'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered

BBC ^ | 16 May 2014 | James Morgan

[Izzy Dunne]

Based on its huge thigh bones, it was 40m (130ft) long and 20m (65ft) tall.

Weighing in at 77 tonnes, it was as heavy as 14 African elephants, and seven tonnes heavier than the previous record holder, Argentinosaurus.

Scientists believe it is a new species of titanosaur - an enormous herbivore dating from the Late Cretaceous period.

A local farm worker first stumbled on the remains in the desert near La Flecha, about 250km (135 miles) west of Trelew, Patagonia.

[BereanBrain]

Are you reading my posts?

It’s not science vs anti-science.

It’s the definition of WHAT is Science.

SCIENCE is repeatable, observable, and explainable.
Science deals in facts. Not accusations and attacks on people’s characters.

In particular, if you simply google dinosaur blood you will find lots of articles, even published in peer reviewed journals. In particular, a recent find has viable tissue and blood from the remains of a T-Rex. I doubt T-Rex hung around for 70 million years hiding under rocks and such.

They have already confirmed that PROTEINS exist in the soft T-Rex tissue found.
What SCIENCE is doing now is trying to explain how protein can survive 70-100 Million years.

Also, radiometric dating assumes a constant rate of decay over millions of years, which although it is an assumption, may be correct.

And yes, ancient DNA has been sequenced from the Ice Age - in particular Mammoth DNA.

[SierraWasp]

"...more CO2 so we can get more Greenery to feed our beef cattle.,...bigger steaks ....yummy!!"

Now you know that will lead to another "fart tax" like they tried to affix to New Zealand Sheep ranchers until they protested chanting:

" WE WON'T PAY YOUR FART TAX, NO (BLEEPIN) WAY!"

Honest, it was in the news not too many years ago!!!

[BroJoeK]

BerianBrain: "Are you reading my posts? t’s not science vs anti-science. It’s the definition of WHAT is Science."

Sorry, FRiend, but you are an anti-science poser -- pretending you love science, you just want to change it to suit your own beliefs.
You'd like to get rid of everything that smacks of "historical science" and consign that all to the category of "modern atheistic myth-making".

Of course you are entitled to believe whatsoever you wish, but you cannot call your anti-science beliefs "science".
They're not, they're the opposite of science.

BerianBrain: "SCIENCE is repeatable, observable, and explainable. Science deals in facts. Not accusations and attacks on people’s characters."

Nobody is making personal attacks, except to the degree that you are lying about who you are and what you are up to.
The fact of this matter is that you oppose science, and hope to discredit it.

BerianBrain: "In particular, if you simply google dinosaur blood you will find lots of articles, even published in peer reviewed journals.
In particular, a recent find has viable tissue and blood from the remains of a T-Rex.
I doubt T-Rex hung around for 70 million years hiding under rocks and such."

I have read numerous articles on alleged dinosaur tissues -- collagen, i.e.:

"When the fossilized bone was treated over several weeks to remove mineral content from the fossilized bone-marrow cavity (a process called demineralization), Schweitzer found evidence of intact structures such as blood vessels, bone matrix, and connective tissue (bone fibers).
Scrutiny under the microscope further revealed that the putative dinosaur soft tissue had retained fine structures (microstructures) even at the cellular level.
The exact nature and composition of this material, and the implications of Schweitzer's discovery, are not yet clear; study and interpretation of the material is ongoing.[52]

"In 2009, a team including Schweitzer announced that, using even more careful methodology, they had duplicated their results by finding similar soft tissue in a duck-billed dinosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis, found in the Judith River Formation of Montana.
This included even more detailed tissue, down to preserved bone cells that seem even to have visible remnants of nuclei and what seem to be red blood cells.
Among other materials found in the bone was collagen, as in the Tyrannosaurus bone mentioned above.
The type of collagen an animal has in its bones varies according to its DNA and, in both cases, this collagen was of the same type found in modern chickens and ostriches.[176]

"The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions; upon further inspection and peer review, however, neither of these reports could be confirmed.[177]"

So I'll repeat what I said before: these reports are not confirmed, but it does now seem that under rare conditions some basic organic material can survive intact for very long times indeed.

