Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mummified hadrosaur evidence of recent global flood
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 16 of 43 (440131)
12-11-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kitsune
12-11-2007 4:13 PM


But the people I'm arguing with aren't exactly the most rational, logical people you could find.
Say it isn't so!!!!!!
They would say that this fossil is potential evidence of a global flood unless proved otherwise, and also that it is potentially only a few thousand years old.
That is part of the reason we're mucking about with the question of interpreting the Hell Creek as a flood deposit (which is ridiculous, btw).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 4:13 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 43 (440204)
12-11-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kitsune
12-11-2007 6:31 AM


It is the fossil of a hadrosaur which has been mummified, though to be more specific, the bones have been mineralised and the whole body is in an unusually excellent state of preservation, which includes skin and soft tissues. This find has recently been in the news because of the publication of a book by National Geographic, titled Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science.
just an important clarification. they're calling it a "mummy" but the term has the wrong connotation. as you write, it is a fossil, and no soft tissue has been found -- just fossils: rocks and minerals in the shape of the hadrosaur.
Hovind claims that due to the rare preservation of skin and mummification, the creature had to be buried "very rapidly, in flash flood conditions."
hovind is actually right in this part of the claim. it WAS buried very rapidly in flash flood conditions. however, the jump to "NOAH!" is completely disengenuous for any number of reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 6:31 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 18 of 43 (440255)
12-12-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
12-11-2007 9:25 PM


just an important clarification. they're calling it a "mummy" but the term has the wrong connotation. as you write, it is a fossil, and no soft tissue has been found -- just fossils: rocks and minerals in the shape of the hadrosaur.
This is partially correct. Calling it a 'mummy' is foolish, but enough of my colleagues have jumped on that bandwagon that it's a fight I no longer care to wage. Although to be fair, I don't have a better term for a dessicated carcass that preserves evidence of soft tissues. And incidentally, that is the mummy thing...dessication. There are other dinosaur specimens out there that preserve significant evidence of soft tissues and/or integument (the feathered dinosaurs, anyone?). What the 'mummies' all have in common (excepting "Dakota" since so little work has been done on this one that the jury is still out) is significant pre-burial dessication (as far as we can tell from the small amount of taphonomic work that has been done on the specimens).
In terms of actual soft tissue, we really no very little about how much original material remains in this specimen. Most of the skeleton hasn't been prepared or directly studied yet. Claims as to what percentage of original material remains are seriously premature. To assert that because the specimen comes from the Late Cretaceous there is only going to be mineral material left is not really correct. Remember, "fossilization" (and here we're really talking about mineral replacement of original organic matter) is a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch that took millions of years to flip. I know that is how it is generally presented, but it really isn't accurate. How much original material remains in a "fossil" is not a constant and is related to various factors of the environment of deposition and post-deposition. Not only that, but the rates of this process taking place are also variable and poorly understood. For "Dakota" we simply don't know this answer yet.
Hovind is actually right in this part of the claim. it WAS buried very rapidly in flash flood conditions.
We don't know this either. The geology of the locality hasn't been published in a reviewed paper. And regardless, a flash flood is NOT the necessary burial mechanism. High flow rates, yes...but it did not have to be a crazy flood event to inter the carcass quickly enough on a point bar or something to result in soft-tissue getting buried before it rotted away or was scavenged away. I have seen pictures of the locality and the rocks to me do not suggest a flood event...so I'm skeptical that a flood interpretation is the correct one anyway. This is speculative without having been ON the quarry (and I have not been), but the rocks sure don't look like flood deposits to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 12-11-2007 9:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 11:26 AM JB1740 has replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-12-2007 11:34 AM JB1740 has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 43 (440259)
12-12-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by JB1740
12-12-2007 11:09 AM


