[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs not as old as we thought.

[TOG]

A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible. Needless to say, this shocking discovery is once again going to have paleontologists scrambling to find a way to prop up the popular myths that they have been promoting. What they have been telling us simply does not fit the facts. The truth is that this latest find is even more evidence that dinosaurs are far, far younger than we have traditionally been taught.

Full story

It's not just skin and feathers. The fossils also had veins, red blood cells and DNA. None of that should have been able to survive for tens of millions of years. The article also states that dinosaur fossils have been found that have been dated using C14, even though there should be no detectable C14 in any formerly living thing over 100 thousand years old. The fossils were dated to 10-16 thousand years old.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Here's something else that seems to indicate dinosaurs lived much closer to the present than we have been taught.

The first fossil stegasaurus was found in the late 19th century, so what is a picture of one doing on an 800 year old Cambodian temple?

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

This will become my grandson's current event article for this week!

Thanks TOG

This is the second time what you have posted has been a learning experience for Jake.

 

[TOG]

This will become my grandson's current event article for this week!

Thanks TOG

This is the second time what you have posted has been a learning experience for Jake.

You're welcome. What was the first thing I posted that Jake learned something from?

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

You're welcome. What was the first thing I posted that Jake learned something from?

The TOG​

He kind of young yet, although I do share post with him sometimes. Oh, I remember now, it was about math that led into me explaining Pythagorean Theorem. Which he understood.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Full story

It's not just skin and feathers. The fossils also had veins, red blood cells and DNA. None of that should have been able to survive for tens of millions of years.

This story surfaces every few years, but every time the story resurfaces more seems to be added to the story. Red blood cells were not found and neither was DNA. Feathers and Skin was found fossilized, but that in itself isn't unusual. There is a talk origin's article that explains a lot about this discovery that many websites that trot out this story seem to always omit or exaggerate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

The article also states that dinosaur fossils have been found that have been dated using C14, even though there should be no detectable C14 in any formerly living thing over 100 thousand years old. The fossils were dated to 10-16 thousand years old.

The TOG​

Actually that isn't true. C14 was not used to date the skeleton. Several independent dating methods were used to date the skeletons and it wasn't found to be unusual. The article picks the one method that would yield them the results they want to confirm, but the article ignores that several other methods were used and didn't come to the same result.

I'm sorry to say that you have been misled. I've seen this story crop up almost yearly since I started school back in 2007. Also the Smithsonian magazine isn't an accredited science journal.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Here's something else that seems to indicate dinosaurs lived much closer to the present than we have been taught.

The first fossil stegosaurus was found in the late 19th century, so what is a picture of one doing on an 800 year old Cambodian temple?

The TOG​

The first thing to point out that its probably not a stegosaurus. Also Stegosaurus remains have not been found in Cambodia. The carving has a head much different from a stegosaurus. The tail is also different and the only similarity is what looks to be spinal plates. However since stegosaurus remains have not been found in Cambodia and since there is no real indication of whether the creature in the carving is real or mythological, there is no guarantee that its anything indicating young dinosaurs.

 

[Vaccine]

Instead of debating whether it's possible, let's assume they're right. Add some iron and sand and voila 68 million year preservation. Wouldn't an environment or chemical process that PRESERVES ORGANIC MATERIAL for 68 million years be the discovery of the millennium!? Where is the joy of this discovery Bill Nye kept mentioning in those debates? They found iron and sand and are willing to let it go at that. That's more of an excuse than an answer. Who care's about what that means for evolution or dating methods, this could have a huge impact for the meat industry. If there is a way to preserve proteins for 68 million years surely by studying it they could find a way to preserve meat for even a few thousand years.

"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.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

So instead of finding out everything there is to know about the preservation of organic material for 68 million years, they ignore that discovery, in favor of finding a link between dinos and birds. Inexcusable. Well that, or they're wrong about millions of years. Either way they don't seem to eager to find out more about that preservation process.


Thanks TOG!

 

[Barbarian]

The first fossil stegasaurus was found in the late 19th century, so what is a picture of one doing on an 800 year old Cambodian temple?

