Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 02/01/2010 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 04/09/2010 11:35:22 AM PDT by lasereye

Fresh tissues continue to be found in supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. These un-replaced, un-mineralized, still-soft tissues come from animals or plants that were preserved by some catastrophic event.1 Each specimen looks young, and a direct inference is that its host rock must also be dated as thousands, not millions, of years old. And the fresher the meat, the more ridiculous are the evolution-inspired claims of great antiquity for the rock in which it was discovered.

These tissue finds are typically accompanied, in either the technical literature or science news, by the phrase "remarkable preservation." If one is to believe in the great ages assigned to these artifacts, then the quality of preservation is beyond "remarkable"--it is not scientifically possible in such a context. This is, of course, why authorities increasingly offer assurances that soft tissues, despite what is known about their decay rates, can somehow be preserved for millions of years.

For example, Melanie Mormile of Missouri University recently told Discovery News that when other researchers recovered intact DNA from bacteria trapped in "419 million-year-old" salt deposits, this showed "that these organisms can somehow survive for these amazing amounts of time."2 A similar assertion came in a recent airing of CBS News' 60 Minutes. Reporter Leslie Stahl interviewed Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who proved beyond any reasonable doubt in early 2009 that soft tissues, including several different proteins like collagen, had been extracted from a hadrosaur.3 At one point, Schweitzer showed Stahl soft tissue from a Tyrannosaur. Stahl then commented, "It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old."4 Stahl's statement that it is "impossible" makes more sense than the implied assurance from Schweitzer that these discoveries are somehow indeed possible in the context of "80 million years."

A more recent finding was claimed to be the "highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record."5 Paleontologists found intact, mostly desiccated muscle--complete with blood-filled vessels--in a fossilized salamander that had been removed from the Ribesalbes Lagerstatte deposit near Castellon in northeast Spain. This geologic formation probably resulted from a local, explosive event.

Reporting in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the researchers made it quite clear that "the detail revealed by TEM [transmission electron microscopy] imaging unequivocally identifies the organic remains as fossilized musculature from the salamander itself."6 They did not comment on the trouble these tissues bring to evolution's assumption of deep time, but their silence regarding the "elephant in the room" question of how a "fresh" fossilized salamander could exist after millions of years does not diminish the question's relevance.

When it comes to evidence that earth's igneous rocks are young, ICR-sponsored research found it in spades in the form of an abundance of trapped helium in granites and still-ticking carbon-14 clocks in diamonds.7 Now, when it comes to scientific evidence that sedimentary rocks are much younger than evolutionary scientists claim, there is perhaps no clearer message than that provided by fresh tissues in fossils.

References

1 These remains must have been deposited catastrophically, either as a result of Noah's Flood or from smaller, local post-Flood catastrophes. Although each deposit must be carefully and individually interpreted, it is possible to generalize that fossils found from the Cambrian up to the Cretaceous strata were Flood-deposited, and fossils found in Cenozoic Era were post-Flood.

2 Reilly, M. World's Oldest Known DNA Discovered. Discovery News. Posted on discovery.com December 17, 2009, accessed December 18, 2009.

3 Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.

4 B-Rex. 60 Minutes. Aired on CBS November 15, 2009. Accessed online November 19, 2009.

5 Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil. University College Dublin press release, November 5, 2009.

6 McNamara, M. et al. Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print October 14, 2009.

7 Vardiman, L., A. Snelling and E. Chaffin, eds. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 2: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: The Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; creation; evolution; fossil; scientism; tissue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2010 11:35:22 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Thanks for the post.


2 posted on 04/09/2010 11:38:16 AM PDT by rae4palin (RESIST--REPEAL--IMPEACH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ll bet you already knew this.


3 posted on 04/09/2010 11:38:56 AM PDT by rae4palin (RESIST--REPEAL--IMPEACH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Well at least it makes cloning dinosaurs back into existance that much easier.


4 posted on 04/09/2010 11:39:04 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

5 posted on 04/09/2010 11:41:10 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Evolution is a faith.


6 posted on 04/09/2010 11:47:14 AM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
They did not comment on the trouble these tissues bring to evolution's assumption of deep time, but their silence regarding the "elephant in the room" question of how a "fresh" fossilized salamander could exist after millions of years does not diminish the question's relevance.

