2
   

Soft tissue found in T-Rex fossil

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:20 am
Another take on the story:

http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/frozen_planes.htm


Quote:


HUNDREDS OF RINGS IN 48 YEARS?

"How could there be many hundreds of annual rings in only 48 years?"

"THOSE ARE NOT ANNUAL RINGS. That's not summer and winter," replied Cardin. " It's warm -- cold -- warm -- cold -- warm --cold. You can get ten of those in one day."

And that's a fact!

Yet, the scientific elite was still calling them annual rings in 1998. (See Scientific American, February 1998, p.82).

Somebody's either ignorant, or lying.

I'm worried. The textbooks you read today are textbooks not only about science, but about evolution. They're trying to sneak evolution in with the science.

Sneaking beer ads in with football matches doesn't mean beer is football. Sneaking evolution in with the science, doesn't make it science.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:27 am
Thats really big talk from someone who has no idea how glaciers even work. I read your "Creationist" axe on the P-38. Maybe if a geologist were up there when they dug it up he/she could have explained the difference between bergsgrunde zones and ablation zones in a declining glacial front.


BTW, I dont know where in Greenlands 800000 sq mi this plane hit, but seeing as thats 4X the size of Texas, we dont usually make judgements about a particular areas geomorphology without knowing something about it. Please spare some of your vast knowledge on science and let us know how you figure that crashing a plane into a (moving) glacial terrain and having the glacier move a few miles and then have the plane located at some ablation zone, denies the veracity of glacial layering. Did the plane even crash into a glacial area? or was it some water filled cavity along a moraine ?
When you try to critique something you should at least understand a bit about the subject. Otherwise youre just a fool. Are you a fool gunga?


Quote:
Likewise evo-losers are immune to logic, but they are clearly not immune to ridicule, and they have richly earned it. Having to explain raw meat inside trex bones and P38s under 260' of ice is just the tip of the iceberg.
. This is all I hear from you. You never have anything intelligent to say, just blah blah blah spoonfed crap from the Creationists websites. When are you going to try some real scholarship? Give reasons why a keragen nd protein from an insect in amber should be any different from a T Rex in rock? Does it ever occur to you that this discovery merely widens the scope of mechanisms of preservation for proteins and complex sugars? Both are crystals when they are dessicated. We find fossil "chlorophyll from the coal deposits of Nova Scotia, yet here theyve found proteins in a T Rex knee cap and you are claiming some kind of victory. Talking with you is like talking to my cat. You both act like your listening but theres very little wattage up in the capesa.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 08:37 am
gungasnake wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I don't suppost that, say, burning fuel, might have melted a little snow.... Rolling Eyes



Crash landing on ice and snow, you'd probably cut the engines before you touched down. Any rate, the pilots all got out alive and the planes were found intact, so that you can assume the fuel didn't burn.

You interviewed 3400 year old pilots?

Methuseleh returns!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 09:41 am
Kent Hovind is in jail for bilking the "faithful" out of retirement money, so theres yer Creation science for you.

The way that ice cores are correlated is that they recognize that surficial ice can be subdivided into several peaks per year . Im sure that the quote mined piece that gave Hovind an apparent edge was not so one sided as written. Hovind probably didnt even understandt the cross correlation of stable isotopes and the periodicity in which the seasons affect the chemistry of individual ice laminae. Only a cReationist would even make a big deal of this because , in the Rockies , we can see individual layers of snow and ice displayed from each individual snowstorm. ICE CORE STRATIGRAPHY

Heres a paper that explains the use of the variations of chemicals , gases, liquid inclusions and dusts that get incorped into an ice core. Just like tree rings, the calibration of ice core data is a science not left in the hands of ignorant idiots like KEnt Hovind. Hes barely able to recognize that "thou shalt not steal" should be a nice law to follow.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 01:25 pm
Heres another part of the Ice Core saga from the same scientists who established the new ice core stratigraphy for Greenland.Comparison of Late Pleistocene ice cores with other dating techniques.

I havent been able to find out whether Hovind , "Dr Dino" , is or is not in jail right now. I know his Dinoland Creation park has suffered some serious financial setbacks and he was merely attempting to tap some generous donors in fashions that were less than legal.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 01:37 pm
farmerman wrote:
Kent Hovind is in jail for bilking the "faithful" out of retirement money, so theres yer Creation science for you.


