Finding a dinosaur's soft spots

Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:20 PM by Alan Boyle

NCSU

CLICK IMAGE FOR VIDEO
North Carolina State
University's Mary
Schweitzer explains why we
will probably never see a
real-life "Jurassic Park."

A couple of years ago, paleontologists were stunned to find that the soft tissue of a 70 million-year-old dinosaur was preserved within a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex. Such a thing had never been seen before. The discovery opened the door to all sorts of speculation about reconstructing dinosaur DNA, just as it was in the fictional "Jurassic Park" tales.

Today, paleontologists are still stunned - not only to find material that looks like dinosaur cartilage, blood vessels, blood cells and bone cells, but to see the stuff in so many different specimens. "It's very scary, I guess, to find this stuff so widely distributed when nobody has ever seen it before," said North Carolina State University's Mary Schweitzer, a pioneer in the field. Although scientists don't plan to create dino-DNA anytime soon, Schweitzer and her colleagues say the growing number of tissue samples are opening the way to a scientific realm almost as exotic as Jurassic Park.

The latest installment of "Nova ScienceNow," premiering on PBS tonight, provides a taste of that new realm. The show's lead segment highlights Schweitzer's work as well as research by Ray Rogers and Kristi Curry Rogers, a husband-and-wife, geologist-and-paleontologist team at Macalester College.

For years, the Rogerses have been unearthing fossil riches in Madagascar, prime territory for paleontologists. Seventy million years ago, a killing drought was followed by torrential rains, which sent waves of mud and wet sand to cover up dead and dying dinosaurs. "You can imagine it's like a milkshake rolling down the mountain," Kristi Rogers told me.

She suspected that Madagascar's quick-preserved dinosaur remains could yield lots of promising specimens to send to Schweitzer, her longtime colleague. And she was right.

"What Mary found was exactly the same stuff that she found in the T. rex," said Rogers, whose work focuses on long-necked dinos known as titanosaurs. "It really helps show that Mary's method works. It's not just a fluke occurrence. ... It's something that's more pervasive in the fossil record."

Schweitzer, meanwhile, is making more finds in the field. She was particularly bowled over by a hadrosaur specimen her team found last year in Montana's Judith River Formation.

"What we're finding is absolutely incredible, amazing preservation," she told me today from Montana State University, the headquarters for this summer's expedition. "It's the 'freshest,' if you will, dinosaur bone that has ever had this analysis conducted on it."

By "freshest," she means that the fossil was excavated specifically for the purposes of demineralizing and analyzing its insides. Schweitzer has found that once a fossil's interior is exposed to the air, it degrades very quickly. In fact, the T. rex fossil that started it all is becoming less and less useful for soft-tissue research with the passage of time, she said.

Fortunately, the rapidly rising number of samples is giving Schweitzer hope that she and her colleagues will be able to unravel the complex biochemical story behind a dinosaur's soft spots. "We're getting specimens that have been collected specifically to do these kinds of tests, and that has never happened before," she said.

So far, Schweitzer is reluctant to say that what she's seeing are actual dinosaur blood vessels, blood cells, bone cells and bone matrix. That's what they look like under a microscope, all right, but Schweitzer is still working on the chemical analysis. "Until the chemistry is done, we can't really say at the molecular level what's going on with these," she said.

Just this year, she and other experts reported the first chemical results for T. rex collagen. The protein analysis appeared to confirm that birds are the closest living relatives of T. rex and his ilk. And that's only a start for the field of paleobiochemistry. If you take the T. rex findings, then add Rogers' titanosaurs from Madagascar ... and Schweitzer's hadrosaur ... and more samples that fossil-hunter Jack Horner is finding in Mongolia as well as Montana ... well, you can start figuring out the relationships among groups of dinosaurs, as well as the dinosaurs' links to other extinct and modern-day species, on the molecular level.

"All of these things are really creating a new world for paleontologists to inhabit," Rogers said.

That means breaking a few fossilized bones - but Rogers said more scientists are coming around to the view that the fresh scientific insights will be worth making a fresh break. "There are a number of paleontologists out there these days who realize that if you don't open that book, you'll never read the story inside," she said.

So what about dinosaur DNA? In a video from North Carolina State University, Schweitzer explained why it's unlikely anyone will be opening a real-life Jurassic Park anytime soon. Today she told me she expects to stick to proteins rather than going in search of a giant reptile's genome. Even if ancient DNA could be recovered, her lab isn't geared up to deal with it.

"You'd need a Class 3 or Class 4 or Class 5 lab, which is the same lab you'd be working with for hantavirus or Ebola," she said. (Here's a PDF file explaining the classes of biohazards.)

