Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
gengar
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 138 (195641)
03-31-2005 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
03-28-2005 2:48 PM


Re: stretching the evidence
simple writes:
What conditions normally would you think contribute to this happening? Since it is not normal with just rapid burial, I guess it likely would be something in the atmosphere, or dirt that it got trapped in?
But in a general sense, what we see is normal for rapid burial - that's the point I've been trying to make. Exactly the same processes (mineral envelopment and - probably - replacement) have operated on this fossil as on most others. In a specific sense, the exact chemistry is novel, and why is a good question. An obvious factor to investigate would be the pore fluid composition of the sediment it was buried in, which would be influenced by the sediment itself.
But don't be fooled - although the pictures look very impressive, the vessels didn't just fall out of the bone when it was broken open; they are the end result of dunking it in chemical bath for several days to remove the surrounding minerals.
Dating is only as good as an assumption that the decay process was always the same process. In other words only as good as saying there is nothing else but the physical world we now see, and it's current decay process. This is the assumption science makes, and one that cannot be proved or disproved. Something that cannot be proved or disproved is I would say, an unknown
Then, in reply to another poster, you said:
Yes, and my only assumptions about that is whether something different was happening in the past, not that what is happening, is happening.
I'm interested in your use of the word 'assumption' here. Yes, it is true that we are relying on constant rates of radioactive decay. But it's not like scientists have not tried to establish whether this is the case. Observations of distant supernovae, for example, show similar decay rates millions of years ago to those measured on Earth today. To get into this in detail is a little off topic, but you do realise that this 'assumption' has been tested and appears to be supported by evidence?
Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 03-28-2005 2:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 3:44 PM gengar has not replied
 Message 86 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 2:06 AM gengar has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6553 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 62 of 138 (195643)
03-31-2005 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by simple
03-31-2005 2:17 AM


Re: An illustration of failed expectations
Hi Simple,
Probably the best one could hope for even with successful extraction and characterization of dino DNA would be to place dino's in their relative phylogenetic position in relation to other vertebrates. Perhaps rates of sequence evolution estimates would gain another calibrator but from a single sample and species the value of this is kind of doubtful. More likely the group will stumble into contamination like the first report of dino DNA in the early 90's which was demonstrated to be a human sequence.
For a fairly easy to read summary of ancient DNA research (though it is a bit dated) you might want to check out the following article
Paabo S.
Ancient DNA.
Sci Am. 1993 Nov;269(5):86-92.
Cheers
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 2:17 AM simple has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 63 of 138 (195644)
03-31-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by simple
03-31-2005 2:17 AM


Prediction
Simple,
I seem to recall the last femur with exceptional preservation (with haem groups NOT blood cells, as widely reported in the creationist press) had fully racemised amino acids (the L & R forms of amino acids exist in equal quantity). This takes a loooong time to happen & is indicative of extremely long time spans. Mammoth remains aren't even close to this level of racemisation.
That would be an "evolutionary" prediction, a high degree of racemisation, should amino acids be recovered, that is. Since the original paper is preliminary, we'll just have to wait & see. But since the last one was highly racemised...
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 2:17 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 3:56 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 88 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 2:35 AM mark24 has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 138 (195805)
03-31-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by gengar
03-31-2005 3:25 AM


Re: stretching the evidence
quote:
relying on constant rates of radioactive decay
Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?
I started a thread on dating, in case someone wants to see opposing opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by gengar, posted 03-31-2005 3:25 AM gengar has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 138 (195813)
03-31-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by mark24
03-31-2005 3:37 AM


Re: Prediction
quote:
The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments
http://www.ozestuaries.org/...es/indicators/DEF_aa_race.html
Between the flood year, and the tropical pre flood world, and maybe toss in some violent flood tectonics, and we have some heat that may skew results?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 03-31-2005 3:37 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 03-31-2005 6:06 PM simple has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 138 (195843)
03-31-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by simple
03-31-2005 3:56 PM


Re: Prediction
simple,
Between the flood year, and the tropical pre flood world, and maybe toss in some violent flood tectonics, and we have some heat that may skew results?
How much heat, exactly, is required to skew the results by 70 million years minus 6ky?
Since there's no evidence of a global flood, & its associated violent flood tectonics, it's a moot point. The heat produced by the alleged accelerated radioactive decay that (is invoked to drive such tectonic movement) would skew radiometric dating by 70 million years would cook everything anyway, there would be no amino acids left to racemise.
Obvious conclusion: It never happened. You present no case to answer.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-31-2005 06:17 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 3:56 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 8:21 PM mark24 has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 138 (195880)
03-31-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mark24
03-31-2005 6:06 PM


Re: Prediction
quote:
How much heat, exactly, is required to skew the results by 70 million years minus 6ky?
Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?
quote:
The heat produced by the alleged accelerated radioactive decay that (is invoked to drive such tectonic movement) would skew radiometric dating by 70 million years would cook everything anyway, there would be no amino acids left to racemise.
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 03-31-2005 6:06 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 9:46 PM simple has replied
 Message 69 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2005 2:49 AM simple has replied
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 04-01-2005 4:20 AM simple has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 68 of 138 (195890)
03-31-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by simple
03-31-2005 8:21 PM


