More Conformation Verifying Soft Tissue In Fossils

When original dinosaur protein was discovered, it was met with skepticism because of the rate of decay, speculation of contamination was created in order to counter such a discovery. Those days have past as verification after verification have clearly refuted such an idea. In fact, a more recent study that consisted of ten universes claiming that the soft tissue found in the fossil record is, primordial.

In the abstract in PLoS

“Eleven collagen peptide sequences recovered from chemical extracts of dinosaur bones were mapped onto molecular models of the vertebrate collagen fibril derived from extant taxa. The dinosaur peptides localized to fibril regions protected by the close packing of collagen molecules, and contained few acidic amino acids. Four peptides mapped to collagen regions crucial for cell-collagen interactions and tissue development.

“Dinosaur peptides were not represented in more exposed parts of the collagen fibril or regions mediating intermolecular cross-linking. Thus functionally significant regions of collagen fibrils that are physically shielded within the fibril may be preferentially preserved in fossils. These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms and suggests a chemical mechanism for survival. Now evolutionary researchers have the unduly task of setting out how proteins could last 65 million years.” 

Like every protein, Collagen, is a form of elongated fibrils, which are mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also found to be in abundance in bone, and blood vessels. The human body contains 20 percent of collagen which plays a very important role in keeping the human body together. So did this study produce any evidence for proteins lasting even 10 or 20 million years? No! It’s just assumed that it happened to have lasted 65 million years because if they concede (allowing to follow the evidence where it may lead) that soft tissues are biologically unable to withstand decay long enough for that enormous time frame, they would be indirectly conceding to young-earth creationism so in turn, they label this falsification of soft tissue as a conformation for evolution. It’s the only ‘theory’ in science that claims falsifications are verification.

So a hypothetical reality is invoked over and over again in the paper where you can see them making assumptions by claiming a “geologic time” instead of actually testing it! Evolution always sounds better with hypothetical realities than actual observations. Again I ask, how can a story based on an untested scenario be considered science? The fact of the matter is, soft tissue is an observation that reveals a young earth not billions of years old!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “More Conformation Verifying Soft Tissue In Fossils

  1. Michael,

    You know as well as I do that they have already been able to explain how tissue can survive for long periods of time. I have explained this so many times to you that I seriously doubt that you do not know. Either you are a liar, or you are willfully ignorant. But I have linked the paper so many times that I do not believe for a minute that you are ignorant. I.e., I think you are a liar:

    The paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013334

  2. Michael, Your article says that……”Some of these claims have been challenged, with presentation of evidence suggesting that some of the structures are microbial artifacts, not primary soft tissues”

    It then goes on to say ………..”The identification of biomolecules in fossil vertebrate extracts from a specimen of Brachylophosaurus canadensis has shown the interpretation of preserved organic remains as microbial biofilm to be highly unlikely”

    Another problem with this study is that none of the scientist involved are making a claim that all, only that some soft tissue found in these fossils fall under this model, and it only says that…………”Results of the study indicate that the crystallization of microbial biofilms on decomposing organic matter within vertebrate bone in early taphonomic stages may contribute to the preservation of primary soft tissues deeper in the bone structure”
    This could mean anything because it gives no estimated time frame for how long this proposed preservation would last. Secondly the language of the abstract is very tentative and not empirically confirmed, however Mary Schweitzer and her team have empirically confirmed the presence of soft tissue which has been independently reaffirmed many times by mass spectrometry.

    Science 13 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5822, pp. 277 – 280
DOI: 10.1126/science.1138709
    Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
    Mary Higby Schweitzer,1,2,3* Zhiyong Suo,4 Recep Avci,4 John M. Asara,5,6 Mark A. Allen,7 Fernando Teran Arce,4,8 John R. Horner3

  3. “In fact, a more recent study that consisted of ten universes claiming that the soft tissue found in the fossil record is, primordial.”

    Ten ‘universes’ ?? Primordial ??
    Do you actually put any time into your posts, or do you just smack them together and throw them out ?

