|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3755 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
You should read more scientific articles and fewer religious websites masquerading as "science". The collagen had to be demineralised. Dr Schweitzer (an evangelical Christian) et al showed a way soft tissues can be preserved as long as those fossils exist, by publising their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You should try to tell your creationist buddies how science is done. I was not aware the smithsonian mag was religious. Noted Here is the link I was reading: Dinosaur Shocker | Science|
Smithsonian Magazine Do you have any "real" sources that are totally unbiased?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1657 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would also point out that my "homework" has taken me over a year to post 24 times Almost 2 years, in fact (Joined: 08-07-2012 But it doesn't appear you learned much in that time ... Can you define evolution? can you describe what the theory of evolution is? can you describe what the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is? can you describe what the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is? I doubt it ... but you could prove me wrong ... Enjoy
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
quote:That article is from May 2006.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The articles are written for the general public You are teh general public, so they are written for you to understand
and have stated "red blood cells" ...which obviously did not work. What makes you think more detailed evidence is going to be easier for you to grasp than what is presented to the "general public" when you haven't read the most recent findings?
It makes it easier to track down the associated articles by asking those that are interested, then it is to google and go through 100 articles. True, but you didn't even google ONE article, apparently.Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was not aware the smithsonian mag was religious. Noted Here is the link I was reading: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places Smithsonian Magazine Now that link describes the demineralization process, and also describes how creationists lie about Schweitzer's work. So how carefully were you reading it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I bring it up here, hoping people have more information. The articles are written for the general public and have stated "red blood cells", etc. It makes it easier to track down the associated articles by asking those that are interested, then it is to google and go through 100 articles. Yes, other people can use google for you. From the abstract of Schweitzer's paper:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3755 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
From the abstract of Schweitzer's paper: 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. Wow! This is the first time you replied to me without name calling or rude comments Thanks. It was actually a really good explanation. Edited by mram10, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Wow! This is the first time you replied to me without name calling or rude comments This is, of course, not true.
Thanks. It was actually a really good explanation. You're welcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 227 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
For some reason lots of creationists think that adding lots of smily faces somehow would enhance ridiculously crazy ideas. Wonder why? Trying to sell snake oil or what? Second hand car salesmen?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3755 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Thanks Prissie
You offend many second hand car salesmen out there It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything. Einstein's theories were a little revolutionary too. (here comes the, "are you comparing yourself to Einstein?")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And it's easier yet to be a creationist and ignore 99.9999% of the evidence and misinterpret the rest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mram10 writes:
You keep talking about "real science" as if it was somehow different from "secular science". Maybe you could tell us what you think "real science" is, and why you think secular scientists aren't doing it.
It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything. Einstein's theories were a little revolutionary too. Yes, Einstein did produce non-controversial results. But he did it by expanding on his hypothesis in ways that are the essence of the scientific method, and not by babbling. And yes, the "are you Einstein" question seems appropriate here, because it is a well accepted indicator of crank behavior. But feel free to substitute Galileo if you want.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22940 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread.
ChristianGuy15 writes: well sir how do you explain what atheistic scientists are unhappilyadmitting to: that in partially fossilized bone is what is basically soft tissue red blood cells etc. which according to the laws of science cannot live sixty five million years. The preservation was indeed unexpected, but in the sense of requiring a rare sequence of events in unlikely conditions, not in the sense of breaking any laws of science. If you read through this thread you'll get a pretty good sense of how it happened. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2625 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread.
ChristianGuy15 writes: well sir how do you explain what atheistic scientists are unhappilyadmitting to: that in partially fossilized bone is what is basically soft tissue red blood cells etc. which according to the laws of science cannot live sixty five million years. Hey there ChristianGuy. You addressed this question to me over in my thread on earth science curriculum and I would like to respond here where I can do it and respect the productive forum rules that say we keep threads on topic. First, I'd like to make it clear that I am just a guy studying what is written. I'm not a paleontologist, I haven't seen the bones and if I did see the bones I wouldn't have a clue how to investigate them. One of the first techniques I use to determine credibility when reading, studying and investigating is to ask for sources of claims and then see if they can be produced. I want to know if what they say is true. I'm going to try that here: You've made two hard assertions in your question to me. 1: That "atheistic scientists are unhappily admitting" the substance of this find.and 2: That the assumption of the find (Heme compounds discovered in extremely old earth bones) violates the "laws of science". Let's take a look at your assertion #1: I've read as many papers and articles (I didn't say news reports) as I can find that quote other scientists regarding Schweitzer's discovery. I simply can't find a quote from ANYONE that sounds like they are "unhappily admitting" anything. A tenet of science is skepticism and thus good scientists are skeptical. What I find are quotes from the scientific body who were initially very skeptical and now less so as time and research has moved almost a decade forward. What I also find is guarded enthusiasm over the fact that what is being learned might allow more discoveries from old bones than ever thought possible. In essence I find cautious enthusiasm rather than unhappiness. Following are some links I refer to above:Dinosaur Shocker | Science| Smithsonian Magazine Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained | Live Science Just a moment... BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos I'd like to add (in the unfortunate case you don't read the papers I linked) that Mary Schweitzer, the researcher who discovered this is a born again Christian who is deeply troubled by the way some creationist web sites and personalities have misled people regarding her work. Following is a quote from her (see links for context).
quote: Now to assertion #2: Please quote the "law of science" that precludes the finding of these compounds in old earth bones (helpful hint: there isn't one, but don't take my word for it please). What I'm inviting you to do ChristianGuy15 is to think about the things you read rather than just accept them. Cross check them. Dig to find out if the claims they make are consistent with the truth. If you don't find that the bulk of scientists are unhappy about the find, why would you trust someone who tells you otherwise? If there turns out to be no known law of science that precludes such a find, why would you trust a source that tells you there is? It is this skill of skepticism and cross checking that I hope to instill in people I know who believe in a YE. Accurate conclusions will automatically follow. Food for thought. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024