Schweitzer isn't ruling out the possibility that fragments of dino-DNA could someday be available. "We're not at the point where we can really say one way or the other," she told me. "I probably am not going to be the one doing the investigation. Maybe I'll have a student who's doing it."

Dinosaur lore is just one of the subjects covered on the latest "Nova ScienceNow." Here are the other topics:

Epigenetics: Here's a strange twist in the nature-vs.-nurture debate: What you eat and how you live may actually affect the way your genes work. Chemical switches inside your cells selectively turn genes on and off, in response to substances coming into your system. That process is called epigenetics, and it appears to explain how the harm done by toxins can be passed on from mother to child, even though the mother's DNA is unaffected. Epigenetics may also explain why identical twins don't stay identical.
Kryptos code-breaking: One of the most mysterious sculptures out there is Kryptos, a granite-and-copper monument placed in the courtyard of CIA headquarters in Virginia in 1990. The sculpture, created by James Sanborn, is covered with strings of seemingly nonsensical characters that actually stand for four coded messages. Three of the codes have been broken, yielding allusions to a buried object and the discovery of King Tut's tomb, but one has still eluded decryption. What's the solution? Em ksa t'nod!
From Belize to black holes: "Nova ScienceNow" profiles Duke University's Arlie Petters, who is one of the world's top researchers in the field of gravitational lensing (and other subjects on the frontiers of cosmology, such as black holes and extra dimensions). Petters is a native of Belize, the Caribbean country nestled alongside Mexico, and his contributions to science education and inspiration back home are a big part of the story.

If you miss the show on TV, you can still watch it on your computer screen: All of the "Nova ScienceNow" segments will show up as video clips in the online archive on Wednesday.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Sign me up. I will go to "Jurassic Park" on opening day.

Ray Smuckles, Achewood, California (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:17 AM)

It is interesting to me that no one is bringing up another possible conclusion from these discoveries - that the fossils are not 65 million years old. What if some of the creationists are right in saying these fossils are only thousands of years old?

Scott Christiansen, Frankfort, Indiana (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:35 AM)

Carbon dating says otherwise, Scott.

Kyle from Easton, Pennsylvania (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:32 PM)

HAHA, yeah and what if the Astrophysicists are wrong in saying there are things more than 6000 light years away?

Robert Moseley, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:54 PM)

Scott, It is crazy to me that anyone would bring up creationist young world issue period. It is sad in this day and age that anyone buys into religion’s consistently bad spin on science, they have always been wrong before and this is no different.

Anyone of any learning does not come conclusion the world is so new, the world is old and the fact the bible does not say that changes nothing ... when passages that became a book were written the writers had no way to know the truth, science and the basic understanding of our world had not yet happened ..

Chirs, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:21 PM)

Chris, historical events and science that doesn't get published in the media and isn't discussed or brought up among atheistic scientists, due to their own agenda, would suggest otherwise. Google certain phrases, like "Doheny Expedition", "Ica Burial Stones" and "Acambaro Figurines" to find some articles on these puzzling discoveries. You will also find some articles, I'm sure, as to how easily Darwinists dismiss these cases. That's because it doesn't "fit in" with their theories and agendas.

Joel, Jensen Beach, FL (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:53 PM)

Scott, obviously, you're oblivious to the obvious. Religion = A primitive shaman, his followers, and the sun, during an eclipse. If you had to make the choice between reading in a library full of books, and reading in a church full of one book, would you choose the library or would you choose the church? My suggestion is to; Follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. I think that creationists and intelligent design hypothesis proliferating, people suffer from Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge.

[AB says: As they say in the courtroom shows, "I'll allow this line of questioning ... but" ... as we go forward, address the information and not the person. Scott just brought up the question, which is a really good one. I'm sure the young-earthers will be pointing to this item, so let's have some great discussions of fossil science rather than allowing this thread to degenerate into a "believers are Neanderthals, skeptics are hellbound nihilists" argument.]

Robert B. Galesburg, Illinios (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:11 PM)

Well done Chris, while religion is important for people to believe in, it should not to be used as fact. It should be an open book or a source to try and explain nature along with science.

george kist laurel de. (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:14 PM)

The dimensions of the figure are as follows: Total height 11.2 inches; greatest width, 7 inches; length of leg, 3.8 inches; length of body, 3.9 inches; width of body, 3 inches; length of neck to top of curve, 3.5 inches; length of tail (approximately) 9.1 inches; length of neck (approximately) 5.' inches.

The under cut which outlined this figure was so deep that an excellent cast was made of it by J. F. Roop and Fred V. Shaw. The dimensions given above were made from this cast.