    “It’s the only ‘theory’ in science that claims falsifications are verification.”

    Bla bla. Another throw-away remake based on absolutely nothing. It does show Michael’s frustration, I suppose.

  4. @themayan

    I was in a hurry when I typed the comment, so i didn’t give more info.

    On other posts, I have also given more details such as the environments that the fossils containing tissue, such as deep burial in sand stone and limestone. Fossils buried deep in sandstone have a higher likelihood to preserve tissue, while fossils burred in mud stone do not.. This detail has been pointed out bu Schweitzer.

    I didn’t feel it necessary to go into detail als because Michael knows these facts, but he ignored them, so it is useless.

  5. I just looked at the paper that Michael linked, and only the first part of the quote from the paper is accurate. A good portion of the quote as he has it it NOT even in the abstract as he has it. Just the first half of the quote is accurate, but as for him adding the following: “Now evolutionary researchers have the unduly task of setting out how proteins could last 65 million years…” this portion is not even in the paper.

    Another detail to point out is the title of the paper itself which is “Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival.” This paper sets out to give suggestions and mechanisms as to hos protein can survive for such a long time…. Unlike Michael, I will quote the abstract accurately:

    Eleven collagen peptide sequences recovered from chemical extracts of dinosaur bones were mapped onto molecular models of the vertebrate collagen fibril derived from extant taxa. The dinosaur peptides localized to fibril regions protected by the close packing of collagen molecules, and contained few acidic amino acids. Four peptides mapped to collagen regions crucial for cell-collagen interactions and tissue development. Dinosaur peptides were not represented in more exposed parts of the collagen fibril or regions mediating intermolecular cross-linking. Thus functionally significant regions of collagen fibrils that are physically shielded within the fibril may be preferentially preserved in fossils. These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms and suggests a chemical mechanism for survival.

    Now let me quote the last sentence of the paper yet again:

    This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms and suggests a chemical mechanism for survival

    Michael, you completely ignored the real purpose of the paper you are quoting here, and your quote is not even accurate.

    I guess this is yet more proof that Olorin is correct in saying that you are a liar.

  6. I see that Michael does not dare dispute the fact that I caught him embellishing a quote from the paper he linked.

  7. Well, Kris, another possible alternative is delusion. Often it is hard to tell the difference.

    The laughable part is where Michael believes without question those scientists who say that what they found is in fact ancient soft tissue, even thought here is some controversy over its provenance. On the other hand, he unalterably disbelieves those scientists who say that soft tissue can in fact be preserved over millions of years.

    On what basis does Michael distinguish between these two groups? Qualifications? No.. Amount of evidence? No. Field of research? No. Michael distinguishes only on the basis that one group conforms[1] hiis preconceived belief, while the other does not. This is apologetics, not science.

    Perhaps someday Michael will learn the difference.[2]

    ===========

    [1] I’m following Michael’s title here. He doers not know the difference between—
    Confirmation: evidence that establishes the truth of something previously suspected; and
    Conformation: the shape or structure of a composite object.

    [2] Viz—
    Science: the systematic study of the natural world.
    Apologetics: the justification of a religious doctrine.

  8. @Olorin

    Welcome back.

    Perhaps it is just delusion, but I fail to see how delusion causes a sentence to get added into a quote of a paper when it isn’t even there.

  9. Well, Michael thought the sentence was there.

    But you’re right. Even delusions have their limits.

  10. Michael is absolutely right when he states ” So did this study produce any evidence for proteins lasting even 10 or 20 million years? No! It’s just assumed that it happened to have lasted 65 million years because if they concede (allowing to follow the evidence where it may lead) that soft tissues are biologically unable to withstand decay long enough for that enormous time frame…”

    Notice that the subjunctive use in the paper “may be preferentially preserved ” and “could contribute to selective preservation ” This clearly shows wishful thinking. So it´s kind of ironic that Kris and Orion would be criticizing based on such subjective wording as if that really demonstrates anything other than once again, wishful thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s