In terms of actual soft tissue, we really no very little about how much original material remains in this specimen. Most of the skeleton hasn't been prepared or directly studied yet. Claims as to what percentage of original material remains are seriously premature.
well, yes. that's what i mean -- my original statement is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. "so soft tissue has been found."
To assert that because the specimen comes from the Late Cretaceous there is only going to be mineral material left is not really correct. Remember, "fossilization" (and here we're really talking about mineral replacement of original organic matter) is a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch that took millions of years to flip. I know that is how it is generally presented, but it really isn't accurate. How much original material remains in a "fossil" is not a constant and is related to various factors of the environment of deposition and post-deposition. Not only that, but the rates of this process taking place are also variable and poorly understood. For "Dakota" we simply don't know this answer yet.
there is always the chance, since fossilization is a somewhat slow process and doesn't happen all once. i think, however, the best we can hope for would be something like the t-rex DNA extracted from a fossil (femur?). this is roughly the same time period, and there was a lot more to fossilize, so you never know. i think it would be the coolest thing ever to extract some hadrosaur DNA, even if it'll cause many more arguments with creationists about how old the earth is. actual tissue would be amazing, but let's not count our chickens. or distant chicken relatives.
We don't know this either. The geology of the locality hasn't been published in a reviewed paper. And regardless, a flash flood is NOT the necessary burial mechanism. High flow rates, yes...but it did not have to be a crazy flood event to inter the carcass quickly enough on a point bar or something to result in soft-tissue getting buried before it rotted away or was scavenged away.
oh, well, i could be mistaken. i caught a program on the national geographic channel about it, and they suggested that the mineral the "mummy" is composed of was likely produced by bacteria that live in oxygen-starved environments, ie: underwater. but they could be wrong, of course. on their night of dinosaurs programming, i spent the two hours prior to it screaming at the television regarding how idiotic they were.
I have seen pictures of the locality and the rocks to me do not suggest a flood event...so I'm skeptical that a flood interpretation is the correct one anyway. This is speculative without having been ON the quarry (and I have not been), but the rocks sure don't look like flood deposits to me.
fair enough.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:09 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 43 (440260)
12-12-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by JB1740
12-12-2007 11:09 AM


Soft Tissue?
In terms of actual soft tissue, we really no very little about how much original material remains in this specimen.
The term "soft tissue" gets used a lot in cases like this, and I have a few, likely dumb, questions.
The term soft tissue brings to mind an image of my little sister pinching my arm, of something certainly as supple as leather at worst.
But is that what is seen in these cases? Are the folk examining something like leather or does it mean "what was once skin or internal organs but now preserved so that they are more like rock that shows details of the original?"

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:09 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:40 AM jar has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 21 of 43 (440261)
12-12-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
12-12-2007 11:26 AM


there is always the chance, since fossilization is a somewhat slow process and doesn't happen all once. i think, however, the best we can hope for would be something like the t-rex DNA extracted from a fossil (femur?).
I agree.
this is roughly the same time period, and there was a lot more to fossilize, so you never know.
It's actually exactly the same time period and the same suite of rocks. T. rex and this hadrosaur were contemporaries.
i think it would be the coolest thing ever to extract some hadrosaur DNA, even if it'll cause many more arguments with creationists about how old the earth is. actual tissue would be amazing, but let's not count our chickens. or distant chicken relatives.
There is a paper coming...I think soon. Stay tuned.
oh, well, i could be mistaken. i caught a program on the national geographic channel about it, and they suggested that the mineral the "mummy" is composed was likely produced by bacteria that live in oxygen-starved environments, ie: underwater. but they could be wrong, of course. on their night of dinosaurs programming, i spent the two hours prior to it screaming at the television regarding how idiotic they were.
Geographic got this one wrong. The program totally missed how meandering rivers work and the entire premise they gave of the burial of the animal is not only not congruent with the Hell Creek in general, but isn't congruent with how meandering rivers tend to bury dead animals. The CG of the carcass being buried was simply funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 11:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 12:58 PM JB1740 has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 22 of 43 (440262)
12-12-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
12-12-2007 11:34 AM


