[ March 24, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Do you have a linky? I'm sure my son would love to read an article. That's so cool!
space opera
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The emoticon is a link, sorry.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Ha! Thanks
space opera
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow… how could something so old, so many millions of years old last so long?
Is there any chance it’s not that old?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
They can now clone dinosaurs and ruin the world just like the guy in Jurassic Park . Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm actually kinda hoping they do clone a T-Rex. I'm curious to see which school of thought wins out on just how much of a predator the T-Rex actually was.
-Trevor
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
But the danger! I'm just kidding. It could be really cool. It would be tons of tax payer's dollars though.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Taxpayer dollars? Are you kidding? Some nut would fund it just so he could be in the history books as the nut who funded it.
-Trevor
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Jay--nah, I don't think there's much debate as to the age of the fossil they extracted the tissue from. Sounds like although this one was unusually well preserved, they expect to be able to make similar extractions from quite a few fossils that have already been found.
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
no make a mini Trex the size of a chicken or ostrich. it would be easier to control. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*pictures walking a little t-rex*
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah, it couldn’t be a younger fossil cause that wouldn’t fit into the evolution timeline would it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't think you'd want to keep your mini-T Rex and your bunny in the same room Syn. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I thought, as soon as I saw this thread, "Oh, no, now they're going to build Jurassic Park!"
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
they can be used for getting rid of rats and other pests.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bah. I'm getting my baby T-Rex a flamethrower!
-Trevor
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Like the founder of Jurassic Park started with miniature elephants? I still don't think that would work......
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't know of any evidence to support anything like that Jay--the article certainly doesn't discuss anything of the sort. It gives the fossil's ate at 68 million years. I expect that if it had been found in an unexpected strata or something that in and of itself would have been huge news, don't you?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Trevor, I'll bet my mini-T. Rex could burninate your mini-T. Rex.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Okay, I was just looking at the enlarged picture of the tissue they managed to extract, and found myself musing about what it would taste like. I just squicked myself out.
In my defense, it does kind of look like fried food of some sort.
[ March 24, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Heh. I'm gonna get a velociraptor sized to 50%. He'll eat both your T-rexes alive!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even in Jurassic Park they weren't 100% real, they were mixed with frog DNA. I'd highly doubt they could find enough intact DNA to create a viable sequence that could be cloned. They'd have to get real lucky. Even DNA found in frozen wooly mammoths, which are better preserved and for that matter more recent, aren't viable for cloning.
Still, it'd be cool to see. If they could clone one, I think they should, but I don't think it would tell us much about prehistoric dinosaur behavior, unless we did in fact create a Jurassic park type environment. I believe in the school of thought that depicts T-Rex's as scavangers though, rather than hunters.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bah, have you no poetry? Nothing eats Godzilla Junior!
Velociraptors are just larger and hairless cats.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well of course the article isn’t going to say anything about the possibility of its age not being in the millions of years. That would mess everything up. Yet the faith it takes for something to be so well preserved yet be millions of years old is beyond comprehension. A million years is long enough, but for it to be 68 million years old and still be preserved. GE need to look at this and get it into their freezers.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Still, it'd be cool to see. If they could clone one, I think they should, but I don't think it would tell us much about prehistoric dinosaur behavior, unless we did in fact create a Jurassic park type environment.
Indeed...and wouldn't that sort of thing be interesting for the whole nuture-vs.-nature thing?
And Jay, dude, just chill out and let us have our dinosaur fun. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Well of course the article isn’t going to say anything about the possibility of its age not being in the millions of years. That would mess everything up.
Oh, of course not. Everyone knows that "science" is really just dedicated to fooling the masses and preserving the status quo.
[ March 24, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Noemon, don't you get it? The evolutionists are a psuedo-scientific cult, who ignore any and evidence in their mission to convert the world to their Satan-inspired dogma.
-Bok
EDIT: Dang, you all post too quicky, and yet I anticipated Jay's response pretty well!
