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."
“methodological naturalism” is the tightly held religion of the fool, and nothing more.
Natural is a deeply subjective term to begin with, thus the definition of any resultant term remains variable and completely remote from science.
Yehova’s world is the only truly natural one, yet one to which those professing naturalism are completely blind due to their own subjective choices.
Science can only survive in a relm of total objectivity, so naturalists cannot ever be scientists.
In fact, it's been validated in several posts, including links in #86 and #94, even a few quotes in #107.
Fantasywriter: "You’d be laughed off the thread, if you posted what I said & then whined & wailed about it being a “personal attack”."
Anyone who's not already laughing at Fantasywriter's endless whining and wailing about being busted for bullying probably doesn't have much of a sense of humor, FRiend. ;-)
An odd conclusion to have been drawn from a series of subjective assesments.
Your replies have gone off the rails.
The subjectivity thereof is solely your opinion!
No less than the objectivitiy of it is yours!
Not at all.
It's simply the working direction of the scientific enterprise: to seek only natural explanations for natural processes.
Scientists are free to believe, and many do, whatever they wish about the supernatural realm.
editor-surveyor: "Natural is a deeply subjective term to begin with, thus the definition of any resultant term remains variable and completely remote from science."
Most people would suppose there is a pretty clear distinction between natural and super-natural.
For example: miracles are super-natural, and by definition cannot be explained by science.
Natural processes -- i.e., sunrise, sunset -- are the realms of science, which seeks to explain the hows and whys.
Of course, there are "gray areas" between natural and super-natural that virtually everyone experiences, from time to time.
Uncanny coincidences come to mind -- even a scientist might see the Hand of God in them, though by definition that could not be a scientific explanation.
editor-surveyor: "Yehova’s world is the only truly natural one, yet one to which those professing naturalism are completely blind due to their own subjective choices."
Of course that's true of the version of naturalism known as philosophical or ontological or metaphysical naturalism.
Those are, in effect, philosophical even religious affirmations of atheism.
But methodological naturalism itself says nothing about the super-natural, it is simply a working rule for scientists to: seek natural explanations for natural processes.
editor-surveyor: "Science can only survive in a relm of total objectivity, so naturalists cannot ever be scientists."
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
It appears that you wish to set yourself up as judge and jury of exactly what constitutes "total objectivity".
In the real world, scientists simply seek to find and test natural explanations for natural processes -- regardless of whether you consider them "objective" or not.
By contrast, religious people seek to find higher explanations for both "natural" and super-natural events -- explanations for which the word "objectivity" has no bearing.
Since you’re not a scientist, you should give up trying to be the voice of science.
I am hardly a "voice of science".
Science and scientists speak for themselves.
I merely report here what they've said.
But never fear, if I get something seriously wrong, soon enough somebody will post to correct me. ;-)
You’ve gotten everything completely wrong, and you have been corrected. That is what has you thrashing here.
Utter rubbish.
Since you are anti-science, any alleged "corrections" could well amount to nothing more than meaningless words.
The fact is: I have reported accurately what science is, and says about itself.
The only "thrashing" here comes from you, FRiend, in your constantly changing the subject, and now attacking me, rather than defend your indefensible ideas.
The fact is that it is you that is anti-science, attempting to turn your religion of naturalism into science.
Stay within your limits, read, and learn. Stop your absurd pretense of understanding of what doesn’t even exist, and learn what does exist. Empty-headed psuedo-science groupies just make noise and look foolish.
What you call natural is imaginary, and what is real is beyond your comprehension.
I have now instructed you in the correct understanding of terms like "methodological naturalism", but, of course I understand that some people are just slow learners -- especially people with vested interests in denying the truth.
But I am patient, and will try again: some, but not all, scientists are atheists.
Atheists adopt not only "methodological" naturalism, but also "philosophical" naturalism.
It's an important distinction.
Scientists who are also believers can accept everything you might tell us about the super-natural realm.
Regardless, their scientific work only involves the natural realm for which they are required to seek natural explanations for natural processes.
By definition, if they wander-off beyond the natural realm, then their work is no longer considered "science".
Yes, I see where you are attempting to claim that, really, there is no "natural realm", but that's a useless argument -- since nature is where scientists work, and generally there's no difficulty understanding what the term "nature" means.
Bottom line: scientific work does require an assumption of naturalism, but certainly not a religion of naturalism.
Scientists are free to, and many do, hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.
editor-surveyor: "Stop your absurd pretense of understanding of what doesn’t even exist, and learn what does exist.
Empty-headed psuedo-science groupies just make noise and look foolish."
I'd say your absurd pretenses are as empty-headed and foolish noise as can be found, and obviously, my opinion on these matters carries far more weight than yours, FRiend. ;-)
editor-surveyor: "What you call natural is imaginary, and what is real is beyond your comprehension."
Doubtless that's true, in a sense.
But it's irrelevant to the definition of the word "science", since science only works in the natural world -- regardless of how "imaginary" you claim "nature" may or may not be.
People who work on the super-natural, or we might say super-real world, are called philosophers, or theologians, or mystics, saints, deeply religious or, just as often: lunatics.
Regardless, it's a different realm than the science of nature -- a sharp distinction that real scientists insist on, and so should you, FRiend.
“naturalism” as you promote it is an arbitrary and capricious concept.
There is no objective basis for calling anything that is purely assumed “natural.”
There is nothing legitimately scientific about relying on an assumption as a natural state.
You have a natural bent toward unscientific thinking.
You are completely unqualified to even discuss science.
I don't "promote" naturalism, I simply report what dictionaries, encyclopedias and other scholarly works say the word means, scientifically.
