0
   

Hadrosaur skin cells

 
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 07:08 am
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200907.htm#20090701a

Freerepublic discussion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2286529/posts?q=1&;page=1#1



Quote:
Dakota Dino Reveals Skin Cells 07/01/2009


July 1, 2009 " “Absolutely amazing” and “absolutely gobsmacking” are exclamations made by scientists analyzing the fossilized skin of a hadrosaur known as Dakota. The researchers found cell structures and organic matter in the skin and layers that resemble the skin of birds and crocodiles.

The specimen was uncovered in 1999 on a North Dakota ranch and is still being analyzed. Photos on the BBC News show clear scales and cross sections of microscopic tendon structures. The article said, “Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures,” adding, “although the proteins that made up the hadrosaur’s skin had degraded, the amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present.”

How could soft tissue structures and details survive intact for 66 million years? The BBC article and National Geographic News repeat the researchers’ claim that this dinosaur was buried rapidly in a low-oxygen environment that prevented decay. Even so, it was unexpected to find this much preservation over such a long time. Derek Briggs, a Yale paleontologist who studies exceptionally-preserved fossils, said, “This kind of discovery just demonstrates very clearly that soft tissue does survive, that the processes involved are unusual but not absolutely extraordinary " so there’s no reason why this kind of material won’t be discovered again.”

Briggs told the BBC News that one reason paleontologists have not found soft tissues before recently is that they were not expecting to find them: “in many cases these kinds of skin impressions have gone unnoticed and people have gone after the skeleton, which is of course what you’d expect to be preserved.” Phillip Manning, author of a new book Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science expects a lot more soft tissue could be out there awaiting discovery: “Who knows?” he said. “The elusive dinosaur mummies of the fossil record might be more common.”

The National Geographic article, true to form, emphasized the similarity of Dakota’s skin to that of birds (cf. 06/18/2009). “There’s no evidence of goosebumps just yet,” quipped reporter Christine Dell'Amore, “but a remarkably preserved dinosaur reveals that the prehistoric reptile had skin like that of birds and crocodiles, a new study says.”

Why are the scientists so sure that an oxygen-free environment would preserve amino acids and mummified skin from degradation for 66 million years? This should be a testable hypothesis. There are anoxic bacteria, after all. Could they not be capable of degrading organic matter? And Dakota was not found in an underwater oxygen-free tomb, but in rock. Someone should put two identical dead animals in two tanks, one with oxygen and one without, simulating plausible burial environments, and measure the differences in decay rates. Besides, whatever organic material was left after the environment changed to rock should have decayed completely. Unless, that is, the fossil is nowhere near as old as the consensus believes.


Next headline on: Dinosaurs • Fossils • Dating Methods



66 Million years? Skin cells??
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,739 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 08:22 am
@gungasnake,
wandel already beat you to it. Whats the argument that Creationists want to make out of this WITHOUT ANY TESTING OR EVIDENCE GATHERING???

GAWWWDDDD DONE IT!!.

If you can understand that oil, soteocalcin, coal, bitumens, and other organic deposits are of the same ilk, I dont know that this, other than the fact that its a well preserved detail in a CALCIUM CARBONATE ROCK.

Ignoring the majority of the data is the CReationist way.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 08:24 am
@farmerman,
Weve seen the "detail" with gunga applies to his reading over on the thread that he claimed a car would sell for 600 bucks and then tried to backpedal.

He quickly clips something from a Creationistr site and , without even attempting any investigation, he plops it on the board .
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 10:21 am
There is little question that dinosaurs are related to birds. Your point is worthless Gunga.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 10:39 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Someone should put two identical dead animals in two tanks, one with oxygen and one without, simulating plausible burial environments, and measure the differences in decay rates.

This sounds like a job for the Discovery Institute.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 06:05 pm
@rosborne979,
actually, fossilization under various conditions has been replecated by some college undergrad courses. One that I was familiar with was the burial of a smallish creature in a solution that precipiotated calcium carbonate. This dried and dessicated the little critter and was , for all intents, fossilized and would probably undergo chemical changes to exchange flourine from phsophates in the shell or tissue.
Silica fossilization is extremely fast as insects quickly exchange cations from a hot silica water (Like the travertine pools at Yellowstone).