On the same wall were a number of other figures of goat-like creatures, serpents, and unknown forms. The most remarkable of these was a row of symbols, deeply incised, which resembled the Greek sign of Mars showing shield and spear, thus 4 . The "desert varnish" had commenced to form in the cut, indicating an unbelievable antiquity.

About a year ago a photograph of the "dinosaur" was shown to a scientist of national repute, who was then specializing in dinosaurs. He said, "It is not a dinosaur, it is impossible, because tve know that dinosaurs were extinct 12 million years before man appeared on earth."

It says "the man who drew me made and used tools. He had the patience to chip an outline in hard stone with a crude flint and he had the perseverance to finish the job. He had an eye for form and a sense of proportion. He had the good judgment to select a medium which has preserved his work through unguessed ages, almost untouched by the obliterating hand of Time. He posted a warning to his fellows, 'beware of this creature, it is dangerous to man"'. He felt that same urge to create something, which links us to the Gods. We submit, in the face of this evidence, that the "ape-man", (if there ever has been such a creature), is buried still deeper in the overwhelming ages of time.

gabe bluffton,in (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:28 PM)

In 1945 Waldemar Julsrud, a German immigrant and knowledgeable archeologist, discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the outskirts of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. Eventually over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found near El Toro as well as Chivo Mountain on the other side of town. Similar artifacts found in the area are identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD).

The authenticity of Julsrud find was challenged because the huge collection included dinosaurs. Many archeologists believe dinosaurs have been extinct for the past 65 million years and man knowledge of them has been limited to the past 200 years. If this is true, man could not possibly have seen and modeled them 2,500 years ago.

During the years 1945 to 1946,Carlos Perea was Director of Archeology, Acambaro zone, for the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. In a recorded interview he described Julsrud excavations as unauthorized, as were many similar discoveries made by local farmers, but he had no doubt that the finds were authentic. He acknowledged that he examined the figurines, including dinosaurs, from many different sites. He was present when official excavations were conducted by the National Museum and the American Museum of Natural History. They found many figurines, including dinosaurs, which he described in detail.

[...]

[AB says: This is a long quote from this Web page:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

I'm not opposed to citing other Web pages, but it's better to provide an abstract and the link (in typed-out HTML, because this blogging tool doesn't render HTML coding) rather than copying and pasting entire pages.]

[,,,]

In 1990 an investigation was conducted by Neal Steedy, an independent archeologist who's livelihood depends on contract work from the Mexican government. He arbitrarily selected an excavation site considerably removed from the Julsrud site. Chards were found but no figurines. He commissioned radiocarbon tests for samples from the Julsrud Collection which produced a range of dates from 4000 to 1500 years ago. Then he decided to ignore the results because he claimed the figurines were too soft to last more than 20 years in the ground. He also ignored the fact that many of the acknowledged Chupicuaro pieces are of the same consistency and they survived just fine. Of course, some pieces in the Julsrud collection are beautifully fired. Steedy's effort does more to support Julsrud collection than to refute it. He effectively demonstrates the determination of the establishment to defend evolutionary dogma in the face of the devastating implications of this truly significant find.

gabe bluffton,in (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:23 PM)

For a more skeptical view of the Acambaro dinosaurs, you can consult these pages:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acambaro_figures

Alan Boyle (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:38 PM)

I kind of find it hard to believe that Julsrud would have been able to create 32,000 clay dinosaur figurines and have the number of so-said witnesses not only carry a lie for that long, but build up so much around it.

Just because he paid workers for each figurine doesn't necessarily imply, or should, that they each in turn made them. This is presumption on the part of atheists.

Let's just admit it. Discoveries like this and others like it are just going to be poo poo'd by the "scientific" establishment. If a scientist comes to the conviction that there is a God, by what he sees, he's going to be thrown out of the camp and declared a nitwit and "un-scientific", a side from the fact that they still haven't worked out a first cause for how it all began.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Joel, Jensen Beach, FL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:00 AM)

Two points - there is a big difference between something which is "primitive" in form and something which is "childish" in execution. These dinosaur models are very childish and resemble other primitive artifacts in no way. And if you ever checked out ancient cave paintings or carvings you will see something no so-called creationist would ever acknowledge to exist -- and therefore would not think to include in a counterfeit model -- sex organs.

Des Emery, St.Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:49 AM)

In asnwer to "Kyle from Easton, Pennsylvania," carbon-14 dating cannot be used for items over 100,000 years old due to its short half-life. However, Carbon-14 dating has been used to date limestones, coal, and dinosaur fossils--all supposedly millions of years old. The C-14 dates are well under 100,000 years.