Re: Soft Tissue?
But is that what is seen in these cases? Are the folk examining something like leather or does it mean "what was once skin or internal organs but now preserved so that they are more like rock that shows details of the original?"
In this case it is closer to the latter situation. What we're talking about is river sand that modeled around the skin envelope and recorded it's shape. This sand was then concreted by a mineral called siderite. The real question is how much of the original organic material remains mixed in with the sand or if there are actual soft tissues encased by the sandstone that retain original materials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-12-2007 11:34 AM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 43 (440280)
12-12-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by JB1740
12-12-2007 11:37 AM


It's actually exactly the same time period and the same suite of rocks. T. rex and this hadrosaur were contemporaries.
i wasn't sure, so i tried not to make a bold statement. i'm aware they're both late cretaceous dinosaurs, and both lived in the hell creek area, but i forgot offhand which particular specimen the DNA came from. and so i didn't want to make a claim that regarding the specifics. but hey, if they came from exactly the same exact time and place, that's great.
There is a paper coming...I think soon. Stay tuned.
edge of my seat.
Geographic got this one wrong. The program totally missed how meandering rivers work and the entire premise they gave of the burial of the animal is not only not congruent with the Hell Creek in general, but isn't congruent with how meandering rivers tend to bury dead animals. The CG of the carcass being buried was simply funny.
it looked like poop. literally. i'm always sort of amused by how the scientists know what they're talking about in the interviews, but the narrators always always always screw stuff up. it's like the couldn't have run the final cut by one of those scientists whos work they're presenting.
ah well, at least they generally get it better than the newspapers.
i was sort of puzzled about how someone said that the hadrosaur's tail was far fatter than people had ever thought (yet i'm positive i've seen many depictions that weren't nearly as gaunt as their skinny version), and how they were surprised at the spacing of the vertebrae, as if dinosaurs didn't have cartilage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 11:37 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 1:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 24 of 43 (440288)
12-12-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
12-12-2007 12:58 PM


i wasn't sure, so i tried not to make a bold statement. i'm aware they're both late cretaceous dinosaurs, and both lived in the hell creek area, but i forgot offhand which particular specimen the DNA came from. and so i didn't want to make a claim that regarding the specifics. but hey, if they came from exactly the same exact time and place, that's great.
Well, exact time and place meaning both from the Hell Creek/Lance sequences. So yeah, both "in the Hell Creek area" as you stated. I didn't mean to imply that the T. rex DNA specimen and "Dakota" both came from the same quarry. Sorry if it came across that way.
it looked like poop. literally. i'm always sort of amused by how the scientists know what they're talking about in the interviews, but the narrators always always always screw stuff up. it's like the couldn't have run the final cut by one of those scientists whos work they're presenting.
I have some experience with this stuff...it doesn't seem to matter if you get the final cut run by you or not...stuff still ends up getting messed by the time it airs. It's crazy.
i was sort of puzzled about how someone said that the hadrosaur's tail was far fatter than people had ever thought (yet i'm positive i've seen many depictions that weren't nearly as gaunt as their skinny version),
The skinny version was more gaunt than it was originally supposed to be...but still much skinnier than the fat one, although I'm still skeptical of the data used to support the fat assertion...
and how they were surprised at the spacing of the vertebrae, as if dinosaurs didn't have cartilage.
Indeed, although I did think that was one of the cooler things they found in the entire project. It's one thing to infer that dinosaurs had cartilage between adjacent centra, it's another thing entirely to SEE the damn stuff in a CT image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 12:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 1:25 PM JB1740 has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 43 (440294)
12-12-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by JB1740
12-12-2007 1:17 PM