He wasn't even smart enough to bilk the faithful without getting caught? That's pitiful. Lesser men than him get away with it every day.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2007 05:44 pm
yes but those are elected officials
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 07:03 pm
Translation from bafflegab into plain english...

Quote:

...based on the usual and standard system of dating ice sheets a number of perfectly competent engineers and scientists expected those aircraft to be under three or four feet of ice and snow, and were greatly taken aback when they ultimately found them under 260' and thousands of layers of ice which are normally interpreted as thousands of years and in fact statements to that effect are found in scientific journals published well after the recovery of the P38 in question.

But there is no real problem with the standard theory because of blah blah blah blah and blah blah blah blah blah blah.......... and anybody who says there is is an idiot and a liar because of blah blah blah.....


http://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/community-services/library/images/blowhard.gif
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 04:08 pm
gunga quoting someone
Quote:
.based on the usual and standard system of dating ice sheets a number of perfectly competent engineers and scientists expected those aircraft to be under three or four feet of ice and snow,
. If thi is Hovind saying that then I can understand the charlatans mode. The "Standard" mode of dating ice sheets is to cross correlate it to known dates (isotopes, dust layers, magnetic reversal o apparent pole wandering, comparison to ocean cores etc) The Greenland models are generally three
1the area of ice accumulation

2zones of ablation

3neutral zones with little or no movement.

Also, because about 80% of Greenland is above the Arctic Circle, there isw always the feature that can differentiate whether ice sheets were deposited in a sesonal variation "built in".
Things like Conductivity from atmospheric hydrolysis and nitrification will vary whenever the sun shines (and we all know that the sun never shines in Northern Greenland in the winter). Also O16/O18 ratios are seasonally variable, so looking for Oxygen isotope ratios as a function of a season may not sound like good theology, but its very good science I found out from a friend at Penn State where that P38 was found, and it was in the SOuthern and Western side of Greenland, in an ablation zone, tht undergoes many melt eventsin a year. This area (below the Arctic Circle was covered in Alleys Book "The Two Mile Time MAchine".) THis area is covered by about 7 feet of snow per year. The planes were lost in 1942 so 1990 -1942 is 48 years X 7 = 336 ft deep in snow. Now, allowing for about 33% compression of the lower layers its easy to see that 250 ft isnt bad number . And at no time did anybody have to invoke any real science to challenge youre idiot friend Kent Hovind. I would love to see"Dr Dino" argue ice core stratigraphy with Richard Alley.

The thought always occured to me "why even give a **** gunga"? The point is beyond your abilities (not meant as a slap , but ice core stratigraphy is best left to the true specialists like Rich Alley and not you or me (or sepecially Dr Dino). The processes of how the stratigraphy is correlated and "time checked" is somewhat arcane but understandible if time is taken. However, when I thought about it more, the idea that Ice core stratigraphy, though complex and olnly good for dates under , say 200000 years BP, is still waaaaay out there wrt Creationist acceptance of the formation of the earth.
So, in reality, were not talking about some faaar past "deep time" events that you wish to discount. You have a real problem with anything thats officially scoped to be over 10000 years BP (give or take a patriarch or two)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 07:41 pm
Ablation, N:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation

Quote:

In glaciology, ablation is used to define the removal of ice or snow from the surface of a mass of ice. Ablation may refer to melting and runoff or evaporation and sublimation of the ice, resulting in a thinning of the ice if it is not replenished by some other process. Ablation deposits are the masses of detritus left after surface melting of glacial ice.


In other words, blowhard, ablation is the last thing you or your dating scheme need here; what you need is the opposite of ablation, or some way of explaining to a waiting world, how 3500 years worth of ice could get deposited on top of downed aircraft in 40 years, without ruining your stupid theory about using ice layers for dating.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 May, 2007 08:26 pm
Its not my theory genius. And, if youre not bright enough to understand the principles involved , or dont wish to understand them, I understand that , for your kind,100000 years is as big a problem as is 4.5 BILLION years..

PS, I didnt have to look up ablation , geographically, its generally considered the zone in the SOuth 20% of Greenland where melting has occured from the BOTTOM of the ice sheet. snow still falls at 7 ft/year , thus giving us the 250 feet of snow over the plane. I think I was pretty clear about that. (maybe Ill have to go even slower with "special gunga"). You can have ablation and accumulation going on at the same place, just that one exceeds the other over a year or an eon. (cf) Glossary of GEology 5th ed.

