God is...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The technical report didn’t address the obvious challenge of describing such short-lived biological materials within a long-age context. Like other researchers in the field, these authors suggested that tissues somehow stayed intact inside these fossils, while sitting in or on the ground since their burial millions of years ago."
https://www.icr.org/article/over-a-dozen-more-dinosaur-soft-tissues

Here is an explanation.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained


By Stephanie Pappas November 26, 2013

  • kdasPrrg3nGwEXykH4pPqk-320-80.jpg
Artwork by Scott Hartman reveals the bone structure of T. rex. (Image credit: © Scott Hartman / All rights reserved)


The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.


Advertisement
The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.


The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.


The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron lady


Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.


After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

Advertisement
Advertisement


Discover what's next with a bachelor's degree from ASU
By Arizona State University
Learn from the same world-renowned faculty who teach on campus and earn your degree online from ASU. Explore upcoming start dates.

OBA_TRANS.png

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."


Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.


Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. [Paleo-Art: Illustrations Bring Dinosaurs to Life]


Searching for soft tissue

Advertisement
Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.


Schweitzer is set to search for more dinosaur soft tissue this summer. "I'd like to find a honking big T. rex that's completely articulated that's still in the ground, or something similar," she said. To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, she said. And they need to be tested quickly, as soft tissue could degrade once exposed to modern air and humidity.


Importantly, Schweitzer and her colleagues have figured out how to remove the iron from their samples, which enables them to analyze the original proteins. They've even found chemicals consistent with being DNA, though Schweitzer is quick to note that she hasn't proven they really are DNA. The iron-removing techniques should allow paleontologists to search more effectively for soft tissue, and to test it when they find it.

Advertisement
"Once we can get the chemistry behind some of these soft tissues, there's all sorts of questions we can ask of ancient organisms," Schweitzer said.
 
Student, man, you are a comedy of errors at times.

Just read the red boxes, and listen.

View attachment 269494



LOL. OK, so I was referring to not being able to use ELITE TRADER QUOTES, as in:

Student, man, you are a comedy of errors at times.
See how your quote came up in quotes? I have only been able to copy and paste Stu's words because he has been blocked. But now I see how I was using the word "quotes" to refer to Elite Trader style of quoting, and I should have been more clear.

MY GOOF! :D
 
And here is evidence that iron can not be the explanation for the preserved the soft tissue:

https://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for/

The article you reference, https://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for, has
The Nature Communications study authors wrote, "In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years."2
...
2. Bertazzo, S. et al. 2015. Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million-year-old dinosaur specimens. Nature Communications. 6: 7352.

The reference title "Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens" doesn't exactly scream "Young Earth."
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8352
Therefore, the observation of a ∼67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years. Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old20.

So the Institute for Creation Research at best seems to be ignoring the content (and title!) of a reference. Or maybe, the "Institute" is simply violating the Ninth (or sometimes Eighth) Commandment.
missed_fg.gif
 
The article you reference, https://www.icr.org/article/can-iron-preserve-fossil-proteins-for, has


The reference title "Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens" doesn't exactly scream "Young Earth."
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8352


So the Institute for Creation Research at best seems to be ignoring the content (and title!) of a reference. Or maybe, the "Institute" is simply violating the Ninth (or sometimes Eighth) Commandment.
View attachment 269524
Looking for your argument refuting the crux of the @studentofthemarkets post ... re: iron

star-trek-star-trek-tos.gif
 
Looking for your argument refuting the crux of the @studentofthemarkets post ... re: iron

There is no need for this because I've already posted evidence the Institute for Creation Research either doesn't really believe in the "young Earth" theory and/or the Institute is not a credible organization.

And remember, the link I posted before that the Institute for Creation Research references has
Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old20
4 million is significantly greater than 6,000 (so is 75 million).

Feel free to keep on
drink_the_kool_aid.gif
 
There is no need for this because I've already posted evidence the Institute for Creation Research either doesn't really believe in the "young Earth" theory and/or the Institute is not a credible organization.

And remember, the link I posted before that the Institute for Creation Research references has

4 million is significantly greater than 6,000 (so is 75 million).

Feel free to keep on
View attachment 269531

"...Randomness is speculative. It attempts to ascribe mystical, purposeless evolutionary causes in the absence of known function. It’s a proven failure as a secular research model..."

"...Biblical creation is the best scientific explanation for our universe and the wondrous life we see on Earth."

Roffle copter. So the Bible, a book written by men, is the best "scientific" explanation for the entire universe, and life on earth.

I cannot WAIT to see their encore performance when organic life is discovered on other planets. Their tune will change to "OK, life on earth is not the only divine creation, but earth was HIS his first choice to create".

Anything to support the superiority of the Papacy. It's puerile and stupid.
 
There is no need for this because I've already posted evidence the Institute for Creation Research either doesn't really believe in the "young Earth" theory and/or the Institute is not a credible organization.

And remember, the link I posted before that the Institute for Creation Research references has

4 million is significantly greater than 6,000 (so is 75 million).

Feel free to keep on
View attachment 269531
The OP made an assertion re: Iron.

You did not address that assertion.
 
There is no need for this because I've already posted evidence the Institute for Creation Research either doesn't really believe in the "young Earth" theory and/or the Institute is not a credible organization.
Figured I'd better dumb it down a little:

The OP cited the ICR Iron writeup.

Your stating whether or not the ICR believes in "young Earth," or Santa Clause, is not addressing what they've said with respect to iron.

Citing your opinion as to their credibility is not addressing what they've said with respect to iron.

If they lack credibility, then it should be real easy for you to refute the iron writeup, which you've aggressively avoided addressing so far.

In my opinion, there are a lot of trolls on this site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top