Posted on 05/12/2013 1:02:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the only well preserved dinosaur skin samples ever found is being tested at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) synchrotron to determine skin colour and to explain why the fossilized specimen remained intact after 70-million years.
University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (100-65 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grande Prairie, Alberta.
The area has a robust "bone bed" but Barbi is not yet sure why the fossil preserved so well.
"As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary – this is real skin. Everyone involved with the excavation was incredibly excited and we started discussing research projects right away."
Barbi said this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. "This fossil is fascinating because it can tell us so much about the life and the appearance of the dinosaurs in the area."
But there are almost more questions than answers, he said.
One question is whether the hadrosaur skin was green or grey, like most dinosaurs are portrayed, or was it a completely different colour. Barbi said he can use the CLS to look at unique structures called melanosomes, cellular organelles the contain pigments that control the color of an animal's skin.
"If we are able to observe the melanosomes and their shape, it will be the first time pigments have been identified in the skin of a dinosaur," said Barbi. "We have no real idea what the skin looks like. Is it green, blue, orange…There has been research that proved the colour of some dinosaur feathers, but never skin."
Using light at the CLS mid-infrared (Mid-IR) beamline, Barbi and CLS scientists are also looking for traces of organic and inorganic elements that could help determine the hadrosaur's diet and why the skin sample was preserved almost intact.
For the experiment, the sample is placed in the path of the infrared beam and light reflects off of it. During the experiment, chemical bonds of certain compounds will create different vibrations. For example, proteins, sugars and fats still found in the skin will create unique vibrational frequencies that scientists can measure.
"It is astonishing that we can get information like this from such an old sample," said Tim May, CLS Mid-IR staff scientist. "Skin has fat and lots of dead cells along with many inorganic compounds. We can reflect the infrared beam off the sample and we can analyze the samples to give us very clear characteristics."
May said that infrared techniques are so accurate at determining chemical characteristics that it is known as the "fingerprint region" of the light spectrum.
But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at the CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years.
"What's not clear is what happened to this dinosaur and how it died," he said. "There is something special about this fossil and the area where it was found, and I am going to find out what it is."
>> Say whatever pleases you, but both Evolution and “Old Earth” meet the criteria for confirmed scientific theories. <<
.
In your twisted and willing mind, I’m sure that is so, but to one that demands the objectivity of pure science, they both fail dismally. They are propaganda, not science.
You can’t post the quotes because you’d look like a laughingstock.
>> “You can’t post the quotes because you’d look like a laughingstock.” <<
.
You mean like when he looks in the mirror?
Careful! When in the presence of the thin skinned, you must choose your words w care. Some see “personal attacks” where none were intended. You wouldn’t want to offend their tender sensibilities, would you?
But to be honest, you did make me laugh.
Plus I really, really like your tagline. I second that sentiment in a most heartfelt way.
I'll set aside "your twisted and willing mind" for now -- until it becomes obvious that like Fantasywriter you are only here trolling for victims of your abuse.
"demands the objectivity of pure science"?
Meaning what, possibly -- demand something that satisfies your religious convictions?
Sorry, but by definition of the word "science" (methodological naturalism), any scientific explanation must meet its first requirement: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, if you inject your religious beliefs into your "science", then it is no longer real science.
Further, you have no authority to change the definition of "science" to suit your own purposes.
In the end, science is defined by scientists, not by those who despise it.
So both Evolution and "Old Earth" meet the criteria for real science, regardless of whatever claims about "the objectivity of pure science".
editor-surveyor tagline: "(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)"
Possibly time for you and Fantasywriter to move along, to some other internet site?
Click the links.
Read them and weap.
Quote here any you think I've characterized inaccurately, FRiend.
An obvious troll is one thing.
A troll whose shtick is claiming to be persecuted while attacking those who disagree with words like "dishonest and obnoxious" is, well, dare I say it, a "a jerkish thing to do" and "freekishly scary"?
Or, can we say: "Creepy. Creepy was the word I was looking for, which sums that kind of behavior up far better than ‘ugly’ & ‘disquieting’."?
;-)
Here is a summary of what I have learned about evolutionists from this thread:
Evolutionist makes a claim.
Non-evolutionist requests evidence.
Evolutionist responds: ‘I know you are but what am I?’
LOL!!
You guys crack me up.
Oops; misquoted the evolutionist in the prior post. Should have read:
‘I know you are but what am I...FRiend?’
LOL!!!
Fantasywriter, your M.O. here is clear and consistent.
You've repeated it over and over, with anyone who seriously disagreed with you, including myself, Swing_Ladder, goodusername and John Valentine.
You obviously have no -- zero, zip, nada -- real interest in the thread's subject of dinosaurs or evolution, etc.
That is a mere vehicle, an excuse you can use to launch attacks on those who disagree.
I have merely responded to your assaults with all the "seriousness" they deserve: I've copied and pasted them right back at you.
And that drives you absolutely crazy.
