Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Chickens 'n rats 'n mammals, oh my! Just a moment...:

quote:

---

Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

---

Randy: note "blood-derived hemoglobin compounds", not "hemoglobin". Note also from the paper itself:

quote:

---

Geochemical interactions with biomolecules preserved in fossil bone over millions of years are to be expected, and the presence of additional, nonhemoglobin signals detected by the various physical methods is not unexpected given the highly degraded and diagenetically altered biological compounds in the bone {emphasis added - JonF}.

---

And from Dino-blood and the Young Earth, which Randy has obviously not bothered to read:

quote:

---

Horner and Schweitzer in any publication, email, statement or conversation that I am aware of, have correctly stated Marshall's (and his colleagues') results that a very few amino acids in side chains attached to a heme produced the immunological response observed, intact hemoglobin is not present or necessary {emphasis added - JonF}. How do we know this? Because 1) prior research has independently established that small peptides complexed to heme, are immunogenic, 2) an immune response to the bone extracts in rats was observed, 3) the laboratory results which would have detected hemoglobin did not do so, but did produce results consistent with heme. In these articles, Schweitzer et al. (1997A and 1997B) are quite properly circumspect about the degree of preservation of the molecules in question and their identity, as there are no sequence data which could verify them beyond heme.

---

I don't have any such reference, but this is really cool. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955, 25 March 2005: Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex:

quote:

---

Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.

---

But, alas, it doesn't overthrow the geological time scale. Just changes our understanding of fossilization some, and reveals a highly unusual specimin.

Yahoo Search - Web SearchScroll down to the "Newly Found Dinosaur Tissue Raises Hope of Extracting DNA" item.Eentsy-weentsy pictures.

Going by the news stories is a bad idea. Bet you haven't read what the scientists themselves wrote.As quoted at Dino-blood and the Young Earth, what the scientists themselves wrote is

quote:

---

While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.

---

{emphasis added - JonF}Doesn't sound as if they are sure at all. But there probably are traces of dinosaur collagen there. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count (given that you have no demonstrated and relevant expertise); facts, evidence, and analysis do. Even assuming that you are correct about the type of rock (unlikely given your track record in geology), it comes down to ... your opinion.But, yes, it would be unusual. Unusual happens. Deal with it. Glad to see that you agree that all you have is your opinion ... this item, at least, is not even evidence. Much less "overwhelming" evidence. I'm really underwhelmed so far.When are you going to post a measurement of the age of the Earth that yields less than 1,000,000 years?

A report is expected at The Panda's Thumb Real Soon Now, but PZ Myers has posted some great pictures (including SEM shots) at Pharyngula, in Tyrannosaur morsels. Caption: Exploded T. rex vessel showing small round microstructures partially embedded in internal vessel walls.He quotes the paper and comments:

quote:

---

quote:

---

we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality. Additionally, we can isolate three-dimensional osteocytes with internal cellular contents and intact, supple filipodia that float freely in solution. This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.

---

So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at playcells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at deathso I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.

---

Yes, you said, and your only support is your opinion. The sum total of your support for your claim is the claim itself, when you asserted "just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions".Evidence is what you are supposed to be supplying here, remember? Overwhelming evidecne is what you offered, and you've failed miserably at providing any evidence. I even outlined what you could do to try so support your opinion with evidence, which you ignored.Like I said, and backed up with detailed discussion and evidence: "... thousands of studies using different and independent methods, cross-correlated and triple-checked, all pointing a complex and long but coherent and consistent history of the Earth ... that's overwhelming evidence. You haven't even got intriguing rumors." Interesting. I make a side comment on expertise, and that's what you choose to rant about. Having a little trouble responding tho the substantive portions of the posts?Integrity is probably more important than expertise; similarly, evidence is definitely more important than expertise. You have yet to establish that it is unreasonable to expect that such things should occasionally happen in mainstream science timelines. Your opinion doesn't count; facts, evidence, and analysis do.Still waiting for your response to the rest of the points in Message 166, especially your further discussion of the San Andreas Fault in The San Andreas Fault: Randy Berg's evidence for YEC.

So, Randy, as edge pointed out your claim of unfossilized dinosaur bones is probably totally wrong and questionable at best ... and even if one or two unfossilized dinosaur bones were found, that would not be justification for equating the condition or age of all dinosaur bones with the condition or age of typical mammoth bones. This is "overwhelming" evidence?Still waiting for your response to the rest of the points in Message 166, especially your further discussion of the San Andreas Fault in The San Andreas Fault: Randy Berg's evidence for YEC.