Well, exact time and place meaning both from the Hell Creek/Lance sequences. So yeah, both "in the Hell Creek area" as you stated. I didn't mean to imply that the T. rex DNA specimen and "Dakota" both came from the same quarry. Sorry if it came across that way.
oh, yeah, that was the confusion i was trying to avoid.
I have some experience with this stuff...it doesn't seem to matter if you get the final cut run by you or not...stuff still ends up getting messed by the time it airs. It's crazy.
i'm sure. i really wish people who are scientists themselves would report this stuff.
The skinny version was more gaunt than it was originally supposed to be...but still much skinnier than the fat one, although I'm still skeptical of the data used to support the fat assertion...
well, there's been a bit of a fad recently of depicting dinosaurs as pretty skinny animals. but if you think about, they all more or less have to balance over their hips. at least the bipedal ones. so the mass of the tail has to be roughly equal to the mass of the torso, head, and forearms. right? excessively skinny tails wouldn't work as a counter-balance.
Indeed, although I did think that was one of the cooler things they found in the entire project. It's one thing to infer that dinosaurs had cartilage between adjacent centra, it's another thing entirely to SEE the damn stuff in a CT image.
agreed, and it is very very cool to have the specifics. but (probably because of editting) their reasonable amazement at the coolness of seeing everything in place came across as complete ignorance of basic biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 1:17 PM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 2:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 26 of 43 (440311)
12-12-2007 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
12-12-2007 1:25 PM


well, there's been a bit of a fad recently of depicting dinosaurs as pretty skinny animals. but if you think about, they all more or less have to balance over their hips. at least the bipedal ones. so the mass of the tail has to be roughly equal to the mass of the torso, head, and forearms. right? excessively skinny tails wouldn't work as a counter-balance.
Ahh...you've noticed the anorexia trend, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 1:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 4:31 PM JB1740 has replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 27 of 43 (440313)
12-12-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kitsune
12-11-2007 9:20 AM


quote:
No. I'm not a creationist
I know, I'm playing along
quote:
The earth is 6,000 years old and nothing about this fossil indicates that it has to be any older than that.
That is about as useful as picking a single word out of a book and saying 'nothing about this word tells us this book has more than x pages'. You need to look at the bigger picture if you want to determine how old the world is. The topic was how this dinosaur is evidence for a young earth, and so far I fail to see how that counts as evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 9:20 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 43 (440326)
12-12-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by JB1740
12-12-2007 2:28 PM


Ahh...you've noticed the anorexia trend, eh?
yeah, and well enough to know it's just a trend. i think it started with dinosaurs like velociraptor, as part of their general public image overhaul to make them appear more bird-like, active, and warm-blood. and they just kind of over-compensated a bit. small, bipedal dinosaurs like that may well have been skinny (especially those with pneumatized bones, less weight on one end = less weight on the other) but the larger herbivores, i would imagine, were probably not.
hadrosaurs, in my mind, are a little bit like cows. grazing herd animals -- so we should expect them to be built a bit like grazing herd animals. you could probably make a pretty damned good steak from one. and i expect tyrannosaurs thought the same thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 2:28 PM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 4:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 29 of 43 (440328)
12-12-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
12-12-2007 4:31 PM


That's interesting. I've long speculated that the anorexia trend came from those paleoartists that cared more about being correct in the anatomy...that they started making the animals more gaunt so that anatomical features (the antorbital fenestra, the large suken cavity in front of the eyes is a good example) would stand out more...sort of them saying to us (the scientists)...see? we're paying attention to the anatomy and getting it correct. I have no real evidence for this idea...but it's what I've speculated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 4:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2007 4:44 PM JB1740 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 43 (440331)
12-12-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JB1740
12-12-2007 4:35 PM


that's a possibility. the drawings i've seen over the years have gotten more and more anatomically correct as well, and the "anorexia" does kind of demonstrate bone structure, and to some degree musculature. though i'm not totally sure that musculature can be entirely accurate anyways. it always seems like they're missing some thigh muscles to me.
the most preposterously skinny dinosaur depictions i've seen are generally t. rexes. some with ridiculously fragile-looking heads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JB1740, posted 12-12-2007 4:35 PM JB1740 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kitsune, posted 12-13-2007 2:49 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024