Jerry, Palestine, TX (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:25 AM)

Any scientist (or layperson, for that matter) who thinks soft tissue can be preserved inside a 70-million year old dinosaur bone by a serendipitous succession of mud flows covering it, starting immediately after the common death of all those animals in that small area, is deluding him/herself. And these scientists are deluding you as they delude themselves. What brought those animals all together into a small area, at just the right time for those serendipitous covering events--and, to make them stand out even more, on what is now an island (Madagascar) in the Indian ocean? Africa is shaped like the profile of a man, looking in the direction of Madagascar: Isn't that odd? It's almost like some god of old wanted to point to something happening in the Indian ocean, something of world-shaking, and continuing, importance to mankind.

No, not Creation of the World, silly--a specific event, in the Indian ocean. An event that started there, and remade the world. Look at the mid-ocean rift system, whose main branches all come together in the middle of the Indian ocean. A world-girdling system of cracks, centered just there, emanating from there.

The current scientific consensus is wrong. In the face of the above facts, and many more, it is even incompetent. Soft tissue won't survive over 70 million years, so near the surface, even in rock. Remember the mammoth bodies found, largely intact and the meat still edible, that are dated to "the end of the ice age." Absurd coincidences there, too--there are arctic islands off Siberia and Alaska that are practically composed of mammoth bones, mammoth graveyards in both senses of those words. Dig up a few now, my fellow scientists, and soak them in mild acid just like you did these dinosaur bones. Compare the results. Try to look for the bigger picture of what happened, not 70 million years ago, but between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (I told you it wasn't "Creation," and not 6,000 years ago).

What happened was a deliberate re-formation of the surface of the Earth. The continents were not moved by "plate tectonics" over millions of years, but by deliberate design only 20,000 years ago.

Widespread scientific observation of "co-evolution" and "convergent evolution" invalidates the expectations of Darwinian principles. So the principle theories of both the earth and life sciences (undirected evolution and plate tectonics) are mistaken.

The surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, to enable a great design. The entire solar system was re-formed then, when the Earth and the other planets were set (deliberately set) in their current orbits. (The planets were identified as the "gods" by later mankind, and this re-orienting event was remembered, in "myth", as "the birth of the new gods.") This is a proven fact--by me, an independent research scientist--that neither evolutionists nor biblical creationists want to consider--but it is a fact.

Go to http://www.lulu.com/hdhsciences, and begin to learn the truth, rather than fall in behind one or another of the dogmatic beliefs that the current debates offer you, and that merely divide mankind exactly as other dogmas have divided it--us--throughout known history.

Wake up and smell just one design of the world. (That's funny--because that phrase is usually "wake up and smell the flowers", and the flowers, or angiosperms, were also obviously designed: Their general dependence upon animal life for their reproduction defies, and thus denies, the current Darwinian theory.)

Harry Dale Huffman (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:53 AM)

C14 dating isn't used for things more than about 50-80K years old - not much use for dinos. However, there are other kinds of dating that can be used. An interesting question is this: if dinos are only date back to 10s of Ks of years, why don't we find cellular remains all over the place?

There isn't any fundamental law of science that says cells have to decay. We don't know all of the conditions surrounding all remains in the Earth. It does seem surprising that we would find 'flesh' from 65M years ago, but there's a lot of things we don't know.

It's easy to believe that evolution is based entirely on assumption when one hasn't done anything remotely resembling actual homework on the subject.

Alan, thanks for the skeptical links. Creationists and other sensationalists often portray an incomplete picture of the available 'evidence'. A reasonable person may read their account of events and think, "Wow! That's amazing!" If that same reasonable person were given a few other details, she might be considerably less impressed.

Scientists aren't dismissing the "evidence" of the figurines without cause and it's not because they're "Darwinists." It's because they actually look at evidence through the eyes of experience and understanding. Why should anyone consider Waldemar Julsrud a knowledgeable archeologist? Did he have a degree in it? A single course even? From various sites we find that he was a: hardware salesman, a businessman, storekeeper,

Furthermore, the following sentence from talkorigins is interesting:
"Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of."
There is not ONE shred of evidence to suggest that these figurines are genuine - and numerous tidbits like this to suggest they are fakes. Creationists have a long, LONG history of ignoring all of the actual evidence and the opinions of people who really ARE experts to promote phony evidence and poor analysis from non-expert "scientists." Who *is* Dr. Dennis Swift, Ph.D.? Are any of his 9 degrees from an accredited institution. Are any of them related to archaeology?