Skewing of results
Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?
Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to?
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?
You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 09:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 8:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 3:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 69 of 138 (195943)
04-01-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by simple
03-31-2005 8:21 PM


Re: Prediction
I understand that you have a lot of people to answer to, but I do think that it would be very nice of you to reply to the old ape's post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 8:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 3:07 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 138 (195947)
04-01-2005 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NosyNed
03-31-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Skewing of results
quote:
Could you explain what you mean here? What tests are you refering to?
"The potential of aspartic acid to provide a chronology for geologically-young sedimentary successions was confirmed by comparing the kinetic trend of Asp observed in laboratory-induced racemisation established by simulated aging (heating) experiments "
This link I posted, in case you feel no need to read the posts.
quote:
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?
You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?
Actually we have here you misunderstanding where I am coming from. Now you don't want me to get snarky, so try to get it. If you need help, and are very polite, I may explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 9:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 04-01-2005 3:52 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 138 (195949)
04-01-2005 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by coffee_addict
04-01-2005 2:49 AM


Re: Prediction
Ok. So is it rare or impossible for dino meat in bones to be preserved? Well, since they don't really cut bones open till now, it has been rare. Why, what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2005 2:49 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2005 4:00 AM simple has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 72 of 138 (195953)
04-01-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by simple
04-01-2005 3:01 AM


Re: Skewing of results
simple writes:
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?
NosyNed writes:
You misunderstand the point utterly. Why don't you go back, read what was posted and see if you can figure out where you are wrong in your thinking before Mark gets back and gets a bit snarky about it?
simple writes:
Actually we have here you misunderstanding where I am coming from. Now you don't want me to get snarky, so try to get it. If you need help, and are very polite, I may explain.
Well, actually actually, we have you, simple, both misunderstanding what Mark meant and ignoring Ned's hint at a face-saving reexamination of Mark's post. So, let me try to explain it to you - unconditionally.
You see, Mark was talking about the heat of only a few thousand years. He meant that if the heat of the (alleged) accelerated radioactive decay could make it look as though radiometric dating were off by 70 million years, then that would be so much heat that the whole planet would be cooked thoroughly, destroying the amino acids - and everything else - altogether. What's more, it would be because the heat was being released in just a few thousand years.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 01-Apr-2005 09:17 AM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 3:01 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 2:06 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 73 of 138 (195955)
04-01-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by simple
04-01-2005 3:07 AM


Re: Prediction
Don't reply to me. Reply to the old ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 3:07 AM simple has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 74 of 138 (195957)
04-01-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by simple
03-31-2005 8:21 PM


Re: Prediction
Simple,
Well, how much heat in the labs for the tests?
You tell me. You are claiming that full racemisation can take place with heat added, I am asking how much heat need be applied for zero to full racemisation take place in a single year. You are the one claiming it happened, I am asking for evidential support of your claim.
Yes, but how about the heat from only a few thousand years?
No other samples show full racemisation from what you would describe as "only a few thousand years", let alone a single flood year, so why this one?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by simple, posted 03-31-2005 8:21 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 138 (196042)
04-01-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
04-01-2005 3:52 AM


detente
quote:
You see, Mark was talking about the heat of only a few thousand years. He meant that if the heat of the (alleged) accelerated radioactive decay could make it look as though radiometric dating were off by 70 million years, then that would be so much heat that the whole planet would be cooked
Ahh. OK. But I never envisioned any accelerated radioactive decay at all! If anything, I was saying that how much could happen in only a few thoudand years? (at current rates). I tried to open up a dating thread, but they've held it up at the pass, and won't let it out of propsed topics. So it is difficult to really get into it on a blood and tissue thread. But in a phrase, the isotpes we now see, in their various proportions to each other, were produced, according to my current reasoning of the split, while in the middle of a non decay process! When the split came, the process became a decay process, and whatever was happening no longer is happening. An over simplified analogy might be an escalator. Someone flipped the switch, and it started to go down, instead of up. So measuring how many rungs are coming down how quickly now, and extrapolating that into the far past, beyond even when the escalator was built is of no real value beyond the point it was switched!
So I see no burning of the planet anywhere there. The heat that I noticed they used to base the test on, made me ask about how heat might have affected the results. What kind of heat did I mean? Well, It was a mostly tropical world pre flood, I thought we might have a little more heat to work with. Also, the violence of the flood year, and volcanoes, water shooting up from fountains of the deep etc. More heat to work with. And, lastly, people like walt brown envision some type of violent plate movement, near the flood time, which again, depending on the circumstances, and degree, would provide lots of heat as well. You can see why this stuff is too big to be a sudeline in a dino thread.
Anyhow thanks for the mediation. A little detente always helps keep things civilized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 04-01-2005 3:52 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Trixie, posted 04-01-2005 3:56 PM simple has replied
 Message 81 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 12:52 AM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024