[ March 24, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m excited about this find. Anything that shows a young Earth is always exciting to me. I’m all for dinosaur fun. Can’t wait for them to make Jurassic Park, but I think a more accurate one would be the Preflood Park. I’m all for science. I just like it to reflect what actually happened in the past. Not what someone wants to think happened so that we can remove God from everything in our lives.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Huh.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I know how much the Pope and the rest of the Catholic church hate God, not to mention those (various denominations of) Christian scientists who find the evidence overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Jay...what if it turns out you're wrong, and the dating is accurate, and the earth is that old? People believe this because there's scientific evidence supporting it not because they want to "remove God from everything in our lives."
Just because you refuse to acknowledge science doesn't mean that the people who do have their heads in the sand--quite the opposite, since they're believing things for which there are empirical evidence.
I see your persecution complex is flaring up again. Let me get you some ointment for that! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Guys, in my experience there is really very little use in arguing with somebody with Jay's mindset on an issue like this. He's decided what he thinks is true, and nothing you say to him is going to sway him at all. Seriously, I wouldn't bother.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Noemon, you're right, I know you're right...but sometimes, you scratch the itch, even when you know you shouldn't. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What an awesome find.
As to Jay, I have two words: "carbon dating."
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I tried that, but I couldn't get rid of the chalky aftertaste for months.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of think it would be fun to ride on a raptor... And those flying things...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Pfft! Carbon "dating". I suppose that next you're going to tell me that we really made it to the moon!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, gee….. Let’s see… If I wanted to help get religion out of society how would be the best way to go about it. Well, maybe it would be best to start with the foundation. Hit it from the start. Yeah, you’ll still have faithful good people who will believe in God and also say he used evolution over millions of years and that man came from apes instead of being created. But once the next generation comes along they’ll believe that God wasn’t really the Creator, so why belief in him? Sounds almost like what has happened. Sure there’s scientific theories supporting evolution. But there’s also lots of scientific theories for creation too. I don’t deny true science. But the interpretation of facts seems to be a topic of issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, scientists aren't out to destroy god? Damn, now I have to rethink all my previously held beliefs.
Jay - People who think like you care more about the existance of god than scientists do. They aren't trying to disprove god, they are trying to prove their theories right. The fact that you are so threatened by this speaks more to your problem with it than to science's problem with religion. Me thinks the Christian (or whatever you are) protests too much.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
I don't know about that. in each Jurassic Park movie the raptors get smarter. I expect in the next movie they'll be hacking computer systems to escape. I'm not sure I'm ready for a computer virus written by a raptor. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I’m excited about this find. Anything that shows a young Earth is always exciting to me. I’m all for dinosaur fun. Can’t wait for them to make Jurassic Park, but I think a more accurate one would be the Preflood Park. I’m all for science. I just like it to reflect what actually happened in the past. Not what someone wants to think happened so that we can remove God from everything in our lives.
Ooooh, so that's what happened, dinosaurs died out in the flood.
Well that makes sense, I mean dinosaurs would be hard to get into an ark, unlike animals like lions and tigers and bears (oh my).
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Of course the raptors got smarter - the plots got dumber.
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Urban, in Jurassic Park X the humans will be on the island and the raptors will be in control of everything except for Homo Sapien Park.
It'll be like a neo Planet of the Apes.
Planet of the Raptors.
I wonder what raptor music sounds like, or what raptor paintings will look like.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:what raptor music sounds like
I'd guess...scary! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
MSNBC has an article with more photos of the samples.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like an uncooked buffalo wing. I can just see it now when they start cloning them, KFD will start up as a spin-off of KFC. Kentucky Fried Dinosaur.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ew. Fossilized dino tissue. Well, they still don't know what colour they are.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I say...baby blue, and hot pink.
My velociraptor, for those of you who were wondering, will be hot pink. Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
I bet they taste just like chicken Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe we could race them. Like the Kentucky Derby or dog races, or Indycar.
The Velociraptor 500.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
With or without riders? If with, do they get body armor?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I LOVE it!
I'm gonna go plan the tricking out of my raptor.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Racing stripes or flames, racing stripes or flames....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Body armor? Now it sounds like a combination of battle bots and Indycar.
I'd have to say without riders, they'd have to be pretrained. As far as accessories, if you can fit it on the raptor it's fair game. Mine will have a mini buzz saw attached to his dew claw.