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:58 AM)

'Widespread scientific observation of "co-evolution" and "convergent evolution" invalidates the expectations of Darwinian principles'

Darwin observed and clearly articulated and explained co-evolution and convergent evolution in his Origin of Species. Let me guess - you haven't actually gotten around to reading it? Every practicing evolutionary scientist understands co-evolution and convergent evolution which are part of the modern synthesis. Professor Stuart Kauffman wrote : "All evolution is co-evolution."

A person who claims to be "an independent research scientist" with a master's degree and 20 yrs experience writes with authority on a subject in which he demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity. What should I make of that? Another Galileo? Another Einstein?

Perhaps, but I detect a significant difference. When Galileo and Einstein presented their ideas, their writings conveyed a clear and profound understanding of the theories they were supplanting. What made their work compelling wasn't just that their theories were novel and amazing, but they were actually explanatory and predictive AND they expressed a broad and deep understanding of the existing theories and what they're ACTUAL shortcomings were (as opposed to imaginary or exaggerated shortcomings). Darwin, to those who have carefully studied his work, is squarely on par with these other intellectual giants. And similarly to many of Einstein's and Galileo's theories, the detractors of Darwin's theories repeatedly demonstrate an utter lack of comprehension of the ideas they're attempting to refute.

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:07 PM)

With all the evidence found to support evolution, it baffles me that a single find (Acambaro_figures ) or even a couple of them manage to dispel all the bountiful and at this point essentially incontrovertible evidence that support modern thinking.

Every one loves a conspiracy but to assume that virtually every acknowledged expert is ignoring truth and insisting on their dogma to randomly support an unsupportable theory seems far fetched. Holding onto what you believe in the face of ignored truth sounds like something religion has consistently perpetrated not science. I find it hard to believe that I have heard (now more than once in this thread alone) of Darwinists being referred to as dogmatic; it is a peculiar statement from the religious people who are by default fundamental perpetrators of dogma. It is hard to accept the odd accusation that Darwinists are dogmatic and inflexible from the dogmatic and inflexible.

Chris, NY, NY (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 2:35 PM)

I think Scott is right. I have heard of and read many reports of carbon 14 being false. A scientist tested carbon 14 on chickens that died 3 months erlier and the c14 said that they were dead for 200,000 years so the dating is wrong in my opinion.

brendan maxner, derry, new hampshire (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 9:07 PM)

Hi All

Mary Schweitzer has not claimed she has discovered actual preserved flesh and blood, merely flexible materials that preserve the form of flesh and blood. Biochemically there is no reason why simple things like proteins and tough polymers should not survive for billennia if in a bacteria free environment. So the whole YEC excitement about these finds is utterly misplaced.

As for C14 dating of old coal and oil - it always gives dates at the very extreme end of sensitivity. There is enough natural radioactivity in many deposits to make small amounts of C14 out of any nitrogen in the sediments, thus why extremely old materials still give C14 dates.

What the YECs can not explain is how all the sediments supposedly made in the Flood can form in just a year and not violate so many physical laws as to require a gigantic miracle for the whole lot. If God can wave a magic wand and make geology do whatever he wants - specifically to look really old - then science is impossible because it has no way of handling miracles.

As for the supposed dinosaurs inscribed on ancient monuments it assumes that the ancients never found fossils and never wondered what the creatures were. But there's plenty of evidence for fossils being dug up for millennia - giants were inferred from mammoth skulls, griffins from Protoceratops, sea monsters from all sorts of fossilised crocodiles and plesiosaurs. If the ancients found semi-articulated dinosaurs in their quarries or eroding out of desert sand, then why shouldn't that become an artistic inspiration???

Adam, Brisbane, Australia (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 9:40 PM)

Reply:

Well Chris, it’s easy to say that “with all the evidence found to support evolution”, but that is just it, many people in the world are not convinced by the “evidence” that evolution is what took place. Where did it all begin? How can something come from nothing? A lot of that is based on, shall we say, faith?

And no, we’re not saying that every “acknowledged expert” is ignoring truth. Many of them have come around to realize that it didn’t all just happen by accident.

Joel, Jensen Beach, FL (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 11:01 PM)

Interesting thread. Had fun looking up all the links. With all the evidence and conclusions, I think I will wait another 5 years and read the next great theory. When all is said and done the only things I believe are absolutely true are the theorems of basic math. Everything else is filtered through my own or someone else's personal view of reality. Leaves me unsure and unsatisfied but "c'est la vie".

Rick, somewhere (Sent Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:37 PM)

Regarding 'errors' in carbon dating:
They don't use carbon dating to date dinos, but ...
Scientists who use radio-techniques understand very well that certain conditions can produce erroneous dates. It's very simple - they don't use the techniques when those conditions are known to occur.