How would this same muscle tissue remain "fresh" after 6,000 years?

7 posted on 04/09/2010 11:57:48 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
How would this same muscle tissue remain "fresh" after 6,000 years?

In another article on this topic, Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels? he says that biomolecues have a lifespan of no more than 100,000 years. For collagen it's 30,000 years. So 6,000 years is not an obstacle.

8 posted on 04/09/2010 12:29:49 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
Evolution is a faith.

Rubbish! No evos will attack this on the ground that it comes from a Christian website!

9 posted on 04/09/2010 12:36:47 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Well OBVIOUSLY the only thing that makes sense is that the dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years contemporaneously with humanity and yet somehow got fossilized >95% into rock, and that starlight from 100 million light years away made the trip in less than 6,000 years!/s

When you find a dinosaur bone that is BONE and not mineralized fossil you may have found something, but not what you will presume you have found.

10 posted on 04/09/2010 12:41:05 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The idea that it takes millions of years for anything to fossilize is incorrect. Wood has been observed to fossilize in a short time.

Rapid Petrification of Wood

Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by Russell Humphreys, an accomplished physicist, develops a theory of how we could be seeing distant starlight in a young universe.

11 posted on 04/09/2010 1:31:52 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/slc987/evolution.jpg

;-)


12 posted on 04/09/2010 1:39:28 PM PDT by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
It's like the “fresh” fish served at the local restaurant, "fresh" when it was frozen in 1957.
13 posted on 04/09/2010 1:58:19 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

I will! :)

But I also have other grounds.

1. This is hardly a scientific article, their first reference simply states, “These remains must have been deposited catastrophically, either as a result of Noah’s Flood or from smaller, local post-Flood catastrophes...” That’s just an assertion, references are supposed to site additional sources of evidence. They also cite a CBS 60 Minutes interview; you just don’t do that, they should have sited the interviewees paper on the subject.

2. With the exception of the first reference that’s just an assertion and the last which they claim is their research, no other cited source backs up their claims. They’re picking and choosing what information they like from those sources. One of the scientists who found the bacteria says straight up that they’re 300 million years old. The lead author on the study finding the soft tissue says it’s 18 million years old. Their own references contradict their report.

3. Their “research” obviously didn’t proceed beyond the cited article which is essentially little more then a university press release (any creditable research institute would have a jstor account so could read the entire paper). They criticized one of the cited articles because they didn’t mention how the preservation was achieved. That’s a loaded question for a new discovery and unlike the IRC, that team is still doing the research (and of course ICR didn’t mention that McNamara is a leading researcher looking to answer that question...in fact that’s what she’s doing right now).


14 posted on 04/09/2010 1:58:37 PM PDT by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Any idea what area or specialty his science degree is in?


15 posted on 04/09/2010 2:06:38 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
It's like the “fresh” fish served at the local restaurant, "fresh" when it was frozen in 1957.

:)

Shades of Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares...

16 posted on 04/09/2010 2:11:25 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Why do we find every dinosaur bone as mineralized and not bone, and yet we find just about every modern mammalian mega fauna as actual bone? Fossilized wood doesn't answer the question.

Starlight denoting an old star from one hundred million light years distant would be denoting a position where no star had ever been within the ‘actual’ six thousand years that you will accept as the age of the universe. Thus this beam of light would LOOK like it was from a star, but no star was ever there. Does your god lie. The God I worship doesn't lie.

17 posted on 04/09/2010 2:11:37 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Brian Thomas received his bachelors degree in biology from Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, in 1993. After teaching at Angelina Christian School and beginning graduate studies in science education at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, he returned to Stephen F. Austin State, where he earned a masters degree in biotechnology in 1999. From 2000 to 2005, he taught 9th and 12th grade biology at Ovilla Christian School in Ovilla, Texas, as well as general biology and general chemistry as an adjunct professor at Navarro College, Waxahachie, Texas. He taught biology, chemistry, and anatomy as an assistant professor at Dallas Baptist University from 2005 until 2008, and co-founded the Center for Christian Apologetics in Houston.

Well I'm certainly impressed.