Doesn't look remotely like a stegosaurus. There is something behind it that could be re-classified as saggital plates, but with a huge head, mammalian legs, and a small tail, the animal looks more like a rhinoceros than a dinosaur. This is a stegosaurus:

Note the long neck and tiny head, the Thagomizer on the tail, and the very small front legs and gigantic hind legs. Not remotely like your rhino.

The DNA story has already been debunked so I'll not pile on. Suffice to say that the only young dinosaurs in evidence are living in trees and chirping in the morning.

 

[Barbarian]

Instead of debating whether it's possible, let's assume they're right. Add some iron and sand and voila 68 million year preservation. Wouldn't an environment or chemical process that PRESERVES ORGANIC MATERIAL for 68 million years be the discovery of the millennium!?

Not really. Petroleum, for example. Leaves buried in anoxic mud for millions of years, amber, some marine invertebrate fossils. Lots of examples of that. DNA and tissue, that would be something special, but so far, no such things.

 

[Vaccine]

These are the sources:
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.short
"Fossilized bones from extinct taxa harbor the potential for obtaining protein or DNA sequences that could reveal evolutionary links to extant species. We used mass spectrometry to obtain protein sequences from bones of a 160,000- to 600,000-year-old extinct mastodon (Mammut americanum) and a 68-million-year-old dinosaur (Tyrannosaurus rex). The presence of T. rex sequences indicates that their peptide bonds were remarkably stable. Mass spectrometry can thus be used to determine unique sequences from ancient organisms from peptide fragmentation patterns, a valuable tool to study the evolution and adaptation of ancient taxa from which genomic sequences are unlikely to be obtained."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.short
"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex."
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.short

I don't remember it word for word but there's an expression: A person can grow only as high as they set their horizon. If all the scientists see with this discovery is how it relates to evolution, they've set their sights pretty low. Scientists peer through a telescope and make a new discovery. Interesting but what practical value is it to the real world? Scientists find soft tissue preserved for 68 million years and regard it as nothing special. If true that actually has practical value for anything with an expiration date. Donated blood, food, how we store meat. But examining 68 million year preservation is a waste of time. Nothing here to see, keep moving. Sounds like what they said about junk-DNA.

When a new discovery is made in Astronomy:
1. New discovery is made;
"Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter's mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm

2. It contradicts current theories and models:
"and throws a wrench in planet formation theories."
"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said Vanessa Bailey
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm

3. This is cause for excitement and discovery:
"This planet discovery is particularly exciting because it is in orbit so far from its parent star. This leads to many intriguing questions about its formation history and composition."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm


A new discovery is made, it conflicts with old theories, this is cause for excitement and it leads to new ideas. I think that's what Bill Nye was talking about when he said the "joy of discovery".

When a new discovery is made in Biology:
1. New discovery is made:
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex"

2. It contradicts current theories and models:
"The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions"

"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.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

3. This is cause for controversy and suppression.

"The find was also controversial"


Seems to me some people want to bury this story and make it go away. I say that shows an extreme lack of imagination. This could radically change how blood, medicine or food is stored. But that's assuming the t rex is 68 million years old. Seems some aren't very interested in examining that any further.

Another example:
"The frozen remains of a horse more than half a million years old have reluctantly given up their genetic secrets, providing scientists with the oldest DNA ever sequenced."
“When we started the project, everyone — including us, to be honest — thought it was impossible,” said Dr. Ludovic Orlando
Previous to this, the oldest genome ever sequenced was of a 120,000-year-old polar bear — no small feat considering that the half-life of a DNA molecule is estimated to be about 521 years. By this reckoning, even under the best conditions, DNA could remain intact for no more than 6.8 million years."
“But also we pioneered the usage of what is called true Single Molecular Sequencing that basically reads through molecules as they stand, without further manipulation,” Orlando added. By tracking a full, single DNA molecule, the team was able to avoid having to “amplify” fragments, which can often introduce errors."
“So basically we know that members of the genus Equus are at least twice as old as previously believed,” he said.
http://westerndigs.org/700000-year-...on-permafrost-yields-oldest-dna-ever-decoded/

They did the impossible and all they can say is basically, we know it's twice as old as previously believed. Sequencing a genome 700,000 years old is a big deal considering they thought it had a half-life of 521 years. Is it that they set their horizon so low they don't see the implications of their discovery or they don't want to rock the boat as far as million of years is concerned? They send rovers to mars and telescopes to space to find out more, but as far as re-examing the whole millions of years is concerned, let's listen to everyone who insists it's a waste of time. There used to be a thing called intellectual honesty.