BerianBrain: "What SCIENCE is doing now is trying to explain how protein can survive 70-100 Million years."

No, science is still working to discover exactly what survived millions of years -- just collagen, or other material too?
As to how it survived, the answer is simple: some organic material which is dried and protected from the environment can remain stable indefinitely.

BerianBrain: "Also, radiometric dating assumes a constant rate of decay over millions of years, which although it is an assumption, may be correct."

Not an "assumption", it's a logical conclusion, based on masses of data and the absence of anything seriously contradicting it.

BerianBrain: "And yes, ancient DNA has been sequenced from the Ice Age - in particular Mammoth DNA."

In fact, there is evidence (not undisputed) of DNA in bacteria buried in salt, hundreds of millions of years old.

Other DNA from humans (or pre-humans) certainly dates back 40,000 years and maybe hundreds of thousands of years -- those reports seem uncertain to me.

Bottom line is: while you are absolutely entitled to believe what you wish, you do not get to define what is, or is not, "science".
That's because your definition of "science" is equivalent to, say, Democrats' definition of Conservatives: they call us "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals".
That is no more fair or accurate than your definition of "science".

Real scientists, not anti-scientists, define what "science" is or is not.

[BereanBrain]

it is nice that you at least acknowledge when you are wrong about DNA, and soft tissue being found.

What formal degree do you have? I have a Bachelors and Masters and 30+ post Masters hours.

You can believe what you want, but for me, I have to see the evidence, and have to be convinced the interpretation is right. In other words, I do not accept anything on faith.

Whether chemistry, biology or computer science, I am from Missouri — SHOW ME don’t ask me to believe on faith.

[BroJoeK]

Exactly what made you suppose I was denying anything reported about various discoveries?
Of course I did point out, accurately, that much once claimed has since been debunked.

So, how old is the oldest DNA so far recovered?
Well, they ARE getting better & better at that all the time.
Still, there is a long history of wild claims made which later proved to be, well, exaggerated.
I am merely suggesting to take the most recent claims with a grain of salt, until they have been verified by others.

Point is: your discussion of Dino-blood & tissues is usually used to discredit radiometric-based estimates of ancient materials, and to argue that therefore the Earth must be much younger than science maintains.
Again, I’m only saying you are entitled to believe what ever you wish on this, provided you don’t call such beliefs “science”.

[BereanBrain]

Assuming radio decay as an absolute dating method, without comparing to other known dating methods is not scientific.

You seem to have a view that radio decay is authoritative. When an animal lives, it ingests elements that have already particular ratios of decayed isotopes...thus giving it an “apparent” radio decay based date in excess of the fossil.

1) Why is radiometric dating not used for known recent (i.e. < ice age) fossils?
(see above)

2) What if the elements from which our universe were formed had an base amount of decay? i.e. they relative amounts of radioactive isotopes did NOT start at zero.

3) What if the rate of radioactive decay has not been static?

What matter is it if the earth is 3.5 or 5.0 Billion years or 5 Million years or 50,000 years or 5,000? Does it make the universe any different? No!

Does it imply the method of creation? No! So why you have your panties in a wad I don’t know.

As I said before, I have a BS and MS and 30+ hours of post masters science.

What education teaches you is that understanding and science are a process. When you get to the point where you cannot objectively consider alternative explanations, you have given up on science, and it’s become a religion.

[BroJoeK]

BereanBrain: "Assuming radio decay as an absolute dating method, without comparing to other known dating methods is not scientific."

But nobody has done that, so why do you make such a claim?
Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of these matters knows there are dozens of radio-metric materials -- from Carbon 14 for "recent" items (<60,000 years) out to billions of years with uranium-lead.
On top of those are other methods, from tree-rings to ice-cores, to geologic stratigraphy to comparisons of known fossil ages.
In addition, astronomical calculations provide us with ball-park estimates of the ages of stars (including our Sun), galaxies and, indeed, the entire Universe.

