Dinosaur soft tissue--just bacterial biofilm?

Fascinating. Maybe I will need to write an update. Thanks for the post.

The original report was spun as physical evidence for creation.

How many nanoseconds before this opposing one is spun as physical evidence for creation?

How many nanoseconds before this opposing one is spun as physical evidence for creation?

— chuck

Just pointing out a typo in the second sentence: "structures scene" should be "structures seen".

chuck said: The original report was spun as physical evidence for creation. How many nanoseconds before this opposing one is spun as physical evidence for creation?

Creationists spun this a lot as "soft tissue! dna! none of this could survive 60 million years!" One needed a very long, detailed explanation as to why that was a gross over simplification.

However, it was also the best friend of evolutionists as we could point out proteins matched closest to chickens. Hence, prediction, testing, and confirmation of the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis.

Then how many nanoseconds before they complete the trifecta and spin the fact that the reports disagree as evidence for creation? ;)

And you can bet that, if they do try to spin it, they will make it appear that science is in disarray and that ID/Creationists noticed this first.

— Mike Elzinga

karl said: However, it was also the best friend of evolutionists as we could point out proteins matched closest to chickens. Hence, prediction, testing, and confirmation of the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis.

chuck said: The original report was spun as physical evidence for creation. How many nanoseconds before this opposing one is spun as physical evidence for creation?

Since bacterial biofilms are formed in water-surface boundaries, we must conclude that the biofilms are ancient, but well preserved.
It this a correct statement?

Regards

Eric

Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.

Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189).

Eric Finn said: Since bacterial biofilms are formed in water-surface boundaries, we must conclude that the biofilms are ancient, but well preserved. It this a correct statement? Regards Eric

OHOHOH

The amino acids are racemic! This means that the sources of the bacterial amino acids are ancient, and (IMHO) the bacteria were probably using both L- and D- aa's anyway.

Wheels said:

karl said: However, it was also the best friend of evolutionists as we could point out proteins matched closest to chickens. Hence, prediction, testing, and confirmation of the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis.

Yeah, I was wondering about that: the comparison between the organic materials and chicken collagen proteins. I guess that throws the chicken/T. rex comparison into question?

Draconiz said: I think it was a separate experiment. For the chicken-T-rex experiment,the scraps of dinosaur protein were wrested from a fossil femur discovered in 2003. While the Femur was discovered in 2005. Hope it helps

I have a small problem with this. Didn't they sequence proteins from that tissue, and positively identify it as the same 'substitute' bone tissue that female birds produce during ovulation? A form of collagen, wasn't it? I'm confused...

I had missed some of those other comments. Are we talking about two different finds?

Gary Hurd said: OHOHOH The amino acids are racemic! This means that the sources of the bacterial amino acids are ancient, and (IMHO) the bacteria were probably using both L- and D- aa's anyway.

jk said: I have a small problem with this. Didn't they sequence proteins from that tissue, and positively identify it as the same 'substitute' bone tissue that female birds produce during ovulation? A form of collagen, wasn't it? I'm confused...

Racemization would be wandering rather far form the OP. However, racemic peptides are not uncommon in bacteria. In fact L- and D- amino acids are found in all life, including humans. See my comment on this re: abiogenesis, also Here, and Here.

Gary Hurd said:

jk said: I have a small problem with this. Didn't they sequence proteins from that tissue, and positively identify it as the same 'substitute' bone tissue that female birds produce during ovulation? A form of collagen, wasn't it? I'm confused...

Yep, you are confused. No proteins were ever sequenced. The medulary bone is a hard tissue, not a protein and is obvious to visual and micorscopic examination. I have tried to make a simplified version of the results, plus refuting the creationist dribble of Schweitzer's last round of papers in Dino Blood Redux. You will also find the references to the original papers relevant to the "soft tissue." The Medulary bone papers were in Science and PNAS, and are free to download.

jk said: this is why I'm confused: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html ...this article is totally erroneous?

I see where you are comming from now. The key quote is (IMNHO), "Asara's team isolated seven fragmentary chains of amino acids." These were exactly that and no more- 7 fragments of something with amino acids. They were not exclucively attributable to proteins, and so I won't call them proteins. That didn't stop Asara, and it might come bact to bite him. The gross irony is that in Schweitzer's dissertation material, she actually had something that was probably a 20 to 30 aa residue. But no sequencing was done.

jk said: this is why I'm confused: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html ...this article is totally erroneous?

Gary Hurd said: Racemization would be wandering rather far form the OP. However, racemic peptides are not uncommon in bacteria. In fact L- and D- amino acids are found in all life, including humans.

The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=13d268e7356e095e9cad

And the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare.

PS: There is an interesting defense by Asara and Schweitzer of their "protein" sequences against the criticism by Buckley et al.

Science 4 January 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5859, p. 33
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147364

Technical Comments
"Response to Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry"
John M. Asara and Mary H. Schweitzer

Science 4 January 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5859, p. 33
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147046

Technical Comments

"Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry"

Mike Buckley et al.

what creationists do with a bananaanana...

An experiment was conducted to compare infrared spectra of modern biofilms with modern collagen and fossil bone coatings. Modern biofilms were grown on microscope slides from local pond water with high iron content. These slides developed EDS signatures of iron contamination within 2 weeks of formation. Sample coatings from fossil turtle carapace were submitted to infrared spectroscopy and compared to spectra of modern biofilms and modern collagen (Fig. 9). Fourier cross-correlation showed an 83% match between modern biofilms and fossil specimen with only a 37% correlation to modern collagen. This experiment suggests that modern biofilms share a closer molecular make-up than modern collagen to the coatings from fossil bones.