You're obsessed, you can't stop yourself from responding to your own insults with yet more insults!
All the while, you claim to be Christian and, God help us, "persecuted" when you are the only one driving it.
Well, the truth of the matter is there's nothing "Christian" about your behavior -- it's all pure Saul Alinsky's play book from you.
And all this time, while you've been carrying on like a lunatic, other good people -- i.e., mjb, imardmd1 -- have posted their evolution opinions, and I and others have responded as civilly, politely and FRiendly as anyone might ask.
Only Fantasywriter has this problem, and only because you are obsessed with beating down anyone who doesn't take your insults seriously.
So I'll say it again: give it up, change your subject back to the thread's topic, or just walk away from it.
There's no other reasonable course for you, FRiend.
;-)
Here is the original smear:
“Clearly, a lot of misunderstandings here, beginning with Fantasywriter’s suggestion that those who disagree with her/him are “obnoxious & dishonest”.
How many times have I asked for corroborating evidence? You can’t give any because none exists. That doesn’t stop you from acting silly, though. Keep it up; you’re giving your fellow evolutionists a really bad name.
Thanks for pinging me on this — must have been napping. But after skimming through all the comments, it seems clear that more light and less heat is called for. Time to lay down the personal axes.
Truly time for you to move on!
You do not have the authority to re-define science. Science will forever be objective gathering and evaluation of the empirical evidence; and never will “methodological naturalism” be accepted as a substitute for science by an honest-to-goodness scientist.
Propagandize somewhere else.
I have posted links and even quoted a few of your attacks on myself and others.
But you have no interest in the facts of this discussion, much less the thread's topics -- dinosaurs, evolution, etc.
So give it a rest, FRiend.
And before you come on to another such thread, make yourself a promise: I will not demean, insult or bully fellow FReepers, just because I disagree with them.
I'm certain, if you can stick to that promise, you'll do just fine, in the future.
I did not originally post anything to you. I posted a truthful summation of my experiences on a prior evolution thread. In part, I mentioned that I had encountered “dishonesty”, & this is absolutely, one-hundred percent true. In response, you posted two demonstrable, execrable lies about me, & you’ve posted them over & over.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is?
Here is an analogy. I say to a group at large, ‘There are violent individuals who are members in good standing of this group.’
In response, one of the members [you] punches me twice in the face.
This is what it means to lie about a person in response to their pointing out (truthfully) that they encountered dishonesty among a certain gathering of people. It’s like a Muslim taking exception to being accused of belonging to a violent religion. In response, they make a bomb & blow people up. That’ll teach ‘em.
& indeed it does.
I have not "redefined science", FRiend, but you seem to want to.
Your words here suggest that you misunderstand what the term "methodological naturalism" means.
Possibly even, you confuse or conflate it with related terms like, "philosiphical-ontological-methaphysical naturalism"?
They are not the same thing.
Methodological Naturalism of science is simply the working assumption of "natural explanations for natural processes".
It excludes supernatural explanations as being non-scientific.
By that definition, once you leave the natural world, and propose supernatural causes, then your ideas are no longer "scientific".
Of course, you might even be correct, and science have it all wrong, but that doesn't make your ideas "scientific".
So give them another name -- i.e., metaphysics, or, who knows, "super-science"? -- so that everyone understands you've left the realm of the natural world, and are dealing in a whole different set of assumptions and methodological rules.
And your rules might even be correct, but, by definition, they are not "science".
Just so we're clear: there's nothing in the assumptions of "methodological naturalism" which prevent any scientist from believing God created the Universe, life and us.
But science only deals with the "how" it happened, and only in terms of "natural explanations for natural processes."
That's "methodological naturalism".
Sorry, but nothing I said here was untrue, a fact demonstrated by the links and quotes I've posted.
Indeed, your claims of "dishonesty" are themselves the height of dishonesty.
Regardless of your "feeeeeeeeelings", facts don't support your claims.
So nothing in any post I read remotely justifies the invectives you heaped on those posters, or on me.
That's why you are not the victim here, you are the perp and a bully, and you need to stop doing that, FRiend.
So let me repeat: there is nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- true about any of your smears of "dishonesty" or anything else.
And for you to claim that you are entitled to make such accusations, and no one is allowed to correct you is the absolute height of arrogance.
So cut it out.
You’ve never even attempted to validate your original smear. It is an out & out lie.
As for your second lie, the links you posted don’t cite “personal attacks”. If you think they do, you have no idea what a “personal attack” is. I suspect you do know, however, which is why you’ve never posted a direct quote. You’d be laughed off the thread, if you posted what I said & then whined & wailed about it being a “personal attack”.
Thanks for your civil words.
In nine years of posting on Free Republic, I've occasionally run across others somewhat like Fantasywriter, though none before who abandoned all reference to the thread's topics in favor of asserting their own -- what? righteousness? -- and others' "dishonesty."
Guessing this will end soon.... ;-)
Thank you, Candy Crowley.
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.