Point is: there are dozens and dozens of methods for estimating ancient ages, of which radiometric materials are very important, but not the only tools available.
And these methods all provide remarkably consistent, repeatable results.

BereanBrain: "1) Why is radiometric dating not used for known recent (i.e. < ice age) fossils?"

What are you talking about?
Carbon-14 dating can be used for any organic materials less than about 60,000 years old.
Tree ring dating goes back around 11,000 years, and Antarctic ice-cores to 800,000 years.
Of course, there are issues with every method, which must be carefully accounted for, but when results are consistent over a wide range of materials & dates, then as far as science itself is concerned, that's pretty conclusive.

BereanBrain: "2) What if the elements from which our universe were formed had an base amount of decay? i.e. they relative amounts of radioactive isotopes did NOT start at zero."

As a self-proclaimed "scientist", you have probably encountered something called the "standard model", of how the Universe was created from a "big bang" of pure energy, which rapidly expanded, cooled & condensed over billions of years.
In the very beginning, the tiny Universe was without form, and void of matter or even light.
Then from energy came first light, next the simplest of matter, originally only Hydrogen, and just enough gravity to clump them together into stars (and so the heavens were created, imagine that).
Now, stars come in all sizes and the larger they are, the shorter their "lives".
When very large stars burn up all their "fuel", they explode in a super-nova, in the process creating all of the heaver elements -- i.e. carbon, iron, gold, uranium, etc.
Some of these newly created elements are radiometric, and thus time can be measured from the moment of their creation.

But radiometric "clocks" are reset, whenever their material is melted and re-solidified.
Thus geological materials on Earth can be measured, for example, from the date of their melting in a volcanic eruption.
And the point, again, is: there are dozens and dozens of these methods, which have been used many thousands of times around the planet to provide us with consistent dating of various geological strata, going back billions of years.

That's what science is.
Of course, you don't have to believe a word of it, but whatever it is you do believe then, is not science.

BereanBrain: "3) What if the rate of radioactive decay has not been static?"

Then the answer is as simple as can be: there must be some serious scientific evidence of that, but there is none.
Of course, anybody might easily postulate that time itself fluctuates -- perhaps logarithmically -- such that what seems to our instruments a billion years was from a "God's eye" viewpoint really only one 24 hour day.
But there is no scientific evidence to support such hypothesis, and so it is dismissed, out of hand.

You, naturally, are entitled to believe what you wish, but if you believe that all of creation happened in "a day" or "a week", those beliefs are not scientific, regardless of how many diplomas hang on your walls.

BereanBrain: "What matter is it if the earth is 3.5 or 5.0 Billion years or 5 Million years or 50,000 years or 5,000? Does it make the universe any different? No!"

Now you are asking a specifically theological-philosophical question for which science itself has no answer.
That's because science is not designed or intended to answer such questions.
Science is far too limited in its scope for such questions.
It's why we have churches and other places of worship -- to answer those questions which science is way too small to address.

BereanBrain: "Does it imply the method of creation? No! So why you have your panties in a wad I don’t know."

What are you talking about? My undershorts are perfectly fine -- so why would you even enquire about them?

In my mind, the scientific "big bang theory" fits perfectly with Genesis Creation account, and so I never debate against various scientific ideas based on religious beliefs.

There is a name for my opinions: "theistic evolutionism".

You should study it. It is the official teaching of the vast majority of Christian denominations, including Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even some Eastern Orthodox theologians.

BereanBrain: "As I said before, I have a BS and MS and 30+ hours of post masters science."

But, if you are also a "young earth creationist" then you loathe and reject any part of science which you call "historical science" -- meaning inquiries into the creation and evolution of the Universe.
So I'll say again, you are entitled to loathe and reject whatever you wish, so long as you do not call your own beliefs "science". They're not.

BereanBrain: "What education teaches you is that understanding and science are a process.
When you get to the point where you cannot objectively consider alternative explanations, you have given up on science, and it’s become a religion."