Secondly, for the non-c14 techniques, there are tertiary sequences that can actually TELL you if you made a mistake.

Finally, throwing out all C14 or other radio-dating measures just because there are some that are known to be wrong is faulty logic - it's like saying that just because you took your timex down 10M under the ocean and it doesn't work any more that therefore ALL watches are unreliable.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:36 PM)

Joel,
Many people haven't actually "looked at the evidence." What they've done is read a bunch of creationist propaganda and then insisted that this alone is 'enough' homework. They haven't discovered any evidence, because they haven't actually looked at it. They haven't read any evolutionary scientists and don't understand the theory.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:40 PM)

Radioactive carbon dating assumes the formula for the decay rate of 65,000,000 years ago, and all time in between is the exact same as it is today.

Can someone defend that with a single FACT? WHO has lived 65,000,000 years and can attest to that?

Or how about prooving it even for one year before radioactive carbon dating was invented.

HOW does ANYONE know the decay rate hasen't just been irratic because of some unknown scientific discovery and we just happen to be living in an era where it is constant right now?

People assume things that are very important to their arguments are fact, when they are only a thoery - called a fact in disguise.

What if until recently the decay rate was much faster or much slower?

Most of the people in this world assume the earth will go on forever and ever. NO ONE knows what is going to happen even one single MINUTE from now.

I LOVE science AND religion. You are both the same. LOL

Marty Rockford Illinois (Sent Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:24 PM)

Marty,

Let me apply your logic to a different situation. Suppose two men walk are arguing as they walk into a room with only one door. The room is a completely empty storage closet and there is only the one entrance. A while later a gunshot is heard and one of them men walks out. People rush to see what happened and find the other fellow dead, with a bullet hole in him. The survivor is arrested for murder. The prosecutor says, "He's the only one who could have done it, his prints are on the gun; there were gunpowder traces on his clothes and body; they were the only ones in the room; ballistics has shown that the gun taken from the survivor matches the bullet taken from the victim's brain," and so forth.

The defense attorney comes in and says, "Did anyone SEE the shooting? True, we only found my client's prints on the gun, but he says a demon materialized out of thin air, took control of his hand, shot the victim, leaving his prints on the gun, and spattering him and his clothes with powder. Then the demon dematerialized and went his way."

Would you buy that as an argument? Why would you expect scientists to buy that as an argument?

True, no one alive today was alive 65M years ago. But we don't have to see a thing to know it as a fact. Scientists use deduction (inference) along with some very simple assumptions to infer facts.

Nobody has ever seen a single electron, but few people doubt their existence.

Evolution is a fact that scientists have observed AND is a theory for explaining those myriad facts.

When you ask whether the decay rate could have been different in previous years, that's equivalent to asking whether the laws of physics were different. We have no reason to believe they were different and several good reasons for believing they were.

As far back as we are able to check tree-ring data and we can check back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q) for at least 16K years

For non-C14 techniques, we can check varves to check dates that are in the 100K range.

Also, there are cases of multiple sequences of decay that can be used to detect mistakes - and THOSE are consistent.

When ALL of the factors are considered, it is vastly more incredible to believe that the earth is only a few 10s of thousands of years old than it is to accept that it's over 4B years old.

Now there are cases of anomalous results. In some cases, this is due to creationist misrepresentations. For example, Kent Hovind, a fraud with a fake degree who pretends to speak as a scientist reports of a case where a mammoth had multiple dates, but when someone check the reference they found that the dates were from MULTIPLE animals and not just one. Nevertheless, there are some real anomalies - and guess what! Scientists actually KNOW what conditions cause those anomalies and they know better than to trust the results when those conditions are known to occur.

The creationist logic here is identical to saying that b/c a watch that was dropped off a 200 ft tall building now reports bad time, that we should never, ever trust another watch to give good time.

Finally, it's neither necessary nor sufficient to love science. What's really needed is to understand it - and that takes time, patience, and at least a few hours of study on the subject that does not include browsing creationist web sites.

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA (Sent Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:53 AM)

What I said STANDS as irrefutable fact that no one knows WHEN the dinosaurs lived.

It could have been 2 billion years ago or it could have been 10 thousand years ago.

NO one knows.

These supposed factual things are constantly being shown to be wrong. Example, 500 years ago people thought the earth was flat. THAT was an overwhelming assumption labeled as a fact.

Trying to pin down things based on ridiculous assumptions (like decay rate stability over eons) has proven OVER AND OVER to be detrimental.

Example, not too long ago SMOKING was touted as being good for your lungs! It was said to cure asthma. LOL

Bloodletting was mainstream medicine for all sorts of ailments and even for anemia LOL.