18 posted on 04/09/2010 2:18:24 PM PDT by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr
Brian Thomas received his bachelors degree in biology from Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, in 1993. After teaching at Angelina Christian School and beginning graduate studies in science education at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, he returned to Stephen F. Austin State, where he earned a masters degree in biotechnology in 1999. From 2000 to 2005, he taught 9th and 12th grade biology at Ovilla Christian School in Ovilla, Texas, as well as general biology and general chemistry as an adjunct professor at Navarro College, Waxahachie, Texas. He taught biology, chemistry, and anatomy as an assistant professor at Dallas Baptist University from 2005 until 2008, and co-founded the Center for Christian Apologetics in Houston.

Thanks.

19 posted on 04/09/2010 2:51:40 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
It could be that bone takes longer to fossilize, but still far less than millions of years. Has someone proven that it actually takes that long, or is it just an assumption?

Starlight denoting an old star from one hundred million light years distant would be denoting a position where no star had ever been within the ‘actual’ six thousand years that you will accept as the age of the universe.

Based on how his theory works, I don't believe that's true.

20 posted on 04/09/2010 4:34:27 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
You don't seem to grasp that I am not talking about dinosaur bones in isolation.

Why don't we find recent mammalian mega fauna fossilized to the same extent? Why, in other words, to dinosaur bones invariably look OLDER and more fossilized than those bones of more modern mammalian mega fauna?

Why the disparity, how do you explain why every dinosaur bone looks like it was mineralized for so much longer than, say, an elephants bones?

You don't seem to grasp what a “theory” means. Biblical apologetics as to how a god could lie and make starlight from objects that never even existed within the last six thousand years is not a theory, it is apologetics.

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and Biblical apologetics?

21 posted on 04/09/2010 4:38:40 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
It's not intended as a formal scientific article. There's been a lot of creationist research and books on how things that we observe can be explained by a catastrophic flood. You can find articles about that at the website. That's the creationist explanation for the so called Cambrian explosion found in fossil excavations. He uses the Bible as his authority. He's writing from that point of view.

They also cite a CBS 60 Minutes interview; you just don’t do that, they should have sited the interviewees paper on the subject.

That was covered in several other articles on the website. Maybe not including it here was an oversight. Here's one of them.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay

One of the scientists who found the bacteria says straight up that they’re 300 million years old. The lead author on the study finding the soft tissue says it’s 18 million years old.

That's based on various assumptions, including evolution. Did they explain how the tissue survived? If not, then so what?

The bottom line is, as of now these discoveries are not explained. This article just mentions a few of them. They first started finding these things over 15 years ago.

22 posted on 04/09/2010 6:24:13 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I don't know what you mean by "to the same extent". Are you comparing fossilized dinosaurs to fossilized mammals and saying they're different, or comparing dinos to mammals that died fairly recently and haven't fossilized at all?

What I'm saying is, maybe bone fossilization takes 2,000 years or something like that, and the dinosaurs died out 4,000 years ago. So all their bones would be fossilized by now. Mammals on the other hand are still around in large numbers.

Biblical apologetics as to how a god could lie and make starlight from objects that never even existed within the last six thousand years is not a theory, it is apologetics.

I think you're the one who is not understanding. As I said that's not what his theory says at all. The stars were there in the last 6,000 years. Starlight and Time is a completely scientific analysis, using Relativity Theory.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Russell_Humphreys

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

http://www.icr.org/news/44/

23 posted on 04/09/2010 6:52:00 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
What I mean is that dinosaur bones all look OLD, far older than a two thousand year old elephant bone or even a six thousand year old elephant bone.

How do you explain the EXTENT of fossilization present in ALL dinosaur bones that is not present in the remains of ANY modern mammalian mega fauna?

And it is not a “theory”, it is biblical “apologetics”. Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory and apologetics?

Apparently not.

24 posted on 04/10/2010 4:40:19 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

I haven’t read one of Brian’s pieces for a while, but I see he’s as deceietful as ever. The soft tissue found is not “meat” in any normal sense of the word; neither is it “fresh.” And I like the way he refers to “a ‘fresh’ fossilized salamander” when the word “fresh” doesn’t appear in his linked reference. Who is he quoting? Himself?


25 posted on 04/10/2010 10:55:57 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I don’t know what you mean by “look old”. Looking old is not a scientific concept. When have you ever heard of a scientist talking about how old a bone “looks”?

Why don’t you pinpoint how and where Starlight and Time is not a scientific theory.

Based on your comments you seem to not to understand what a scientific theory is.