Sorry, but your beliefs are religion, and "projecting" religion on science is a psychological malfunction. So, don't do it.

The truth of this matter is that any serious scientist considers all possibilities -- we used to call that "brain storming".
But after due consideration, a real scientist rejects those which don't make sense, or can't be supported by evidence, etc.
What ideas remain can then be proposed as hypotheses fit for further testing.
If they pass the tests, they may become theories, and that is just about as close to "truth" as science can ever get.

So what exactly is your problem with all that?

[BereanBrain]

I believe that a God that created the Universe can create it however he wants, even with apparent age, just as (if you believe the bible is not a fairy tale), he did when he created Adam.

Adam was created as a man, of mature age. If one were to measure growth rates, and extrapolate Adam’s age, it would have been 30 years or so. All the organisms and creature kinds were created as adults as well (who would care for the first newborn cheetahs for example).

Why is is any harder for a Creator to create in one manner or another? Does he need help? If he COULD create it either way, then either creation is very old, or very young. Indeed, Time is RELATIVE to the observer. So to me, a “day” of creation is an amount of time from the Creator’s perspective, NOT a 24 hour day as in the earth/sun day.
As I said in the first post, it does NOT matter how old it is....What matters is HOW it came into being. I merely point out that there are assumptions made in stating the apparent age of observations.

If our spatial time/universe is all there is, then you have the chicken/egg problem - where did the cosmic “egg” or matter originate from?

The existence of an outside motive force, i.e. a Creator that exists beyond our space time is a plausible explanation.

Science is mankind’s attempt at understanding and explaining our universe and our being. As such, it constantly is improving, which of course means that our understanding 1000 years ago was less than 100, 10, or even 1 year ago. Many theories have risen and fallen.

We live in a “newtonian” or cause and effect universe (we have to believe this for science to be able to answer ALL the questions we can ask). But strangely enough, the universe does not seem to cooperate with our beliefs. We have observed quantum effects up to and including particles the size of complete atoms. This, stated simply is a situation that the mere act of observing changes the outcome of an experiment. It seems our Creator has a “black box” of which, like the flatlander, cannot see into.

I wish you good travels pursuing your own observations and opinions.

As for me and my house, I believe in the Creator that created Time, The Universe and everything in it. He will one day collapse time, and dissolve the elements, and create a new heaven and earth, which unlike this one, will never see ruin, decay or tears.

Is this incompatible with Science? No. We just need to carefully differentiate between what we KNOW, what we ASSUME, and what we BELIEVE (through faith).

For example, I do not believe Global Climate Change (Global Warming, Global Cooling, AGW, etc) is proper science. It’s pay-for-play science, and has turned into a religion of it’s own, replete with persecution of dissenting opinions.

[BroJoeK]

BereanBrain: "I believe that a God that created the Universe can create it however he wants, even with apparent age, just as (if you believe the bible is not a fairy tale), he did when he created Adam."

Of course, you are absolutely entitled to such religious beliefs, but you are not lawfully entitled to call them "science".

BereanBrain: "Why is is any harder for a Creator to create in one manner or another?
Does he need help? If he COULD create it either way, then either creation is very old, or very young.
Indeed, Time is RELATIVE to the observer..."

Again, these are all questions well beyond the realm of science, and as such, science does not, cannot, indeed must not attempt to answer them.
It's why we have churches, seminaries and theologians, etc.

BereanBrain: "As I said in the first post, it does NOT matter how old it is....What matters is HOW it came into being.
I merely point out that there are assumptions made in stating the apparent age of observations."

It is incredibly important for you to comprehend that all of science is based on certain assumptions and rules, the first of which goes by the name of "methodological naturalism" which, simply, means: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
So science is the result of working under such rules.
And over centuries and years, those results have been spectacular, but they are also limited by their basic assumptions.
Science cannot address theological questions.

BereanBrain: "The existence of an outside motive force, i.e. a Creator that exists beyond our space time is a plausible explanation."

Absolutely, positively NOT!
For believers it is a matter of FAITH, regardless of how plausible or implausible.
For science it is outside the realm of methodological naturalism, and is therefore rejected as a matter of basic assumptions.
So it's not "plausible explanation" that's the basis for either Christian faith or scientific naturalism.

BereanBrain: "the universe does not seem to cooperate with our beliefs."

Sir Isaac Newton himself put it this way:

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

What was true to Newton 300 years ago is infinitely more true today -- what we think we know is still vastly less than what is there to be known.

BereanBrain: "As for me and my house, I believe in the Creator that created Time, The Universe and everything in it...
Is this incompatible with Science? No."

Regardless of how "compatible", it is your religious belief and is not, and will never be (by definition), "science".

[BereanBrain]

Correct Science and Correct Religion are not at war, they are in agreement, they meet on the hill called “Truth”.

What is at issue is the definition of science and religion. I believe faith belongs on the religious side, whilst science should never venture farther than the observations allow.

The issue I have is when theories are presented as fact. I like to read the labels on my food, and I want to know all the assumptions made in a logical argument.

I guess you can call me a skeptic as to whether or not we (mankind) have a good hold on the “truth” of a matter. Yes, we have made tremendous progress in the last few thousand years, and I am sure in another thousand (if we survive that long) we shall know even more what is true. If we do not, progress will have stopped! We are, after all flatlanders!

Neither in the religious realm do we have all the answers as well, and when one goes farther than scripture allows, one ends up a heretic.

[BroJoeK]

BereanBrain: "The issue I have is when theories are presented as fact."

Science itself is very clear on this matter: a "fact" is defined as a "confirmed observation", period.
So, gathering facts are the first steps in any scientific process.
It's why we have telescopes and microscopes and all the other gizmos of modern science.

But facts alone can lead to many more questions, and attempting to answer those questions leads scientists to first brain-storm ideas, then propose testable hypotheses.
Any hypothesis which passes its tests may be considered a "theory".
And that's about as good as it gets within science.

Yes, some "theories" can be reclassified later as "facts", examples being the shape, revolution and rotation of the Earth, since these have now been confirmed by numerous observations.
Some people claim that "evolution" is not just a theory, it's also a fact, since it has been confirmed by numerous observations.
Strictly speaking, that's true of what Creationists call "micro-evolution", though so-called "macro-evolution" takes too long -- millions of years -- to have been caught in the act of happening.

Point is: science itself is not confused about the difference between "facts", "theories" and "hypotheses", even though in popular presentations -- especially to children -- such distinctions are quite often ignored.

[gleeaikin]

More than half of Lucy’s bones were recovered, and you can see them in the new hominid exhibit at the Smithsonian financed by conservative, David Koch.

Here is an exciting story on new trackway findings suggestive of new information regarding T Rex behavior. Hope SC will repost as new article.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/24/tyrannosaur-pack-hunting-theory-aided-by-new-footprints/20936661/?ncid=webmail20

[gleeaikin]

Yes, science is repeatable, observable, and explainable. However, if non fossilized tissue (blood, DNA) is found in bones buried between datable layers of stone—sediments, volcanic ash, etc. Then it makes more sense to trust the dating of the strata, and rethink the nature of the tissue.

[gleeaikin]

“Adam was created as a man, of mature age.” OK, if you believe that, then which version of human creation do you believe, both found in Genesis. #1, God created man and woman from earth (ie, man and woman are equal). #2, God created woman from a rib from Adam (ie, man is superior or supersedes woman). Each version has significant philosophical and social implications. In addition, it blows the minds of those who believe every word of the Bible. [BJK—I read your bio.]

[blam]

Dinos lived on earth for 160 million years.

[BroJoeK]

gleeaikin: "if non fossilized tissue (blood, DNA) is found in bones buried between datable layers of stone..."

Years ago there were many reports of "antediluvian DNA" supposedly recovered from dinosaur & older fossils -- i.e., "Jurassic Park" DNA in amber.
In more recent years virtually all of these reports have been falsified, and more realistic ideas have emerged as to the lengths of time DNA can survive under ideal conditions.

Today the oldest authentic report I can find -- of ancient DNA recovered -- came from a circa 800,000 year old horse buried in permafrost.
It's included here.
The oldest pre-human DNA recovered is around 400,000 years.

All of these ancient DNA strands are highly degraded, and so reveal only minimal (though fascinating) data about the old critters.

The question of bacteria seemingly hundreds of millions of years old, found in buried salt deposits, I don't think is fully resolved -- are these really so ancient, or have they simply been living, in metabolically slowed animation, all those years?

"Dinosaur collagen" has also been challenged, and defended, to the point where amateurs must wait for further evidence to be discovered.
But these reports have forever changed the ways paleontologists see and handle the fossil "rocks" they dig up.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BroJoeK.

[BereanBrain]

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the exports - Richard Feynman

Real Scientists don’t believe ANY argument can be settled unless you know the sum total of the knowledge in the universe. You can’t PROVE a negative.

However, one can say — “We are fairly certain, based on these assumptions, that the following is what/when/how something happened”.

Anything more, and you have left science and entered the realm of faith.

[BroJoeK]

BereanBrain: "You can’t PROVE a negative.
However, one can say — “We are fairly certain, based on these assumptions, that the following is what/when/how something happened”."

We're talking about scientific language & terms here.
So scientists do speak of "proving" mathematical theorems.
Perhaps, we could say, this acknowledges that math is a language of God, so if something makes sense mathematically, it makes sense to God, and that is "proof" enough for us mere mortals.

But everything else is "confirmed", not "proved" in science.
For example: a scientific "fact" is something you can observe and confirm repeat-ably.
Earth's round shape has been observed and confirmed from space, so it is now a "fact".
Consider: many years ago, that idea began, in effect, as a hypothesis, first proposed by a Greek mathematician who measured shadows in wells.
Centuries later, explorers confirmed the hypothesis, making it a theory, by sailing around it.
Now the theory is made fact by repeatable confirmed observations.

That's how scientists speak of such things.
Please consider: "long term evolution" is much more than mere scientific hypothesis.
Much of it is observed fact -- i.e., "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" can be seen and confirmed by everyone, everywhere, so those are facts.
But since their long-term operations over millions of years cannot be observed, that idea remains a "confirmed theory", based on an assumption known as "uniformitarianism", meaning, in short, "the present is key to the past".
What we see happening today can help explain what actually happened long ago.

Without such assumptions (especially including methodological naturalism), science makes no sense and can't be said to "work".

The problem, of course, is that what science speaks of as "hypothesis" or "confirmed theory" often gets upgraded in popular media into "fact" or "proved truth".
It ain't.

[BroJoeK]

gleeaikin: "which version of human creation do you believe, both found in Genesis.
#1, God created man and woman from earth (ie, man and woman are equal).
#2, God created woman from a rib from Adam (ie, man is superior or supersedes woman).
Each version has significant philosophical and social implications."

First of all, biblical deconstructionism is not for amateurs, because it's way too easy to get confused & disoriented.
So don't do it.
Tradition will answer most reasonable questions.

In this example, you've delved into the realm of the "documentary hypothesis" sometimes called "JEPD theory".
It posits the Bible's first books were written by four distinct authors, a J-Jahwist, E-Elohist, P-Priestly and D-Deuteronomist.
Differences which you cite in Genesis are said to be work of a Deuteronomist who combined versions from earlier Jahwist and Elohist into a single narrative.

But before you get all lost in exegeses and deconstructions, let me suggest that your question itself assumes such scholarly interpretations, and so may be invalid, but that even if we take your question seriously, the obvious answer is: the Bible intends for us to understand both -- that women are first created equal or superior to men, but also become dependent and subordinate at times of their greatest vulnerabilities, when giving birth and raising children.

My point is, I don't think excessive cleverness necessarily improves the Bible.
On the other hand, such questions can sometimes be handled quite easily, thank you.