The moon was made of cheese, lol we all know it is really made of stale yogurt.

People thought the center of the Earth was hollow. And that the earth was the center of the universe. LOL

Hundreds of thousands of people LOVED Adolph Hitler – thought he was a GREAT man and leader – thought he was a nice guy.

What my question is, is where are we on the scale of scientific AND religious knowledge?

If we, in 2007 are even a little away from knowing everything (and I suspect we are quite far), we MUST be very careful assuming someone is right. It’s ok to explore schools of thought. But one must not assume it is right. One must have an open mind.

Taking up the cause and championing one side or the other is reckless. People who champion issues based on assumptions FORGET that is what they are doing. They bridge that gap and become engrossed and become ridiculously married to the thing. They even become violent and agitated if someone challenges them on it. DON’T!

Where can a person find absolute correct knowledge and truth? LOL. If you think you have it, you MUST be very foolish. You MUST remember, as you went down ANY one of those schools of thought that it is was based on some assumptions.

Make sure you REMEMBER that and treat challengers accordingly. Which is to say, that the other person MAY have a good point. DO NOT try and obliviate one another.

Marty

Marty Rockford Illinois (Sent Monday, July 30, 2007 3:24 PM)

Response Joal;

What would be gained from conceding that the people who believe geologic time is a fallacy have a point or that our understanding of the universe that has carried us into space and given us a view of the building blocks of life is just a vague theory. The answer is nothing; it would just a step backwards in the name of religious dogma at the expense of intellectual progression and greater understanding of the universe.

Time in the scale of millions of years is essentially incomprehensible to us and therefore understandably a hard sell for the general man or woman on the street. But that does not mean it should be simplified and tied it in with our religious beliefs cause at a gut level it makes sense. There is no reason to embrace a time table that ignores all globally recognized science, chemistry and geology to meet the agenda of ancient writers with no stake in science or scientific truth whatsoever.

It does not matter for the purposes of this discussion how it all begin (you can say a divine being of infinite wisdom started to ball rolling if you like). No matter how it began it took a long time, and if (keeping an open mind) a "god" being did create it there is no reason at all to fit the events into a biblical time frame. If we have issues understanding 20 million years we can safely assume that the writers of our ancient documents surely did.

I am also not saying it all happened by accident, but there is no proof of that intervention outside your faith one way or the other, and your gut does not count. The proof of what we can measure, correlate and understand should lead us. There is far more evidence for the age of an ancient earth than the specific carbon dating tests that might be questioned. When taken as whole this evidence fits together to form a solid picture of measurable, predictable and consistent facts. This question should not be an issue of faith over reason because the two do not have to be in conflict.

Chris, NY, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:12 PM)

Marty, I sent a very detailed response to you; however, either the post was deemed inappropriate or (more likely) I got in a rush and closed the window before typing send.

In short, nearly everything you have written belies a gross misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Absolute certainty may be your personal criterion, but it is not a criterion for science - and it can never be a criterion for science.

Radiometric dating techniques are very highly reliable - not perfectly so, but very highly so. To assume otherwise is to misunderstand all of the checks that go into the process. It's very easy to have a dim view of something that you do not understand very well.

[AB says: Sorry, Fallible, I was still ruminating over your note ... I'm not too crazy about comments that seek to take apart someone else's comments line by line. It got to be a pretty long comment and might have invited Marty to attempt a similar Fisking. I prefer short retorts like the one you've submitted here. (Although I wouldn't ever want to encourage folks to indulge in lengthy "I say, you say" debates.)]

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:34 PM)

No need to apologize. I understand how these things work. I knew how my msg might end up. These kinds of judgments are never easy to make. There is never a need to explain your decision to me, although I thought I had perhaps deleted the window before sending the msg. Anyway, I was indeed making a point by point refutation.

The problem is that nearly every sentence some people make is so laden with error and misconception it seems a crime to let it stand. The better approach is obviously to start at the beginning with a new post and develop the subject. The problem with that, I fear, is that if the person is already having trouble paying attention, there's not a good chance that changing the subject would work any better. Anyway, I'll try to do better.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:20 AM)

Right on moderator. Fallible(and other OPEN MINDED people), please look at this (links below) and realize, one does not know what he or she is doing if one states that radio dating is evidence of anythng but erroring scientists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/

and also this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11746910/

LOLOLOLOLOL

Marty

Marty (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:52 PM)

Marty, you read the articles, but you fail to understand the implications.

1. Darwin was well aware that some species can go a very long time without changing very much.

2. The modern species of these creatures are not identical to the ancient species.

3. The existence of modern specimens doesn't change the date of the older specimens.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Perhaps you could do me a favor and express your thought as a syllogism.