26 posted on 04/10/2010 8:13:40 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
The soft tissue found is not “meat” in any normal sense of the word; neither is it “fresh.”

It's muscle tissue.

”We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago, making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”

According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood.

That seems to be what he means by fresh, as in remarkably well preserved. What do you take his meaning to be - fresh like a package of meat in the supermarket? Your objections don't address the point of the article. You seem to be arguing over semantics. Trying to say creationists are misleading seems to be a longstanding tactic of evos. I find evos to be misleading.

27 posted on 04/10/2010 8:22:39 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
So my characterization of “looks old” is somehow not scientific enough for you, but the invented quotes around the characterization “fresh” is perfectly acceptable?

And my “looks old” I mean massive mineralization, where mineral rock has replaced bone. We don't find modern species mineralized to the same extent.

It seems you don't know the difference between apologetics and science, nor does it seem that you care to know. Typical.

28 posted on 04/10/2010 10:40:01 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
That seems to be what he means by fresh, as in remarkably well preserved.

That's not what "fresh meat" usually means. If I go to the "fresh meat" section of my supermarket, I don't expect to see "remarkably well preserved muscle tissue." Brian and his ilk know this, and they want you to think the soft tissue that's been found looks like something you might eat. I've read anti-evolutionists here refer to the fragments of collagen that Schweitzer found as "steaks," so the technique is having the desired, deceitful effect.

Trying to say creationists are misleading seems to be a longstanding tactic of evos.

Yes, pointing out anti-evolutionists' repeated, often-intentional errors is something evos have been doing for a while now.

29 posted on 04/11/2010 7:50:35 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
The opening words in Solzhenitsyn’s preface to “The Gulag Archipelago.”

“In 1949 some friends and I came upon a noteworthy news item in Nature, a magazine of the Academy of Sciences. It reported in tiny type that in the course of excavations on the Kolyma River a subterranean ice lens had been discovered which was actually a frozen stream – and in it were found frozen specimens of prehistoric fauna some tens of thousands of years old. Whether fish or salamander, these were preserved in so fresh a state, the scientific correspondent reported, that those present immediately broke open the ice encasing the specimens and devoured them with relish on the spot.”

30 posted on 04/13/2010 7:52:56 AM PDT by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I've read anti-evolutionists here refer to the fragments of collagen that Schweitzer found as "steaks," so the technique is having the desired, deceitful effect."

What deceitful effect? They found something that should have disappeared millions of years ago based on current understanding of collagen rate of decay. It should not be there. You don't dispute that but instead focus on choice of words. In fact it's evos who are continually misleading.

31 posted on 05/28/2010 2:12:30 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And my “looks old” I mean massive mineralization, where mineral rock has replaced bone. We don't find modern species mineralized to the same extent.

What do you mean by modern species? Is something that died 10,000 years ago modern?

32 posted on 05/28/2010 2:15:24 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Yes. 10,000 years ago is an eye-blink.

By a modern species I mean one which is currently extant upon the Earth.

A creature that died 10,000 years ago will not be mineralized to nearly the same extent as a million year old fossil.

So why is it that we find no dinosaur “bones” that are actually bone? Why are they all so extensively mineralized, but we don't see, for example, an elephant fossil mineralized to nearly the same extent?

If dinosaurs and elephants were contemporaneous, why do we never see an elephant fossil that ‘appears’ to be 50 million years old, or dinosaur fossils that ‘appear’ to only be a few thousand years old?

33 posted on 05/28/2010 2:40:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

How do you know we never find elephant bones mineralized to the same extent?


34 posted on 05/28/2010 2:53:49 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Because the guy who found an elephant fossil that appeared through radiometric analysis and mineralization to be fifty million years would be famous, and nobody has yet made such a claim, so I can only conclude that such a find has never been made.

Now that is not to say that one will not, some time in the future, turn up. But it is increasingly unlikely.

So how do you explain why we find NO dinosaur bones that are actually bone and not mineralized, but we find elephant bone that is actually bone, and no elephant fossils that are mineralized to rock to the same extent as every dinosaur fossil?

If dinosaurs and elephants were contemporaneous, you would expect to find remains in a similar state of fossilization, but that has never been observed.

Why not?