 

[Milk-Drops]

These are the sources:
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952.short
"Fossilized bones from extinct taxa harbor the potential for obtaining protein or DNA sequences that could reveal evolutionary links to extant species. We used mass spectrometry to obtain protein sequences from bones of a 160,000- to 600,000-year-old extinct mastodon (Mammut americanum) and a 68-million-year-old dinosaur (Tyrannosaurus rex). The presence of T. rex sequences indicates that their peptide bonds were remarkably stable. Mass spectrometry can thus be used to determine unique sequences from ancient organisms from peptide fragmentation patterns, a valuable tool to study the evolution and adaptation of ancient taxa from which genomic sequences are unlikely to be obtained."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.short
"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex."
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.short

I don't remember it word for word but there's an expression: A person can grow only as high as they set their horizon. If all the scientists see with this discovery is how it relates to evolution, they've set their sights pretty low. Scientists peer through a telescope and make a new discovery. Interesting but what practical value is it to the real world? Scientists find soft tissue preserved for 68 million years and regard it as nothing special. If true that actually has practical value for anything with an expiration date. Donated blood, food, how we store meat. But examining 68 million year preservation is a waste of time. Nothing here to see, keep moving. Sounds like what they said about junk-DNA.

When a new discovery is made in Astronomy:
1. New discovery is made;
"Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter's mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm

2. It contradicts current theories and models:
"and throws a wrench in planet formation theories."
"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said Vanessa Bailey
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm

3. This is cause for excitement and discovery:
"This planet discovery is particularly exciting because it is in orbit so far from its parent star. This leads to many intriguing questions about its formation history and composition."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm


A new discovery is made, it conflicts with old theories, this is cause for excitement and it leads to new ideas. I think that's what Bill Nye was talking about when he said the "joy of discovery".

When a new discovery is made in Biology:
1. New discovery is made:
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex"

2. It contradicts current theories and models:
"The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions"

"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.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

3. This is cause for controversy and suppression.

"The find was also controversial"


Seems to me some people want to bury this story and make it go away. I say that shows an extreme lack of imagination. This could radically change how blood, medicine or food is stored. But that's assuming the t rex is 68 million years old. Seems some aren't very interested in examining that any further.

Another example:
"The frozen remains of a horse more than half a million years old have reluctantly given up their genetic secrets, providing scientists with the oldest DNA ever sequenced."
“When we started the project, everyone — including us, to be honest — thought it was impossible,” said Dr. Ludovic Orlando
Previous to this, the oldest genome ever sequenced was of a 120,000-year-old polar bear — no small feat considering that the half-life of a DNA molecule is estimated to be about 521 years. By this reckoning, even under the best conditions, DNA could remain intact for no more than 6.8 million years."
“But also we pioneered the usage of what is called true Single Molecular Sequencing that basically reads through molecules as they stand, without further manipulation,” Orlando added. By tracking a full, single DNA molecule, the team was able to avoid having to “amplify” fragments, which can often introduce errors."
“So basically we know that members of the genus Equus are at least twice as old as previously believed,” he said.
http://westerndigs.org/700000-year-...on-permafrost-yields-oldest-dna-ever-decoded/

They did the impossible and all they can say is basically, we know it's twice as old as previously believed. Sequencing a genome 700,000 years old is a big deal considering they thought it had a half-life of 521 years. Is it that they set their horizon so low they don't see the implications of their discovery or they don't want to rock the boat as far as million of years is concerned? They send rovers to mars and telescopes to space to find out more, but as far as re-examing the whole millions of years is concerned, let's listen to everyone who insists it's a waste of time. There used to be a thing called intellectual honesty.

