Ink found in Jurassic-era squid (150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals")

BBC ^ | August 19,2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Palaeontologists have drawn with ink extracted from a preserved fossilised squid uncovered during a dig in Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.

A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink...

[TXnMA]

steven33442: "The Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that is good enough for me."

DallasMike: "It would be good enough for me, too, if the Bible actually said or even implied that the earth was 6,000 years old. However, it doesn't."

~~~~~~~~~

Correct, Mike. The Bible does not say the world is 6000 years old. It was this guy

James Ussher (1581–1656)
Anglican Archbishop of Armagh
and Primate of All Ireland
between 1625–1656.

who said it -- (or whose mind-burps claiming so were published) in 1658.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I am always astounded that otherwise intelligent people buy into "logic" like this:

"Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year."

to the point of imputing it (wrongly) to the Bible -- and even touting their "faith" in it.

But, I am most disgusted with those who make a career of denying the evident majesty, extent and age of God's creation -- just so they can twist millions of man-hours of honest observation to fit the ramblings of a 16th-17th century word-twister.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faith belongs in God, His Word, and His Works -- not in the works of man...

"Man is not the measure of God."

Alamo-Girl

[FormerRep]

Sorry - I forgot to paste the book link - http://books.google.com/books?id=inZWDr4h1aIC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=archaebacteria+electron+micrograph&source=bl&ots=hf9mlr12WO&sig=i5CrERNupk8MtFeELnt7Q6kT6L4&hl=en&ei=f0SMSsjcBI6wtgfKnvnkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=archaebacteria%20electron%20micrograph&f=false

[brytlea]

So, was it ink (dried) or fossilized material?

[GodGunsGuts]

That could very well have been involved as well. I was referring to this:

“Just as modern biologists do when doing anatomical studies, researchers put fragments from the broken bone in a mild acid solution to strip away mineral deposits. What was left floating in the solution was thin, stretchy material threaded with what looked like blood vessels.”

[FormerRep]

Fossilized material.

[brytlea]

So, then, it wasn’t the ink it was the mineral material that replaced it as it fossilized?

[FormerRep]

...which when analyzed turned out to be biofilm - e.g. algal/bacterial residue that had been deposited on within the bedding planes of the rocky outcrop where the fossil was found.

[GodGunsGuts]

The link doesn’t work. The point is, if all you have to do is rehydrate the contents of the ink sack to make ink, then the contents of the same have not been completely mineralized by the surrounding rock.

[beefree]

“That is the essence of a circular argument.”

geologists say, “We date the rock by the fossils we find in them”

biologists say, “We date the fossils by the rocks we find them in”

(forget those pesky polystrate fossils)

[GodGunsGuts]

Wrong. You are living in the past, Former. Several studies have been released by independent labs, confirming Schweizer’s original finding.

[FormerRep]

yes - but as with most replacements there is a residual chemical remnant, hence the iron sulfinate. It’s the remnant chemical stain that they solualized in the base hydroxyl solution.

[This_far]

I don't know about that, but I have a dot-matrix printer that is 150 MYO

Ribbons? I miss ribbons. (had a couple great d-m serial printers that just weren't worth the time to make cables for, never mind writing code)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insight, dear brother in Christ!

Truly, man is not the measure of God!

[FormerRep]

Last report I saw had the Field Museum in Chicago stating that there was no collagen found, no hystocytes, and that there had been excessive contamination due to groundwater penetration and human interaction to make any conclusion. They did state that they would be attempting Scweizer’s methods using other museum pieces (teeth in particular) to see if the results are repeatable. That was months ago - haven’t heard anything since.

[GodGunsGuts]

Given the chemical composition of squid ink, do you see the problem with your fossilization argument, FormerR?

Cephalopod (squid) ink contains a number of chemicals in a variety of different concentrations, depending on the species. However, its main constituents are melanin and mucus. It can also contain, among other things, tyrosinase, dopamine and L-DOPA,[5] and small amounts of amino acids, including taurine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, alanine and lysine.[4]

[TXnMA]

"UNLESS the ink is made of something that simply dried out and didn’t really fossilize."

Just because mineral replacement is a common mechanism of fossilization, it is by no means the only mechanism of long-term preservation. There is no reason why what you postulate couldn't result in very long-term preservation.

If the pigment and the binder of the ink were both water soluble, there is no reason they could not have been preserved in a desiccated state -- and still remained reconstitutable via re-hydration.

Is that "fossilization"? Certainly...

[brytlea]

I did not notice that as an ingredient in squid ink (melanin was the major component). However, chemistry is not my strong suit.

[brytlea]

That’s really all I’m trying to figure out (and stepped into the middle of an EVO vs CREVO discussion). Is it simply the dried remnents of the ink that they were able to reconstitute? I’m not sure drying out counts as fossilization, but when looking up the definition, depending on which one you accept, it apparently can be. Thanks :)

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals"

Well hey, when yer talking about billions of years, 150 MA is just a blink of an eye!

[Texan Tory]

From the article: “It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old.”

So it is fossilized, yet still black. I’ve seen thousands of fossils, but I’ve never seen a black one. I’m not saying there can’t ever be black fossils, but it seems like more than a coincidence that the ink sac would happen to fossilize in black unless there is at least some of the original ink still present within the fossil structure.

Or, if the minerals that replaced the ink sac happened to be black, then it could be fossilized in black without any ink remaining, but if that is the case, you would also expect the surrounding structures to be fossilized in black too, unless the surrounding minerals abruptly changed from black to something else during the fossilization process at just the right time, and this doesn’t seem probable to me.

Disclaimer: I’m not a paleontologist, I just play one on Free Republic