35 posted on 05/28/2010 3:19:23 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Because the guy who found an elephant fossil that appeared through radiometric analysis and mineralization to be fifty million years would be famous, and nobody has yet made such a claim

They have found elephant fossils that are allegedly millions of years old, based on some dating method. I don't know if mineralization is even used as a dating method. Often evolutionary assumptions determine the date that is assigned to a fossil so it becomes circular.

They found these muscle tissues that shouldn't be there. Are those people famous?

36 posted on 05/28/2010 3:56:33 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Those are mammoths, not modern day elephants. And not fifty million, five million. But what is off by a standard deviation to creationists? Obviously not much.

No, it is not circular, it is radiometric and can be measured using different isotopes that all give the same answer, but on different scales of predictable radioatomic decay.

They did not find muscle tissue, they found structures; and for that they are very famous... among paleontologists and also creationists, Dr Schweitzer would be a ROCK STAR to creationists, but she keeps saying that the fossils were just amazingly preserved fossils from fifty million years ago instead of making incorrect grandiose claims.

37 posted on 05/28/2010 6:17:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
They found something that should have disappeared millions of years ago based on current understanding of collagen rate of decay.

Do you have a reference for "current understanding of collagen rate of decay"? Because I'd say current understanding is that sometimes, under rare and specific conditions, it can last 50 million years.

You don't dispute that but instead focus on choice of words

I'm not disputing that it was a surprise to find it. But it wasn't "steak," and calling it "steak" is an attempt to deceive. I guess that's okay with you.

38 posted on 05/28/2010 9:58:01 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Because I'd say current understanding is that sometimes, under rare and specific conditions, it can last 50 million years.

This is your field of expertise?

Do you have a reference for "current understanding of collagen rate of decay"?

"in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents."

With a lifespan of 30,000 or so years, collagen should not exist in a 68-million-year-old sample. To get around this, some evolutionary scientists challenge the measured molecular decay rates. "Schweitzer's work is 'showing us we really don't understand decay,'" paleontologist Thomas Holtz said in Smithsonian magazine.2 But even allowing 100,000 years for collagen longevity, perhaps due to superior preservation, this is still only 1/680th of B. rex's assumed age.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels?

There should be NO collagen there according to current understanding of collagen rate of decay.

They've also found supposedly millions of years old DNA.

Researchers have uncovered biological molecules like proteins, DNA, and pigments from rocks that are supposedly millions of years old. Laboratory studies on many of these materials indicate that they will only survive thousands, not millions, of years.

DNA is particularly prone to decay, yet ancient fossil "plants, bacteria, mammals, Neanderthals, and other archaic humans have had short aDNA sequences identified."2 Such remnant DNA should not be able to last more than 10,000 years.3 Just as finding the phrase "cell phone" in a reputedly ancient stone inscription would immediately identify it as a fraud, finding a ribosomal gene in bacteria supposedly 250 million years old causes deep suspicion of its assigned age.4

Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young

There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.

39 posted on 06/07/2010 7:31:05 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Those are mammoths, not modern day elephants.

They've found a variety of elephant species, not just mammoths. As to whether they look exactly like today's elephants is beside the point. There could have been species that went extinct 6000 years ago in the flood, or even after the flood for that matter. They wouldn't have to look exactly like today's species. Creationist believe a certain amount of evolution occurs, just not the massive transformations that Darwinian dogma alleges. Plus God probably created more than one variety of elephants from the start.

she keeps saying that the fossils were just amazingly preserved fossils from fifty million years ago

Of course she keeps saying that. What else is she going to say? She's an evolutionist.

According to this,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

they don't directly date fossils, but the rocks around them.

This gives an example of how games are played with radioactive dating. It is circular.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

As I said before, mineralization, your first argument, doesn't seem to be a dating method at all.

This discusses the rate at which fossils form under flood conditions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-how-fast.asp

40 posted on 06/07/2010 8:03:02 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
What else is she going to say?

Only what the evidence supports.

That is science.

Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science, it is apologetics.

So evolution only happens after great floods, where it happens at thousands of times the pace ever proposed by evolutionary biology, but only within set limits that have never been defined.

So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?

41 posted on 06/07/2010 9:24:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
This is your field of expertise?

In the sense that understanding what I read and describing it accurately is my field of expertise, yes.

I admire your chutzpah in citing Brian Thomas, MS articles to argue against my contention that Brian Thomas, MS is a deceitful writer. "He's not lying--see, he says so himself!" Oh well, Brian cites his own articles in his references all the time, I guess you might as well too.

It's also amusing that you cite an excerpt with a scientist saying "we really don't understand decay" in support of your assertion about the "current understanding of collagen rate of decay."

I can't follow Brian's references in the second excerpt because they're behind paywalls. I've followed many of them before, though, and I've usually found that he's misrepresented their content. You'd be better off not accepting his representations at face value.

There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.

Oh, I know. Blyin' and I go way back.

42 posted on 06/08/2010 7:29:53 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
What else is she going to say? Only what the evidence supports.

What evidence did she cite?

Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science

What evidence did I contort?

So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming ape to man evolution and then saying the differences between apes and humans should be much greater than between elephants 6000 years ago and today. They don't have the DNA of the elephants that have existed 6000 years ago to compare to today's elephants, so even if we assume evolution your question doesn't make any sense.

43 posted on 06/08/2010 11:35:16 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The articles quote other sources, or are his summary of those sources.

This is just a quote from an article:

“in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents.”

You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place. So you’ve got it backwards. It’s “he’s lying because I say so” or “just assume he’s lying”.

The scientist wasn’t saying there’s no scientific estimates of collagen decay. That would mean no research had ever been done, which is obviously wrong. What he obviously meant was that the estimates must be wrong. That’s obviously an ASSUMPTION that he’s making.

Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content. Chances are they’re like your current contention. You make some assumptions or misrepresent something yourself.


44 posted on 06/08/2010 11:50:02 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
She cited the evidence that these fossils were 50 some million years old.

Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.

You have no idea what I am talking about? Probably because you don't really understand the subject.

There is only a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimp.

If the “limits” you propose on evolutionary change are constrained somehow to less than a 2% genetic difference, it would be impossible for all species of animals to have evolved from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years.

The evolution you propose would be thousands of times more rapid than ever proposed by an evolutionary biologist, and it would exceed the change of 2% in genetic DNA that would separate humans and chimps for those species.

So if an animal, fresh off the Ark, can change over the next few thousand years to become many different species over the Earth, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change; what is to stop a human population from diverging from a chimp population and accumulating a 2% genetic DNA difference over some six million years?

How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?

Is that simple enough for you? If not I don't really know how to dumb it down any further to make it understandable to you.

45 posted on 06/08/2010 11:59:19 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
She cited the evidence that these fossils were 50 some million years old.

Tell me where she did that.

Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.

Give me the quote where I contorted evidence.

How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change

As I said, THEY DON'T HAVE THE DNA from those elephant fossils (that I know of) ago to compare current elephants to. You make some assumption about what the DNA difference is. You keep making unwarranted assertions that are based on an assumption of evolution, i.e. circular reasoning.

46 posted on 06/08/2010 12:30:26 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
They do have the DNA of many of the animals extant upon the Earth, and if all of those different species descended over a few thousand years from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions, then the change in genetic DNA over that time span is far greater than 2%.

So how do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?

47 posted on 06/08/2010 12:37:50 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I should add that your whole argument assumes apes evolved to humans. Another circular element. It’s “since we know apes evolved to humans over millions of years, therefore something that evolved in much shorter time should have less of a DNA difference”. Then you ALSO assume that the elephants have a large DNA difference, even though we don’t have the DNA.


48 posted on 06/08/2010 12:41:48 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There was one of each "kind" meaning there was one type of horse, as opposed to 20 kinds of horses. There was one type of wolf, not 20 or a hundred. Wolf is a kind, horse is a kind. The evolution has been changes into various kinds of horses, wolves etc. The DNA difference between different types of wolves would presumably be a lot less than between humans and apes.
49 posted on 06/08/2010 12:51:16 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I am not talking about just elephants here. I am talking about ALL of the species living here on the Earth that you propose evolved over a few thousand years from those species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions.

One need not assume ape to human evolution to note that there is only a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps.

Why is it acceptable to you that an animal fresh off the Ark can, over a few thousand years, become many different species all over the Earth accumulating DNA differences far in excess of a 2% difference, but absolutely unacceptable that a slow incremental change over six million years could accumulate a similar 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps?

50 posted on 06/08/2010 12:53:31 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson