great age, including many records in the existing structure of the universe which indicate events and processes that never actually occurred. This is and will forever be consistent with all scienctific discovery and your interpretation of scripture. The theology of it, however, is suspect.

        The postulate that the conclusions of modern science are purely or even primarily related to ideology and bias is pure fantasy on your part.


        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-29-2017, 01:21 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Just wondering if any of the Evo-Faithful here have a believable explanation for this recent find. The physics/chemistry of bio-pigments completely disallows lasting anywhere near 100 million years (heck, even 1 million years would be a stretch).

          http://www.icr.org/article/10194

          So, any of you Evo-Faithful wanna try "explaining" this find?

          Jorge
          Considering that they've been able to determine the pigmentation of various dinosaur feathers for at least a decade the blathering idiocy with no basis in reality that you cite from ICR is obviously, well, blathering idiocy with no basis in reality.

          You really should start re-thinking your mindless regurgitating what a group repeatedly shown to be at the very least unreliable spoon feeds you.

          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


          • #6
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Jorge,

            The issue here is that what is real will be 100% consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry as we uncover them except perhaps for that which is the result of purely miraculous supernatural intervention. Not some. All. The track record of YEC 'problems' with an old earth is as follows: causes for what we observe are invariably found. This is consistent with the simple reality of a 4.5 billion year old Earth/13.7 billion year old universe as current evidence supports. There are so many actual facts inconsistent with a 6 to 10,000 year old earth and universe that have no possibility of ever being explained outside of a creation made by divine fiat with intent to give the impression of an Earth 4.5 billion years old and a universe 13.7 billion years old that the YEC conception of creation simply has no support at all.

            That doesn't mean your beliefs about how to read and interpret scripture are necessarily invalid, but it does mean that you have essentially no recourse for explaining the current state of the universe using science. The only sane perspective that is consistent with your take on scripture is creation with the appearance of great age, including many records in the existing structure of the universe which indicate events and processes that never actually occurred. This is and will forever be consistent with all scienctific discovery and your interpretation of scripture. The theology of it, however, is suspect.

            The postulate that the conclusions of modern science are purely or even primarily related to ideology and bias is pure fantasy on your part.


            Jim
            Jorge is like someone jumping up and down quoting folks like William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) when he proclaimed in 1895 that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" the day after the Wright brothers proved it wasn't.

            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


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Jorge is like someone jumping up and down quoting folks like William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) when he proclaimed in 1895 that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" the day after the Wright brothers proved it wasn't.
              wait. what? The Wright Brothers didn't fly until 1903. well 1900 if you count gliding.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                wait. what? The Wright Brothers didn't fly until 1903. well 1900 if you count gliding.
                Yup. It is like someone declaring that heavier-than-air flight is impossible and citing Kelvin as an authority after December 17, 1903.

                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 rogue06 View Post
                  Yup. It is like someone declaring that heavier-than-air flight is impossible and citing Kelvin as an authority after December 17, 1903.
                  oh, your post sounded like you were saying that was what happened.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Just wondering if any of the Evo-Faithful here have a believable explanation for this recent find. The physics/chemistry of bio-pigments completely disallows lasting anywhere near 100 million years (heck, even 1 million years would be a stretch).

                    http://www.icr.org/article/10194

                    So, any of you Evo-Faithful wanna try "explaining" this find?

                    Jorge
                    Okay, I read the "replies". It's pretty much what I expected to see. I wasn't surprised.

                    Summary of responses: Just-so stories; invincible incredulity; rabid, fanatical
                    adherence to the Evo-Worldview and, of course, the predictable Beagle Boy nonsense.

                    Carry on, folks.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      [ATTACH=CONFIG]23881[/ATTACH]
                      FIFY Jorge.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Okay, I read the "replies". It's pretty much what I expected to see. I wasn't surprised.

                        Of course you were still too much of a to read the actual paper. That thinking stuff is just too hard for you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Okay, I read the "replies". It's pretty much what I expected to see. I wasn't surprised.

                          Summary of responses: Just-so stories; invincible incredulity; rabid, fanatical
                          adherence to the Evo-Worldview and, of course, the predictable Beagle Boy nonsense.

                          Carry on, folks.

                          Jorge
                          Why can't you actually engage in conversation Jorge? What is the point of starting a thread when you have no intention of discussing anything related to it? Do you really supposed Christ is happy with you just wasting your time and everyone else's posting excuses to be critical of other people and their ideas or thoughts?

                          It is clear you have no concern whatsoever for the subject matter, the people you are engaging, or in presenting yourself in anyway that would encourage any observer to listen to anything you have to say. So why do you waste your time and ours?


                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            Of course you were still too much of a to read the actual paper. That thinking stuff is just too hard for you.
                            All he's willing to do is uncritically read what a group repeatedly shown to be at the very least unreliable spoon feeds him so that he can mindlessly regurgitate it.

                            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


                            • #15
                              This is interesting to me in a perverse sort of way.

                              The gist of the article that Jorge linked is that there are some bonds in these molecules that we'd normally consider reactive, and so we wouldn't expect them to survive millions of years.

                              Of course, the way to respond to that scientifically is to note that the conditions that a chemical bond experiences determines its stability, and there are plenty of cases where bonds that are highly reactive in what we consider normal conditions are stable for what's essentially the lifetime of the solar system (see: hydrogen in any gas giant). Or to provide examples of things that are highly reactive but persist in certain environments for a long time on earth (like ships timbers in anoxic waters).

                              But of course, to Jorge and his source, all of this isn't evidence of anything, since the universe is only 6000 years old. It's completely impossible to have evidence of ancient anything, because nothing is ancient. In other words, no matter how many examples we can provide that show the basic premise of this article is wrong, all of them can safely be dismissed.

                              So, the interesting feature for me is how thoroughly protected from reality this sort of position is.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X