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:56 PM)

It is human nature to believe in your own beliefs and try and validate them.

Having an open mind on these (and all) subjects is essential in order to gather ALL the evidence.

I'm glad we have a forum where we are allowed to mention things we see and can be allowed to pretty much say what we think is right.

THAT is a great thing! :)

Of course people are sometimes in error. Sometimes people jump in, in the middle, and blurt out erroneous thoughts without reading the entire thread.

If one maintains an open mind, one can be taught greater truths and ones mind can grow and develope and be brought forward to become closer with the final understanding - reality.

Marty

Marty (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 7:04 PM)

I think figuring out reality is a worthy goal. I don't know that any of us on here has access to all of the evidence. But having the evidence is not the same thing as understanding it. Tycho Brahe had collected lots of data, but it took Johannes Kepler to make sense of it. Newton extended Kepler's laws into a more general formulation. Having the data isn't the same thing as making sense of it. Knowing is not understanding. And there are levels of understanding.

A good part of science is understanding the concept of measurement - not every data point carries equal weight in the final result. Some data is excluded from general analysis - and disreputable (or outright incompetent) creationists try to make this out to be a conspiracy, but it's a common practice in almost all of science. The trick is of course to determine what is outlier and what is data. It's never an exact or certain thing, but is based in large part on what you think you understand about the process.

My oldest daughter took AP Chemistry as a junior this past year. One of the things they have to do in the write-ups for their experiments is to describe all of the sources of error in their procedures and measurements and explain the effect(s) those putative errors might have on the results.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:32 PM)

Funny,
The basis of Young Earth Creation Science predicts soft parts possible because it didn't happen that long ago.
Until this discovery The scientific community (based on Old Earth Darwinism) didn't even look for this stuff because they didn't think it was possible.
YEC's 1
OED's 0
Batter up!

Frank Fencer, Newport Beach, California (Sent Monday, September 10, 2007 3:00 PM)

I applaud you Fallible in your patience and persistence in informing those who disbelieve in virtually concrete theories such as the age of our planet.

I used to get into long-winded discussions with "YEC"'s until I realized that nearly all of them will stick with their beliefs until death, regardless of the facts or arguments made.

Perhaps I've just lapsed into laziness, but I refuse to waste any more time arguing with exceptionally close-minded individuals who laughably exalt their stance in the opposite.

Chris, Dallas, Texas (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 11:31 AM)

I have a question for all of you... How do you know how long one of God's days is? Perhaps we are now in the seventh day and you are both correct. Life was created, but it was millions of years in the making....

JJ (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 1:31 PM)

Two small points:
1: NO DNA FOUND UNDAMAGED! They extracted and identified proteins and found them close to the proteins found in chicken.
2: C14 is NOT used for dating Dinosaurs, never has been. And yes the decay rate does change with variables like volcanic activity and nuclear testing.

The Quietman (Sent Monday, September 24, 2007 8:03 PM)

Only Judeo-christian bibles can possibly be used to back a young earth theology. The rest of the planet disagrees but the YECs ignore them and attempt to throw us back into the dark ages. These people are fanatics and can not be argued with any more than an argument with middle eastern islamic fanatics.

The Quietman (Sent Monday, September 24, 2007 8:14 PM)

Just as religion always has to balance inspiration with reality, science always has to balance reality with inspiration. It can be said that religion ignores scientific measurements. It can also be said that science's knowledge changes every time a new measuring instrument is invented. There is more out there than our current instruments can measure, and it takes inspiration and imagination to create them. Look at the constant revision of "what we know" in paleontology, indeed we see in the frequent new discoveries that there is more to the inherent 'design' of evolutionary change than Darwin's theory can provide, and I suspect Darwin himself would be thrilled to learn this. God/Nature, whatever he/she/it is, gave us a mind, and keeping that mind open, on both sides, is the key not only to our survival but our happiness.

Fred Smith, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:17 PM)

Any discussion seems to quickly be obscured by arguments about belief systems. Scientists should be interested in the discovery of soft tissue of a 70 million-year-old dinosaur that has been preserved. They should be interested in clues that man and dinosaurs co-existed (Inca Burial Stones, Acambaro Figurines, temple carvings of Ta Prohm). Religious people should not be frightened by scientific facts that appear to contradict their beliefs. Instead, pre-conceived opinions often cause "scientists" to dismiss inconvenient facts and "believers" to refuse to discuss scientific discoveries. We would be better served by applying scientific investigative methods to these discoveries.

Richard Need, Sun City, Calif. (Sent Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:26 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=288786

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG