Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Elixir]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue component "preservation" over millions of years.

Radiocarbon in Dinosaur Fossils: Compatibility with an Age of Millions of Years

The recent discovery of radiocarbon in dinosaur bones at first seems incompatible with an age of millions of years, due to the short half-life of radiocarbon. However, evidence from isotopes other than radiocarbon shows that dinosaur fossils are indeed millions of years old. Fossil bone...

online.ucpress.edu

"Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say? - Article - BioLogos

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Does that mean the dinosaurs only lived a few thousand years ago?

biologos.org

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:
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.

Go to the biologos site for more info. It's a fascinating story really, and Mary Schweitzer is a really cool person. The article does also point out:

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.

In short, what I gleaned from the whole episode:

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.

 

[Learner]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue "preservation" over millions of years.

Absolutely!

Briefly.
The debunk isn't where you would logically conceive and expect it to be. The experiments were done! The logical thought of the observation: If it IS the case that soft tissue is found in the experiment...then the age of these particular bones thought to be 'millions of years old' may not be correct.

 

[Elixir]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue "preservation" over millions of years.

Absolutely!

The debunk isn't where you would logically conceive and expect it to be. The experiments were done! The logic: If it IS the case that soft tissue is found in the experiment...then the age of 'millions of year old' dinosaur bones may not be correct.

Uh, no. No "soft tissue" was found. Read for comprehension:

"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."

These are some crosslinked molecules, not meat, as in 'tissues". Their longevity has been explained. It raises zero doubt about the age of the t-Rex samples.

"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."

Case closed.

Your resistance to learning certainly belies your user_name. You should read the article.
Meanwhile, let me know when you see something being Special Created.

 

[Learner]

From my previous post... I mentioned after the minerals were dissolved..soft tissue was found remaining. The experiment was done by Dr. Mary Sweitzer. Many in the science community were against her and quite ruthless, suggesting she contaminated her experiments and how dare she? It wasn't until a few of the sceptics (who bothered) did the experiments themselves, they couldn't refute her after that.

 

[Learner]

Found this vid.

 

[Elixir]

The very title is wrong.
Improve your sources, “Learner”.
The Biologos link tells the story (why don’t you read it, Learner?), and Ms Schweitzer has given her account.
Read what Mary S wrote about it, and about people doing what you’re doing. It doesn’t paint your cult in a flattering light.

I don’t blame you for going for sensationalized snippets created to grab laypersons’ attention. And I understand how much you desire to see this example as a “maybe Ken Hamm is right!” moment. But seriously -
That would be an error in reasoning and a compromise of intellectual integrity.

Nothing that a true believer can’t pray away though, I suppose.

God bless.

 

[Learner]

I came across quite a few things throughout the years and it wasn't for the belief of God.

I'm sure there are better videos, I just randomly chose that one. Anyway I've gotta sleep.
God Bless You too Elixir.

 

[Elixir]

Don’t you read?
If you desire to understand why Ms Schweitzer’s discovery is consistent with geological, radiological and biological science (and a billions of years old Earth), you shoul lay off the pop-SCI videos and read some of the primary material.

I guess that’s a big “if”. Decades of watching fundies has taught me how incurious they tend to be.

Back to the previous issue with “issues” …
Are there other “issues with the fossil record” that keep you from accepting science? Because that one is not an issue.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner as with most Christians is probably very pleased with himself.

Battling atheist evolution gets those feel good brain chemicals going. It does not really matter what the facts are.

 

[Elixir]

Battling atheist evolution gets those feel good brain chemicals going. It does not really matter what the facts are.

That’s definitely what’s going on here.
Par for the Fundy course. Ignorance is indeed bliss. That people can afford to be - and remain - ignorant speaks well of our society… I guess.

 

[Learner]

Don’t you read?
If you desire to understand why Ms Schweitzer’s discovery is consistent with geological, radiological and biological science (and a billions of years old Earth), you shoul lay off the pop-SCI videos and read some of the primary material.

I guess that’s a big “if”. Decades of watching fundies has taught me how incurious they tend to be.

Back to the previous issue with “issues” …
Are there other “issues with the fossil record” that keep you from accepting science? Because that one is not an issue.

Lol let's not shy away and deflect from your error. Dr Sweitzer calls the matter inside the dinosaur bones 'soft tissue'. You said it wasn't possible.

I've yet to comment on your previous posts and the one with the extra large fonts (I was tired and it was late).

 

[Learner]

Learner as with most Christians is probably very pleased with himself.

Then theists must always be pleased every time they join the conversation. Is that what you mean?

Battling atheist evolution gets those feel good brain chemicals going. It does not really matter what the facts are.

I sort of notice that with 'some' atheists. It's as if they 'comfort" themselves or each other with good feelings mocking the theist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue "preservation" over millions of years.

Absolutely!

Briefly.
The debunk isn't where you would logically conceive and expect it to be. The experiments were done! The logical thought of the observation: If it IS the case that soft tissue is found in the experiment...then the age of these particular bones thought to be 'millions of years old' may not be correct.

So only the bones without soft tissue (almost all of them?) are millions of years old. Understood. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Elixir]

So only the bones without soft tissue (almost all of them?) are millions of years old.

It takes a scanning electron microscope to tell that there’s anything left of “soft tissue” proteins in those fossils. Not like some fundy could go pick up a dinosaur bone, run it under his nose and declare “smells like chicken”. Which is what “Learner” (or more accurately “refuse to learn-er”) seems to think. He also seems to believe that fundy garbage videos trump everything scientists have ever discovered.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True and all, but I just wanted to thank Learner for inferring the dry bones were millions of years old.

 

[Elixir]

I just wanted to thank Learner for inferring the dry bones were millions of years old.

Fundies never confirm that they hold such beliefs. Every concession to science must be couched in “they could be wrong and goddidit”. You wouldn’t evince any belief in old earth or evolution either, if you thought you’d be eternally tortured for thinking such things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just wanted to thank Learner for inferring the dry bones were millions of years old.

Fundies never confirm that they hold such beliefs. Every concession to science must be couched in “they could be wrong and goddidit”. You wouldn’t evince any belief in old earth or evolution either, if you thought you’d be eternally tortured for thinking such things.

That is why I appreciated Learner inferring that concession.

 

[Elixir]

That is why I appreciated Learner inferring that concession.

Sideways implication is the fundy way of avoiding offending an imaginary being while simultaneously placating those who point out the offending reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner as with most Christians is probably very pleased with himself.

Then theists must always be pleased every time they join the conversation. Is that what you mean?

Battling atheist evolution gets those feel good brain chemicals going. It does not really matter what the facts are.

I sort of notice that with 'some' atheists. It's as if they 'comfort" themselves or each other with good feelings mocking the theist.

It is not atheists who are obcessed with making people believe in an imaginary god.

Theoretical scientists are not trying to disprove religious faith, they follow evidence and experiments, and draw conclusions. It is prmaly Christians who get bent out of shape when science conflicts with faith, and get obsessed with disproving TOE, as evidenced by you and many past theists.

As with ast esist on the form yu qute from refences with science yiou do not undertsnd, and pat yourself on the back.


'Battle Hymn Of The Republic. Doing righteous battle in he name of god or Jesus.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,[15]
While God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, I agree entirely. My raising the geocentric model of Ptolemy was in response to you correctly pointing out that the flat earth model was not only “grossly contrary” to reality, but easily disprovable because it made false predictions.

Say what?!? How the bejesus do you figure a theory making false predictions implies it's easily disprovable? Lots of theories that made false predictions were very hard to disprove. It took a hundred and fifty years for Newton's theory that light was a particle that moved faster in glass than in air to be disproven. Disproving his law of gravity took even longer. Either the Standard Model or General Relativity makes wrong predictions, since they conflict; which one is easily disprovable? If you were a Neolithic farmer rather than an Iron Age sailor, how would you go about easily disproving the flat earth model?

The upshot is that we can indeed have false theories that are grossly contrary to reality yet are perfectly instrumentally useful. Ptoelemy’s model made accurate predictions that were employed for over a thousand years. In fact the church really wasn’t opposed to Galileo teaching heliocentrism as a calculational device; they just wished he wouldn’t teach it as being true.

They didn't just reject it for being unscriptural; they had perfectly qualified astronomers telling them heliocentrism was easily disprovable from its false predictions because its calculational simplification came at the cost of precision -- which was inevitable until the heliocentrists figured out orbits were ellipses. Moreover, the geocentrists pointed out quite reasonably that heliocentrism predicted the stars would change apparent position if we were observing them from a moving platform. This looked like a false prediction until experimentalists' ability to measure parallax and aberration caught up with the theorists.

The other upshot is, what does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

This all pertains to the claims by bilby and the OP, to the effect that science has proven religious interpretations of the world to be incorrect. Irrespective of our differing perceptions of what does or doesn't make a theory grossly contrary to reality, the existence of theories that are grossly contrary to reality yet are perfectly instrumentally useful means you just can't disprove religion that way. God specially creating life forms doesn't imply that a cell crippled by researchers shouldn't be able to evolve and regain all the fitness they had sacrificed, and God raising Jesus from the dead doesn't imply that lasers and GPS and whatnot shouldn't work. You can't tell what should happen if our theories are grossly wrong about gods, because being grossly wrong observably doesn't stop theories from being instrumentally useful.