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."
Your unsubstantiated smears continue. Why are your fellow evolutionists not ashamed of your MO?
Unless it is their MO as well.
I guess you don't really have anything to say on the actual subject under discussion.
Your pile on is SOP. Gang up on me because somebody I had not posted to posted to me. He is lying about me. That’s fine w you. It’s not fine w me.
Dishonesty & obnoxiousness don’t necessarily go w the creationist territory. There’s an element of it, however.
Your unsubstantiated smears continue. Why are your fellow creationists not ashamed of your MO?
Unless it is their MO as well.
I reported what I experienced first hand. That is not an attack; it is the truth.
I just wondered why it’s okay for this guy to lie about me. I don’t think it helps the cause. Others may disagree.
I report what I experienced first hand. That is not an attack; it is the truth.
If that is the truth of what you have experienced, then it is the truth of what you have experienced. Why wd anyone take issue w it? I too honestly reported what I had experienced. I’ve been hounded for it ever since.
Non sequitur. Adaptation demonstrates an amazing set of flexible designs, but it does not even begin to explain the creation of life.
Evolution "science", falsely so called, simply cannot reproduce the beginning.
Of course, you can't see nature's God although you see his works. And because you won't accept the truth, you claim some other phrase describes it: not the Creator, but some as yet unexplained force of nature.
Romans 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
I'll say it again: the basic theory of evolution, first proposed by Darwin some 150+ years ago, and confirmed many times since is that species evolve (or adapt, if you wish) through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
These are facts which are not even disputed by anti-evolutionists.
Where evolution and "adaption" part ways is in anti-evolutionists claim that "adaption" can never produce a new species.
Their "proof" is to assert that nobody has ever seen a new species created through evolution.
They say that what has not been seen cannot be proved and is therefore necessarily untrue.
In response, I make several points:
Along that sliding scale of difficulty, scientists more-or-less arbitrarily set standards for separating biological breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, etc.
mbj: "Evolution "science", falsely so called, simply cannot reproduce the beginning."
Non sequitur.
First of all, regardless of how often you say the words "falsely so called", evolution remains science -- a fact which you have no authority or power to change.
Second, evolution is science because, first and foremost, it meets the basic criteria for the word "science": natural explanations for natural processes ("methodological naturalism").
"Creationism" does not meet that criteria, and is therefore not science.
Third, basic evolution theory refers to observed, confirmed and undisputed facts of 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection.
Evolution simply theorizes that when these go on long enough, then separated groups eventually become less able to interbreed and are therefore re-classified as different sub-species, species, genera, etc.
This highly useful theory makes any number of falsifiable predictions which have been confirmed over the past 150+ years.
Fourth, beyond confirmed evolution facts and theory are any number of unconfirmed scientific hypotheses, such as abiogenic or panspermic origins of life itself.
These may or may-not ever be strongly confirmed, but remain today a sort of scientific "holy grail" in some laboratories around the world.
Key point: the fact that some scientific hypotheses remain unconfirmed does not negate the validity or usefulness of those theories (i.e., evolution, "old earth") which are confirmed.
mbj: "Of course, you can't see nature's God although you see his works.
And because you won't accept the truth, you claim some other phrase describes it: not the Creator, but some as yet unexplained force of nature."
Of course, you misunderstand my religious beliefs just as thoroughly as you misunderstand the theory of evolution.
I believe that God created the Universe, more-or-less as described in Genesis and for purposes laid out in the Bible.
I also think that science can tell us how God wishes us to understand it happened.
From scientific perspective: evolution appears to be God's method for creating the kinds of life we see today, as well as the fossils of those which went before.
No, you falsely characterized what I said, and continued to accuse me in every post since.
So let me propose possible solutions:
First, you could simply stop accusing me, and I will stop returning your favor.
A sincere apology from you would also be nice, though not necessary.
Or second, you might attempt to "prove" that you are right, and I am wrong, by quoting for us my offending words, and explaining exactly how you think they are false.
I will then explain why my words are correct, and you are mistaken in your misunderstanding.
I will not apologize.
Or third, you can just change the topic of your posts back to that of this thread -- dinosaurs, evolution or science in general.
In that case, no apologies by anyone are necessary.
Or fourth, since you appear to have no real interest in the subject of this thread, why not just stop posting?
What can you possibly gain by continuing only to falsely accuse me of whatever it is you wish I had meant?
We can start w this direct quote from you:
“Clearly, a lot of misunderstandings here, beginning with Fantasywriter’s suggestion that those who disagree with her/him are “obnoxious & dishonest”.”
That is an obnoxious & wholly untrue characterization. IF you can acknowledge that w a modicum of human decency, we can move on to your next lie.
No, it is a totally accurate characterization of your responses to not only my posts, but also those of Swing_Ladder and SeekAndFind.
Truly, as near as I can tell, you respond to all disagreements with obnoxious and wholly untrue characterizations.
If you can acknowledge that w a modicum of human decency, we can move on to your next lie, FRiend.
Your unsubstantiated smears continue.
Your unsubstantiated smears continue, FRiend.
The tactics of Evolutionists are better suited to the playground. A playground populated by 8 yo children. [Just going by what I’ve seen on this thread.]
So, even you acknowledge that interbreeding between different species is impossible. And therefore a dead-end according to your model. Thank you, I do feel we are finally making some progress towards truth! :-)
The problem with any non-repeatable, unobservable, highly abstract theorizing like this is that it is simultaneously untestable and proves nothing. Such a theory, even if false, might still have a feeble value if it could predict or model what we actually observe. (Such a limited scientific value would be similar to prior incorrect models of the heavenly bodies.) But the abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible theory of evolution across species has been found of little worth in improving men's lives and also does not even help us begin to understand the creation of life.
Contrast that with a scientific approach pursued by a God fearing Louis Pasteur (a contemporary of Darwin) who concretely benefited all of mankind.
Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time.
I've heard it said "A frog plus a kiss = prince"...such a thing is clearly a fairy tale. But "An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince", this is "science". No, it's only science falsely so called.
What we see in truth is a marvelous panoply of intricate designs that vary in tiny ways to form the individual, within set limits of the species. Species that men can't even begin to duplicate from scratch! Amazing, wonderfully complex (yet spectacularly adaptable!) designs that reflect the splendid brilliance of nature's God!
Evolution cannot even begin to explain the genesis of life!
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
My original point still stands: it is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life, perhaps like aerodynamics supersede gravity.
Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
“Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time.”
The sooner you accept the fact that the theory of evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of life, the sooner we can move on to an actual exchange of ideas.
Evolution needs life to occur. Anything that happened before life began, up to and including its actual origin, does not fall under the theory of evolution.
Oh, and
“I’ve heard it said “A frog plus a kiss = prince”...such a thing is clearly a fairy tale. But “An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince”, this is “science”. No, it’s only science falsely so called.”
You could at least attribute this to the author, Dr. Duane Gish.
Sorry, FRiend, but you are describing your own behavior.
I have merely copied and pasted back to you the constant stream of insults and false accusations you've thrown at me.
FYI, insults and false accusations are not a form of argument, and don't deserve serious response.
If you are at all interested in this thread's topics -- dinosaurs, evolution or even science in general -- please feel free at any time to return to it.
But if all you truly care about is hurling ridiculous insults at me, then expect to see them copied and pasted right back to you, FRiend.
So why do it?
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.