Fred the Egyptian and his stone stacking beast of burden.
Posted on 05/20/2013 7:15:16 AM PDT by fishtank
Scientist Stumped by Actual Dinosaur Skin by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Being the first ever to examine a dinosaur fossil long buried in sedimentary rock is thrilling enough for a field researcher. But a team working in Canada found an exhilarating bonus on a hadrosaur fossil fragment—it had actual skin still attached.
They found the duck-bill dinosaur fossil near Grand Prairie, Alberta. University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi operates state-of-the art synchrotron equipment that can detect and identify chemical signatures without destroying samples. He plans to use the technology to investigate the special fossil and its skin. He told Canadian Light Source (CLS), which houses the synchrotron device, "As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin."1
What do they plan to do with this "real skin?" Barbi said, "Everyone involved with the excavation was incredibly excited and we started discussing research projects right away."1 Each project will examine a different question. For example, they plan to sort out what color the dinosaur skin may have been by investigating the skin’s pigment-containing melanosomes. Researchers in China performed a similar analysis on a Sinosauropteryx dinosaur in 2010.2
Which research question carries the most mystery? "But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at the CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years." Barbi declared, "There is something special about this fossil and the area where it was found, and I am going to find out what it is."1
Special indeed. But finding the right answer works best by first asking the right question, and focusing on some special quality "about this fossil" that enabled it to persist "for around 70-million years" does not appear to be the right question. That line of research will leapfrog a far more fundamental and relevant mystery: How long could actual dinosaur skin tissue possibly last?
Who, upon entering a room and encountering a burning candle would immediately begin to wonder what special something about that candle enabled it to continually burn for a million? Would it not make more sense to first question how long such a candle could potentially burn before going out?
Similarly, questions that assume some special factor in the skin or in the earth could preserve original organic dinosaur remains for even one million years ignore what is already widely known about skin protein decay. A candle’s flame can be extinguished and relit, but skin decays continually and relentlessly until it is completely gone, becoming dust in thousands, not millions of years. The research questions so far proposed typically exclude the very best explanation—these fossils look young because they are young.
Good luck answering your greatest research question, Mauricio Barbi. Research that ignores the most sensible solution to the dinosaur skin dilemma signals a poor start.
References
Scientists study rare dinosaur skin fossil at CLS. Canadian Light Source Media Release, posted on www.lightsource.ca on April 26, 2013, accessed May 3, 2013.
Thomas, B. Feathered Dinosaur Debate Exhibits Young Earth Evidence. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org February 8, 2010, accessed May 3, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on May 20, 2013.
Simple explanation: Evolution and the giant time spans we’ve read about all our lives are a bunch of BS.
That's because the ICR has an ignorance agenda.
and thereby also validating the legends of dragons throughout multiple cultures.
Leather was the first thing that came to my mind. If the skin was sundried properly maybe it resisted mineral infiltration over the millennia. Will cowboy boots retain their structure fifty million years from now, given the right conditions for preservation?
for those who have not been paying attention, recently multiple sites have yielded dino soft tissue and blood and sequenceable DNA. From supposedly 50-70 Million year old deposits.
If you believe you can have soft tissue and blood cells that survive at room temp for 50 Million years, then you might also believe sasquatch can avoid being found dead or captured for 300 years here in North America. Or that the earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.
Wrong. Why do creationist sources lie about what is found? Because as usal the facts are against them.
glad you called me a liar.
Here’s a link to the SMITHSONIAN which, as we all know, is a shill for those know-nothing creationists, right?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
you might google around or something before you call someone a liar. Also, get an education. Anybody in the paleo field has knownd about this for years. And there are multiple finds, do your homework.
Soft tissue structure is not soft tissue. If a mudslide preserves the detailed structure of an object after the object has decayed away - the object is not there - but the details of the ‘structure’ is. No actual “soft tissue” was found - despite creationist sourced lies about ‘red meat’.
Blood cell structures is not blood. Even if it tests positive in an ELISA for heme.
Fossilized bone is not collagen. Even if it tests positive in an ELISA for collagen.
And there is no indication that any sequencable DNA has ever been found from de-mineralized dinosaur fossils.
So soft tissue = zero.
Blood = zero.
Sequencable DNA = zero.
You have been lied to. So why do creationist sources lie? Because as usual the facts are against them.
The scientists work you linked to is a firm believer in the common descent and evolution of species and an old Earth. Do you think she is wrong about the nature of her own work?
I guess Scientific American is a Creationist Troll now too.
;’)
The Earth definitely rotated around a different axis, and more than once.
from your link:
“Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by ‘young earth’ creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally...”
Thanks.
Looks like they can be rehydrated and grilled. Yummy
you are making an argument based the actions of a third party, who you do not like, which has nothing to do with the original science.
Might I suggest you learn from the past?
Read about Louis Pasteur, what he claimed, the prevailing believe of 99% of scientists at the time, what happened to Pasteur (being kicked out of the Academy of Science, no less) and who was proven right.
Truth has no agenda. It can be that a fool is right. People who care about what others think rarely can think objectively.
Sherlock Holmes (a fictional character) said “If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This is the spirit in which we should make observations — not that of a biased policeman, looking for evidence to convict the man he dislikes.
I really don’t care who is hijacking anything.
I merely observe the findings, and draw my own conclusions.
I do not believe that organic material can survive 50,75,100 million years at room temperature. If you want to be counted for those that do, then that’s fine.
It’s incumbent upon those who claim the material is that old to explain how we can have 75 Million year old viable organic matter.
The First Fossil Hunters:
Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times
by Adrienne Mayor
foreword by Peter Dodson
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.