Anything goes.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Stickers, ElJay. Everyone knows your dinosaur is faster once you put stickers on it.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sadly you'll notice that there is no mention of DNA in the article. Indeed I would be positively floored if there was any meaningful fragment of DNA present in the bone. If they can sequence the protein the can compare its structure to existing proteins and find possible orthologs (conserved proteins between species) or perhaps simply conserved domains. It's still fascinating, but it's nowhere near cloning.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Kentucky Fried Dinosaur.
Of course, a few years down the road they'll try to change it to Kitchen Fresh Dinosaur.
[ March 24, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
But we can dream, Bob, we can dream.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It also goes faster if its painted red.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You sure can, but if all you have are your dreams you should dream bigger. Like talking dinosaur pets with frikkin laser beams on their heads or summin'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The article did mention protein sequencing, and made a careful warning that DNA is much more fragile than protein, and that they would be lucky to get the protein out right. But the scientist in charge said she wouldn't comment on the DNA since she wasn't in that field.
Would the raptors have sponsorships? there could be a John Deere Raptor.
The Budweiser Raptor.
The Windex Raptor, Energizer Raptor. Of course the Lowes Raptor.
Personally I'd hold out for Rolls Royce. The Rolls Royce Raptor. Alliteration really is the key.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm going to put tassles on my raptor's elbows, and mount a flag at the base of it's tail. Oh, and I'm going to have the geneticists tinker with mine a bit and add a built in banana seat.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
How long before we see Paris Hilton with one of those mini dino's?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe it'll do us a favor and eat her.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Dinosaurs don't eat junk food.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
We can dream, Lyrhawn, we can dream
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
On a semi-related note, my son woke us up today with his dinosaur impression. Well, he said "Lion! Tiger! Dinosaur! RrRRRAAArRrh!!" anyway. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh my. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's too bad he didn't do a Liger impersonation. That's pretty much my favorite animal.
[Edit--is that the line? I haven't seen ND often enough to quote it with certainty yet]
[ March 24, 2005, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You are gonna look so dang uncool, ElJay. Ridin' around on a Hawg while I cruise past ya on my Velociraptor.
[ March 24, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I get my bike Saturday. Let me know when you pick up your raptor, and I'll start crying in my beer. Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Well, I can probably get him to say Liger. It is sometimes hard to tell what he says, anyway. The roar gave it away today. Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
I can already imagine the ad campaign. The Raptor, featuring industry leading anti-theft system. The Raptor, 25 highway mile per chicken. The Raptor, now with XM satelite radio.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
No, since raptors preceded chickens by millions of years, we would have to conclude that chicken tastes like raptor. The new phrase would enter our lexicon, except for stubborn old people who persisted in saying "tastes like chicken".
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
The answer to the ultimate question has been answered. What came first. The chicken or the Egg. The answer of course is the raptor.
Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
No guys, Jay's right. There's not a morning I get up where I don't wonder how I'm going to help plunge the world into darkness. I can't even get a forkful of waffles to my mouth without fuming over my jealous anger.
Sometimes my scientist friends and I get together and scheme on how we're going to use our evil science knowledge to open up a portal to hell so the antichrist can come out.
We're always foiled by that clever Jesus and friends, though. Curses! We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling Christians!
[ March 24, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Verai ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
After everybody gets bored with their stock raptors, a "Pimp your raptor" show will give everyone ideas for tricking them out.
Hmm, that sentence didn't sound so naughty in my head.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Not to worry, faithful Comerade Rowling is slowly taking over the minds of the foolish christian youth with her books.
Everytime they don't abort it just means another servant for Satan.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I'd eat a fried dinosaur.
Actually, I really want to eat mammoth before I die.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Silly jatraqueros. T. rexes are carnivores, and generally speaking, it's not healthy for humans to eat carnivores (more chance of catching nasty diseases). Which is why cows, sheep, and vegetarians are more popularly eaten. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Mammoth tenderloin? I'm in!
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
How about brontosaur? That would make one hell of a steak.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
"Girl Genius" comic has mimmoths -- mouse-sized mammoths that escaped and became pests. Mimmoth-on-a-stick is a popular treat.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ya know Morbo, for being a city boy - you sure are obscene.
-Trevor
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Re: soft tissue preservation in fossils.
The process of fossilization involves replacement of cellular material (protein, fat, etc.) by minerals. Essentially, the thing becomes a rock that reveals some details of the original living tissue because it sort of outlines structures, etc.