Read the articles I posted.

 

[Barbarian]

Instead of debating whether it's possible, let's assume they're right. Add some iron and sand and voila 68 million year preservation. Wouldn't an environment or chemical process that PRESERVES ORGANIC MATERIAL for 68 million years be the discovery of the millennium!?

Barbarian observes:
Not really. Petroleum, for example. Leaves buried in anoxic mud for millions of years, amber, some marine invertebrate fossils. Lots of examples of that. DNA and tissue, that would be something special, but so far, no such things.

(Vaccine gives some examples of what Barbarian is talking about)

Pretty good, except the magazine erred in assuming tissue. "Cell-like morphology" isn't tissue. We have "cell-like morphology in martian rocks, too, but no evidence that it's the remains of living things.

Vaccine writes:

Sounds like what they said about junk-DNA.

About 50 years ago, they were saying that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") sometimes had functions. I remember reading it in the literature as a freshman biology student. That story was never any good.

Intellectual honesty would be admitting that scientists had evidence that non-coding DNA had other functions a long time ago.

The T-rex "blood cell" story isn't brought up much any more, since it became clear that the "tissues" weren't composed of cells, and even more embarrassing, the surviving heme molecules from the dinosaur turned up to be immunologically most like that of birds, rather than any modern reptile.

The antiserum obtained from each rat recognized both pigeon and rabbit hemoglobins whereas a normal (nonimmunized) rat serum did not. Weak reactivity was observed against the turkey hemoglobin although the protein band was too faint to be reproduced photographically. That the antisera did not react with snake hemoglobin shows that the reactivity is specific and not artifact.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full

Precisely what you would see, if birds evolved from dinosaurs. Oops.

 

[Vaccine]

I read those articles and that's pretty much the point I'm making. This is treated as a pawn in the whole evolution/creation debate. I hear their message loud and clear: nothing "unusual" or "special" here. It would be a waste of time to study or discuss it any further.
They study echolocation in Dolphins and it improves military sonar, they study lobster eyes and it improves imaging equipment, they study nearly immortal jelly-fish and it helps them use stem cells to restore damaged tissue, they study 68 million year old soft tissue and ...nope, not happening. Nothing special or unusual there. Don't look now but that kind of attitude is standing in the way of progress.

There's something wrong with that picture, soft tissue preserved for 68 million years, DNA preserved for 700,000 years, yet those scientists aren't in any hurry to find out more. I think it's because, if they're being intellectually honest, everyone doubts soft tissue can last 68+ million years, and nobody wants to find out for sure.

 

[Barbarian]

I read those articles and that's pretty much the point I'm making. This is treated as a pawn in the whole evolution/creation debate. I hear their message loud and clear: nothing "unusual" or "special" here. It would be a waste of time to study or discuss it any further.

A quick look at the literature shows a lot of paleontologists looking for other examples of surviving organic molecules. So I'm thinking you got some bad information on that. I got fifty-two of them on the first run, with "fossil organic matter." And scores of hits on related searches.

They study echolocation in Dolphins and it improves military sonar, they study lobster eyes and it improves imaging equipment, they study nearly immortal jelly-fish and it helps them use stem cells to restore damaged tissue, they study 68 million year old soft tissue and ...

Turns out, it wasn't tissue. Tissues are cells organized for a function. So far, nothing quite like that, in dinosaurs. In plants, some ancient leaves, but not as old as a hundred million years or so.

nope, not happening. Nothing special or unusual there. Don't look now but that kind of attitude is standing in the way of progress.

See above. If scientists hadn't stepped up and did some investigation, we wouldn't have gotten another confirmation that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There's something wrong with that picture, soft tissue preserved for 68 million years, DNA preserved for 700,000 years, yet those scientists aren't in any hurry to find out more.

If they really found tissue that old, it would be something. But so far, not confirmed. DNA that old isn't nearly as exciting.

I think it's because, if they're being intellectually honest, everyone doubts soft tissue can last 68+ million years, and nobody wants to find out for sure.

Except all those scientists studying it and writing about it. It was a surprise to me, too. I had no idea there were so many people looking for it. So far, no good.