Posted on 06/10/2015 2:56:39 PM PDT by Sopater
Abstract
Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known throughout the vertebrate fossil record, and recently, evidence has emerged that such soft tissue might contain original components. We examined samples from eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones using nano-analytical techniques; the bones are not exceptionally preserved and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains displaying ~67 nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original quaternary structure. Using ToF-SIMS, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood. Using advanced material characterization approaches, we find that these putative biological structures can be well preserved over geological timescales, and their preservation is more common than previously thought. The preservation of protein over geological timescales offers the opportunity to investigate relationships, physiology and behaviour of long extinct animals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
One of these claims must not be true, and the other is easily observed.
Sweetie, you’re back!
According to my old Paleontologist Professor, but he is now dead along with a number of his ideas. Another of my geologist professors taught about us that this new fangled ideas of sea spreading and continental drift, but he thought it was a bunch of hooie.
Good science advances on good data and continuing refinement of methods and results. Bad science latches onto politics and religion. Avoid bad science.
“For example, still-soft, flexible material was recovered after demineralization of well-preserved bones from the Late Cretaceous dinosaur Tyrannosaurus13, whereas proteinaceous material was found to be preserved in another dinosaur, Brachylophosaurus14”
Note that the sample was demineralized. In short, and as the article repeatedly says, these are fossils and the time scale is geologic. It’s not proof of 4,000 year old dinosaurs. The lattice of the mineral fossilization preserved the soft tissue within and, in no way disproves the age of the fossil.
The mineralization was what preserved the soft tissue. The minerals were latticed around the soft material and had to be removed before the material was again soft. Nothing in the article questions or brings any uncertainty to the age of the fossil. This creature must have been fossilized very quickly and not left laying around. This would be similar to the fossils that preserve skin impressions and indications of feathers and internal organs. The article is pretty complete.
Let’s see some C-14 dating evidence on this soft tissue.
Due to the relatively short half life of C14, it’s useless for anything older than 50,000 years. (All you’ll get is a nonsense number reflective of background radiation). K/AR might be used if there is an igneous level close above the fossil. Other methods are also possible.
Oh, the K/Ar method that would be completely useless if the tested igneous level is less than 2 million years old?
Depends on half lives of the isotopes. You have to have an appreciable amount of “daughter” elements to account for the background noise, etc.. There will be an amount of argon in the sample (you test for that) so you have to be able to measure the daughter argon additional to the background. Frequently two means of radio metric dating are used to verify the date.
Yes, all radiometric dating is problematic to some degree and can easily result in bogus numbers.
But when understood thoroughly and performed carefully, radiometric dating produces ages consistent with our overall scientific models.
Labs which do such work for a living know all the different ways to get it wrong, and on complete reviews, could tell us what happened with these particular reports of alleged carbon-14 dating of dinosaur soft tissues.
So far as I know, evidence for exactly what this material is, is not conclusive -- seems like dino-stuff, but maybe not.
Certainly, if your reports on alleged carbon-14 dating have any validity at all, then the material they dated is not dino-stuff, perhaps just remains of some other critter which lived in ancient dino-stuff.
But I think your reports themselves are bogus, and the alleged carbon-14 dating flawed, producing nothing more than random noise, not actual ages.
So I'll repeat: an experienced lab which does such work routinely could study your test details and explain just what they did wrong.
I personally have no reason to expect that there was any honest intent in these alleged carbon-14 results.
Sopater: "Interesting, since global warming is based on scientific models which are more readily adjusted as more evidence and information becomes available, yet has proven to be WAY off when confronted with reality."
Despite your fondest wishes, it's not the same thing.
Yes, there is serious science regarding "global warming" which has unfortunately been deeply corrupted due to billions of dollars in political influence.
As our liberal-progressives have famously said, "never let a crisis go to waste", but it's worse than that -- they never let the lack of a crisis stop them, they simply fabricate one as needed -- ergo "global warming", to support their advocacy for yet bigger, more international government controls.
Nothing like that is at stake with evolution theory in general, or radiometric dating techniques specifically.
The data we have on it today is consistent with many ideas dating back 100 years and more.
It's totally a matter of science, having nothing to do with politics.
Of course, believers are free to chose what they believe, but science as a discipline has its models of evolution, and no seriously confirmed data to contradict them.
Sopater: "I can only assume that you have some way of substantiating these scientific models that goes beyond simply supporting your original assumptions."
"Supporting my original assumptions"...??
Of course scientifically confirmed data supports it's models / theories.
Indeed, contrary to what people like yourself claim, there is no seriously confirmed scientific data which contradicts those models /theories.
In the category of "radiometric dating" there are dozens of different materials which can be, and have been, used to establish geological dates.
Performed correctly dozens, hundreds & thousands of times, they repeatedly confirm the models.
In addition, astronomical observations confirm ages of stars, galaxies & Universe itself at billions of years, which is consistent with earth-bound radiometric dates.
Beyond those are estimates based on things like ocean-floor expansions -- about the rate of our fingernail growth -- and for more recent eras, Antarctic ice cores and known rates of growth in cave structures, stalactites, stalagmites.
Of course, you are not required to believe even one word of any of it, provided you don't call your own contrary beliefs "science".
75,000,000 years, just 74,994,000 years before there was a universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