Typically, bones fossilize and soft tissues do not. In rare circumstances, you get fossil impressions of the soft structures, e.g., the Burgess Shale deposits.
Now, this is something else entirely. This is tissue that has retained it's character as actual tissue -- just dead forms of previously living matter.
How could that happen? And how could it last for millions of years? I haven't researched this (not even Google) but I have some probably good guesses:
1) It'd have to be an anerobic environment. Anything exposed to airborne bacteria would've decayed in months or at most years, not millions of years, or even thousands of years. Since this was found in sandstone, the likelihood is that the animal died and was subsumed under the soil rather rapidly, thus cutting off the supply of air.
2) The leaching of minerals into the tissue must've been somehow inordinately slow or somehow halted. The composition of the sandstonestone in which it is found might be the key here.
Again, I'm just guessing, but the articles are talking about this kind of thing not being all that uncommon.
Jay... I feel it's my duty to at least point out to you that you are doing what you accuse others of. You have a fixed, predetermined idea of how things work and try to bend all evidence to it. The fact that science specifically doesn't work that way, at least not in the long run, means that typically, science yields answers that better fit the available data and observations. In the best case, science works from theories that eventually are either supplanted by theories that better fit observation & data, or gain adherents to the point where few (if any) doubt their veracity.
It all depends ultimately on the power to explain observation.
Your theory, in contrast, relies on the assumption (unproven) that all the observations over all the years in paleontology are not just wrong, but hopelessly mired in error. Once that is taken to be true, then a theory that ignores all the data can be proposed and defended. As could any theory one wanted.
That's not science.
Science and religion are only incompatible when people try to make them do things they were never designed to do. They speak the wrong languages to be effective as explanations for things to which they don't apply.
For example: Science does not really work on things like "the meaning of life" or the existence of souls. That doesn't mean some scientists wouldn't want to try, but that the usual methods don't apply and most of these attempts are viewed as, well...unscientific.
Likewise, religion doesn't really work well for things like mechanisms of creation. Basically, the story in Genesis is all we have for Judaism and it's been adopted wholesale for Christianity. But it is incomplete, demonstrably inaccurate in terms of some parts of the sequencing, and most of the world views it as allegory, not to be taken literally.
The attempts to use AS SCIENCE don't really work very well -- they aren't convincing to most people -- because even a moderately strong commitment to hypothesis testing and fact-based theorizing shoots the literal biblical account full of holes. Some people have tried to put together a more scientific version that retains some consistency with the Bible. Most people remain unconvinced of these theories too because 1) they don't generate testable hypotheses, and 2) they rely on being able to throw out contrary evidence. The latter, from a scientific point of view is death to a theory.
Theories, to be viable, have to account for more of the evidence than competing theories. A theory that starts with "all the contrary evidence is flawed" is more like a parody of science than actual science.
Sure, there are questions about methods for dating finds, contamination among layers happens during digs, etc. But the people who latch onto these things are going beyond the bounds of reason. They don't say "well, these dates are uncertain, but they're within a range between xxxx and yyyy." Instead they say "these dates are uncertain, and therefore the method of dating is completely flawed, should be thrown out, and therefore the Earth really could be 12,000 years old, or so."
As soon as you do that, you aren't talking science and the discussion is over.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do you think Oprah will give away free raptors to underprivileged families?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about brontosaur
I hate to be a stickler, urban, but "brontosaur" has not been considered a valid genera since 1976. What you want is an Apatosaurus steak.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
And couldn't giving raptors to underpriveleged families be seen as thinly disguised eugenics?
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
actually I know the name changed (I'm urban btw). I just like the oldschool name better, that's the name I grew up with Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
That’s nice. I believe differently so of course that makes me an idiot. Fine. I accept you alls theory. It would be nice if you’d quit taking me out of context. I didn’t say anything about scientists just that theories that are misinterpreting the facts. Creation scientists use biology and archeology too, they just have a different base on how they draw up their theories.
Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years” We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief. Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”. One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape”.2 The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil to lift it by helicopter. The bone was still largely hollow and not filled up with minerals as is usual. Dr Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present.3 She has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.” She also is reported as commenting that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.” It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens! The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in “millions of years”. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) “70 million years”. Will they now be convinced? Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,4 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence. That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”5 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific). So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works? Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh! I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You're right, Jay. My grandfather always told me he rode T-Rexes to school. Now I know he was telling the truth. Modern bones of a dinosaur! I'm surprised Ford ever made it big in this country with all the dinosaurs lurking about.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
This 2,000 year old mummy is so well-preserved that "it can be autopsied by pathologists as if it were only recently dead."
That doesn't mean the Han dynasty was yesterday. It means that soft tissue remains in good condition for longer than was once thought under the right circumstances. If the radioisotope dates from the surrounding rock say 65 million, and the bones contain soft tissue, that to me is evidence that we came to the wrong conclusion about how soft tissue can last if preserved in certain ways. There's probably less evidence supporting the claim that soft tissue can't last, so that's the conclusion we ought to throw out first.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Damnit Jay, get it right.
It's not "you alls", it's "y'all" or "y'all's"
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"All of y'all" is also acceptable.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'd just like to take a moment to announce that all of this great fantastic stuff came out of my Alma Mater. *sniff*
I've even been to faculty meetings with Jack Horner. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I love this thread .
And this is pretty cool, even if they can't actually do anything with what they find. Perhaps they'll figure something out from the blood, although the only other thing I can imagine is some kind of genetic disease that turns out to be the cause of the end of the dinosaurs .
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:I've even been to faculty meetings with Jack Horner.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
He's a cool guy.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Well, Jay I'm convinced.
After all that article did a particularly good job of explainging how it would be impossible for the tissue to have survived that long, challenging all schools of thought on the matter.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jay, I wasn't calling you an idiot.
Also, in your long quotation, Kuhn is most certainly being taken out of context. It's perfectly natural and proper to disbelieve a new finding that contradicts so much accummulated knowledge. Until it is replicated.
Then, if it is found to be a reliable phenomenon, it causes theories to be modified. If enough contrary evidence accumulates, a theory will eventually get discarded. But usually what happens is a better theory is developed.
The trouble with creation science is that it ISN'T a better theory. It is already contradicted by mountains of evidence that it can't account for.
Preservation of soft tissue is indeed surprising, but it could be that what's really needed is a new theory of how things get fossilized, not a new theory of how animal life was created and/or modified & diversified over time.
Again, I think you have a pet theory and are so wedded to it that you are missing some rather obvious alternatives.
That doesn't make you an idiot. It's even possible you might be right. It's just extremely unlikely given the preponderance of evidence.
I would suggest reading a wonderful old article about The method of multiple working hypotheses. It is one of the best things that has ever been written about scientific thinking and, really, it's something that every generation of scientist needs to be reacquainted with. It helps a lot to keep us from falling into the kinds of problems that a Kuhnian cycle has inherently built into it.
And please, could we get past this silly persecution complex? I don't mind having a debate with you on just about any subject, but your insistence on feeling like a martyr is just off-putting. I don't have it in for you, or anyone. I think your theory sucks. So what?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Another point to ponder...
We're urging museums to crack open bones in their collections, right?
If we find that LOTS of fossil bones have squishy innards, that means that the evidence of soft-tissue preservation has been around since the beginning of paleontology.
The point is that it would've been something interesting that would've had to have been accounted for in the building up of a theory of fossilization processes. Essentially, it wouldn't have thrown off the the estimation of dates of deposition, it would've been something to be accounted for. That under specific conditions in certain parts of the globe, things happen this way and not that way and so we end up with stuff being preserved that would've otherwise been fossilized.
65 million years is a long time. But so is 12,000 years. Or even 6,000 years. Preservation of soft tissue is odd at any of those dates and most people are just going to suspect that the conditions that made it possible are unusual until the fossil record proves otherwise.
And even if the record shows that it's not all that unusual, the question is still going to be one of how does it happen before it results in a question of whether the estimated dates are wrong by 3 orders of magnitude!!!
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I have to confess I skipped page 2. So I can only hope I'm the first to say "where's that thread about the company that will clone your cat for 50 grand?"
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Is there any company that will clone your grand(ma) for 50 cats?
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I'm just kidding. It could be really cool. It would be tons of tax payer's dollars though.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)