I shall hAVE TO contact WIKIPEDIA, because their article is somewhat incorrect because ablation does not occur only on the surface of a glacier. The "real source, AGI says"

Quote:
ABLATION,(glaciol)- includes all the processes by which snow and ice are lost from a glacier,floating ice, or from a snow field. These processes include melting, evaporation, sublimation, wind erosion, or calving. Sometimes ablation may be limited to surface losses, thus excluding calving. It also includes that period of a year when the
balanceof a glacier decreases from a maximum value to a minimum value within that specific year. This is a period when, on average, ablation exceeds accumulation. SYN, "summer"


I get to quote out of my own personal CD which , unless you subscribe to AGI pubs and are a "card carrying " geo type, you cannot, nor can you peer into its vast talley of words. You are destined to forever be stuck with WIkipedia, the true mark of an Amateur "Creationologist"

AGI has about 25 entries for various events with ablation at the front.

Your argument, out of ignorance, assumes that anyone is buying your logic that someneophyte grad student glaciologist has agreed with Hovind that one line means one year(this is utter bullshit and I accuse Hovind of making up a baldface lie). When real scientists work on this arcane crap, they make sure that theyve thought of everything including the fact that a glacier may be melting from the bottom in one part of Greenland (Where the plane was actually found , its the part where "summer sun" actually occurs for 5 months or less). Therefore Hovind has you convinced that he knows what the hell hes even talking about when , indeed, hes nothing but a big fraud who merely talks like a Creation Huckster.

Notice, I didnt call you a blowhard because I do feel that your ignorance should be swept away with some enlightenment and Ive given you at least one good book, Richard Alley's "The TWo Mile Time MAchine" Its a book on the way that ice cores are dated , correlated, compared , and a "standard" log developed.

Ill admit that glaciology is not my area of work but Ive probably got more data in one single drawer compartment of mineral inclusions in ice cores and isotope ratios (which is one of my areas) than you will probably read about on your own. Im not bragging, I just practise this every day so being told by some clueless hillwilliam how my education is lacking is somewhat humorous (at least to me since my daily craft has earned me a pretty good living)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2007 03:48 pm
Looks like gunga is of trying to call Dr Dino for some more bumper stickers.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 03:47 pm
Since HAm and the boys at AIG have , basically, adopted the language that gunga uses , (or , more likely, he has adopted their language) calling the T-Rex material "Like raw meat' , a number of gfeo-bloggers have taken up the lance and have followed the recent literature .
Quote:
AIG"Answers in Genesis" has reported this recovered material as strictly organic. This is a conclusion not warranted by the evidence, as a close reading of Dr. Schweitzer's original article and even a cursory reading of the accompanying commentary article (2) in the same issue of Science would show:

"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."

Some of the tougher biopolymers (especially chitin, lignins and proteins) may degrade very slowly in a fossil. Some arthropod fossils from 25 million years ago contain a small amount of chitin (3), although insects preserved in amber from about the same time period show complete diagenetic alteration (fossilization) in spite of the superb morphological preservation (4). Likewise, in spite of the excellent morphological preservation of this fossil Dr. Schweitzer clearly states that it is unknown at this time whether the actual original cellular and organic material is present. The preservation of intact organic material from a long-extinct species would be a wonderful scientific find, however it is most likely that Dr. Schweitzer and other molecular paleontologists will have to settle for studying the typical biomolecule degradation products found in fossils (5). It may actually be that some fraction of organic matter was preserved, and the supplemental material Dr. Schweitzer published indicates that this may be true as the sample extracts showed some affinity for antibodies against bovine osteocalcin and chicken type I collagen. This leads to the exciting possibility of extracting collagen or other structural proteins from the T. rex sample and comparing these to avian proteins to help clarify the evolutionary relationship between birds and theropod dinosaurs. However, it is unfortunately more likely that the sample will prove to be fully mineralized and lacking any utilizable amount of untransformed biomolecules. If this is so AIG will have egg in its face after its trumpeting of the T. rex sample as "unfossilized soft tissue" ("Still Soft and Stretchy," 25 March 2005).



Weve discussed on the evolution thread , the flexible conodont and Ordovician petrol"ized" fossils that retained flexibility , and weve talked about osteocalcin (a fossil derivative of proteins and DNA that indicates ancient tissues). These substances will be published next FAll in a GSA special paper (Ive been told) about unique fossilization chemistry .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 02:09:06