So you are not arguing against me so much as against all of Western Civilization, which has always made a profound distinction between the natural and super-natural realms.
editor-surveyor: "There is no objective basis for calling anything that is purely assumed 'natural.' "
So you keep asserting, without providing evidence.
Regardless, yours is a ridiculous idea since practically speaking, scientific "assumptions" are confirmed as true every minute of every day.
Which is not to claim that scientists today understand even a small fraction of "ultimate reality", or even that a large portion of "ultimate reality" can be described using methodologically naturalist assumptions.
I am only reporting what I've reported here from the beginning: once you leave the realm of "methodological naturalism" you are, by definition, also outside the realm of science.
editor-surveyor: "There is nothing legitimately scientific about relying on an assumption as a natural state."
I'll set aside the fact that your sentence makes no sense, assume that you intended it to make sense, and respond yet again: rightly or wrongly, by definition the word "science" means "natural explanations for natural processes", and nothing else.
Once you leave the natural realm, you also leave the realm of science.
In other words: for you to claim there is no "natural realm" is by definition also claiming there is no "science" -- the two cannot be separated.
editor-surveyor: "You have a natural bent toward unscientific thinking.
You are completely unqualified to even discuss science."
Sorry FRiend, but you live in an Alternate Universe, where you can invent your own little words, definitions and rules.
Of course, you are entitled to your own little realm, inside your own little head, but if you ever decide venture outside & explore the real world -- the natural world, the scientific world -- well, just let me know, and I'll be happy to explain to you how it works.
;-)
You report nothing but your imaginations.
Evidence of assumptions?
What’s sad is that you really don’t understand what you’re asking for. Its the assumptions that need the evidence, which will not be forthcoming, since the assumptions are based on imagination and wishes rather than evidence. It is, in fact, the evidence that they wish to refute but cannot.
Go back to your 5:00 beer club where you fit in.
That's a lie, and you know it, troll.
editor-surveyor: "What’s sad is that you really don’t understand what you’re asking for.
Its the assumptions that need the evidence, which will not be forthcoming, since the assumptions are based on imagination and wishes rather than evidence.
It is, in fact, the evidence that they wish to refute but cannot."
First of all, troll, science's natural "assumption" is confirmed in every minute of every day in every scientifically based equipment in the world.
So it is not "assumption" or "imagination" but observed fact.
Second, I wasn't born yesterday.
Your words here sound like the cr*p we used to hear in college b*ll sessions, many moons ago.
You sound like you never actually graduated from those -- or perhaps certain popular chemicals gave you permanent brain damage?
But regardless of what you learned in your college b*ll sessions, science remains what its scientists say it is: "natural explanations for natural processes".
editor-surveyor: "Go back to your 5:00 beer club where you fit in."
You couldn't be more wrong, but let's see, where do trolls abide?
Under rocks in caves with troglodytes, right?
That's how humans who knew nothing of science lived.
So you must enjoy it there, right troll?
Troll you are for sure!
Of science you know nothing, but of “evolution” you think you know all.
Evolution and science are 180 degrees apart. Thye abundant evidence demolishes your pet religion completely, while you embrace fragments of pig teeth and chimp bones found scattered in soil as though they were complete animals.
Yes, science is confirmed, but it has nothing to do with your evolution religion. Mathematics is the biggest hurdle for you and your religious cohorts. If you understood the laws of probability, and the insurmountable improbability of your religion, you would be too embarrassed to post here, but alas, you do not, so you babble on as though your sheer volume of words could somehow overcome it.
The last word on the subject is when the genetic code was discovered. It is a perfect lock preventing unplanned variation, and having correcting systems embedded that would undo it if it were to happen. Do you understand check-sums? Of course not, or you wouldn’t be here making a fool of yourself.
As it pertains to evolution, DNA could stand for Demolished Nonsense Association. With the code, all goes by the creator’s plan, rather than ignorant men’s dreams.
Lying and insulting make you a troll, pal, and you've been doing both since the first post.
editor-surveyor: "Of science you know nothing, but of “evolution” you think you know all."
Neither are true, troll, but I know enough of both to refute your nonsense.
editor-surveyor: "Evolution and science are 180 degrees apart.
Thye abundant evidence demolishes your pet religion completely, while you embrace fragments of pig teeth and chimp bones found scattered in soil as though they were complete animals."
In fact, evolution is a many-times confirmed scientific theory which has not been seriously challenged by any physical evidence, no matter how fervently believers of the anti-evolution religion might wish.
editor-surveyor: "Yes, science is confirmed, but it has nothing to do with your evolution religion."
In fact, the evolution hypothesis is as confirmed as any other scientific theory.
editor-surveyor: "If you understood the laws of probability, and the insurmountable improbability of your religion, you would be too embarrassed to post here, but alas, you do not, so you babble on as though your sheer volume of words could somehow overcome it."
In fact, the laws of probability guarantee that over billions of years: if it can happen, it will happen, especially where it can happen in small incremental steps -- and that's evolution.
editor-surveyor: "The last word on the subject is when the genetic code was discovered.
It is a perfect lock preventing unplanned variation, and having correcting systems embedded that would undo it if it were to happen.
Do you understand check-sums?
Of course not, or you wouldn’t be here making a fool of yourself."
The only fool here is you, troll, with your endless lies and insults.
In fact, modifications in the genetic code have been observed and measured from generation to generation.
It has been noted where & when these result in new breeds, new sub-species and new species, genera, etc.
So DNA analysis confirms the evolution hypothesis.
Indeed, DNA analysis is impossible without understanding evolution.
editor-surveyor: "With the code, all goes by the creator’s plan, rather than ignorant men’s dreams.
Of course it "goes by the creator's plan" -- described scientifically (naturally) as evolution.
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.