Physical fossilization by themral means is something thats been modeled based on a fossil rhiniocerous that was encapsulated by a volcanic tephra fall in the PAcific Northwest. The rhino was covered by the ash fall like the casts of people who were covered over and fossilized by Vesuvius.

Before we go making fossils out of ourselves, its worth a trip through literature to find out sytems of similitude.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 08:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
actually, fossilization under various conditions has been replecated by some college undergrad courses.

I'm not surprised. What I found silly was that Gunga's article suggested that someone should try this (as though science hasn't researched this thoroughly already). And since the Discovery Institute hasn't produced even one smidgeon of scientific data yet, I thought they should take their own advice and begin running some actual experiments. And watching dead things lay there seemed like something that their researchers might be able to handle for their first attempt at a scientific study. Once they are done, they can compare their results to the mountains of pre-existing data on this subject already.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 03:53 am
@rosborne979,
The difference between science and the fake centers like "Creation SCience Institute" or the "Discovery Institute" is that the ID centers will see something like this and declare it a "Mystery and proof of concept of irreducible comlexity" and the Creationit sites will proclaim it "a Mystery and proof positive of a YOUNG EARTH". SCience will be busy trying to understand the mechanisms and the chemistry. You never hear of ANY reseqrch being carried on at the ICS or the Disco Institute

Neither of these "fake science centers" really wants to have any light shown on the subject by actual investigation, testing, and experimentation.They need to have mysteries without answers, phenomena without causes, and assertions without bases in fact.

The Hadrosaur skin cells, according to the first scientific information, were cast and preserved as CAlcium carbonate lattices that included some degraded proteinaceous stuff , hardly soft tissue. The word "soft tissue" was focused on by some science reporter and jumped on by these creationist huckster sites to engorge their fan base.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:11 am
Apparently this is the picture from NEwMAg. It shows the "Skin impressions" that contain the "degraded amino acids in a skin cast". SOmehow the actual reporting was accurate, and the later interpretations by the CReationists is where the "dinosaur soft tissue" was stuck on the report.
No slight of hand just changing the focus and information in the story.

   http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45993000/jpg/_45993506_manning1.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 07:14 am
Quote:
The specimen was uncovered in 1999 on a North Dakota ranch and is still being analyzed. Photos on the BBC News show clear scales and cross sections of microscopic tendon structures. The article said, “Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures,” adding, “although the proteins that made up the hadrosaur’s skin had degraded, the amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present.”...


I mean, in the cases of soft tissue turning up inside dinosaur bones you could at least try to make a case that the bone had somehow magically protected the soft tissue for 70,000,000 years; but skin isn't protected by bone in any way, is it?

You should get used to the idea that your multi-million year age for dinosaurs has just bit the dust and that the minority of Americans who believe in evolution will get smaller as this news gets out.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:50 am
@gungasnake,
you are easily convinced by anyone except a real scientist. There are hundreds of fossils that have preserved interior structures beneath skin . Its all a matter of how fine the particles and how much chemical solutions are involved. As I said before, silica waters can preserve much of the internal organs . (Think about all the tree sections in the petrified Forest Nat PArk) you can count tree rings all the way through. Several dino fossils show fossilization of organs like the lunks and heart inside the rib cage. These are usually excavated away but since its become fashionable to CT scan every fossil, weve seen many surprising internal features.

The evidence for a 65000000 year K/T boundary is in no danger of being usurped by the loonies from the ISC or the Disco Inst.
Theyve got nothing to bring to the argument xcept some whacky zeal and beliefs in fairy stories. Tell em to try to get some evidence to underpin their beliefs.







LIKE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN. The Disco Inst is more inclined to argue against evidence at hand than it is trying to conduct their own reserach. WHATEVER HAPPENED tp DISCO's "Search For Design" in the fossil record and life in general?? I believe its gone away just like the PAluxey Man footprints and the Lake Superior "stegosaur"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hadrosaur skin cells
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 01:12:46