The third structures recovered from the acid baths, were free floating osteocytes complete with fillapodia . (Fig. 10, A and B). Freshly fractured bone shows cross sections though many lacunae. SEM investigation of these lacunae before acid dissolution yielded the following results. Figures 10, C, D and E are several examples of material contained in the original lacunae. The variety of forms found (even in the same bone), indicates that the lacunae are not isolated pockets of exceptional preservation. The structures present are sub-micron spheres and rods, which are morphologically consistent with bacterial structures.

bornagain77 said: The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=13d268e7356e095e9cad

Schweitzer, and her colleagues will undoubtedly defend their results, which creationists will distort into the evilutionist thought police attempting to silence Schweitzer (who happens to be an evangelical Christian).

— Gary Hurd

HR Pufnstuf vomits forth some weapons grade idiocy with : The propagandists for the religion of evolutionism thought that the existence of soft dinsaur tissue would win them more converts until Christians pointed out what that would mean for their "millions of years" fantasy--so now, they are in backtrack mode!

From the paper:

An experiment was conducted to compare infrared spectra of modern biofilms with modern collagen and fossil bone coatings. Modern biofilms were grown on microscope slides from local pond water with high iron content. These slides developed EDS signatures of iron contamination within 2 weeks of formation. Sample coatings from fossil turtle carapace were submitted to infrared spectroscopy and compared to spectra of modern biofilms and modern collagen (Fig. 9). Fourier cross-correlation showed an 83% match between modern biofilms and fossil specimen with only a 37% correlation to modern collagen. This experiment suggests that modern biofilms share a closer molecular make-up than modern collagen to the coatings from fossil bones.

What a bunch of rubbish! They are just emissions from the part of the spectrum that confirms their pre-conceived conclusion! Why not visible? Why not ultraviolet? Why not x-ray? Hmmmm

Of course, the real reason comes through later on:

The third structures recovered from the acid baths, were free floating osteocytes complete with fillapodia . (Fig. 10, A and B). Freshly fractured bone shows cross sections though many lacunae. SEM investigation of these lacunae before acid dissolution yielded the following results. Figures 10, C, D and E are several examples of material contained in the original lacunae. The variety of forms found (even in the same bone), indicates that the lacunae are not isolated pockets of exceptional preservation. The structures present are sub-micron spheres and rods, which are morphologically consistent with bacterial structures.

We have an assumption that anything preserved from the so-called dinosaur age requires some "extraordinary preservation" requiring "millions of years." What a crock! Old-earth, evolutionary question begging at its finest!

GuyeFaux said: And the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare.

Hello All,

Tom Kaye from the PLoS paper signing in. I see there is the usual ID spam going on but if we can work around that I am willing to answer any reasonable questions.

Thanks

Tom Kaye

Creationism Renaming Competition
11/29/2004 The Institute for Creationist Strategies is holding a Creationism Renaming Competition in order to develop a new name for Creationism that will be used for the next decade. "Intelligent Design," 1995's winner, has served us well in getting proper Biblical perspectives on Origins accepted by a public largely brainwashed into Secular Scientism by decades of Evolutionist propaganda, but like any marketing campaign, changes need to be made every so often to keep the message fresh. The ICS is offering a prize to the congregation of the winning entry. Please see their site for naming guidelines and submission information.

Tom Kaye said: Hello All, Tom Kaye from the PLoS paper signing in. I see there is the usual ID spam going on but if we can work around that I am willing to answer any reasonable questions. Thanks Tom Kaye

HR Pufnstuf said: The propagandists for the religion of evolutionism...

GuyeFaux said: Creationism Renaming Competition
11/29/2004

Howdy, Tom. I have read you paper through only once, and haven't done the close reading. I did wonder if you had sent an draft to Schweitzer for comment.

Hi Gary,

No we didn't send a final copy but Mary and I had an almost hour long conversation at my poster in 2006. There was nothing new in the manuscript and we figured for sure she would be a reviewer.

Tom

The most obvious counter argument I would expect from Schweitzer, and one I actually suspect to be true, is that you have found specimens that have been contaminated recently, and that is all. Schweitzer will reply that her samples were not contaminated recently, as demonstrated by a racemic aa mix from her extracted material.

So, she might conclude that the most you have shown is a potential mechanism for the formation of the features she has analyzed. (I mentioned this earlier in the thread.)

If you still have voucher material, I suggest a racimization check. I have no doubt about the racimization result given that your radiocarbon analysis showed a post-atomic result. But, I'd do it anyway.

Howdy, Tom. I have read you paper through only once, and haven't done the close reading. I did wonder if you had sent an draft to Schweitzer for comment.

Hello Kaye, I greatly appreciate the fact that you are here.

I just want to clarify

1. whether this research

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424140418.htm

use the T-rex specimen or not and what are the implications of this discovery.

2.Are there currently any other Genetic or molecular evidence concerning Dinosaur-bird ancestry?

Thank you

Don

PS.
Dear Gary,

I just have to ask him again, I apologize if you feel offended.

Don.

Indicating Dinosaur-bird ancestry.

Sorry, it has been a long day,

GuyeFaux said: Still can't tell if Poe's Law applies, particularly after seeing "I'm a Zealot for Jesus" coffee-cups in the online store.

I would next expect that Asara will argue that they were looking at actual sequence data and not merely an IR. (I must say that I found your IR data most striking).

However, given the immuno data of Schweitzer, I just don't see a way that a "biofilm" has the specificity for an avian v.s. crocodilian v.s. rabbit (IIRC) result.

I am very interested in your results, as I have written a bit about this over the years.

Draconiz said: use the T-rex specimen or not

Dear Tom.

Thanks, I just used the study as an evidence for common ancestry between Dinosaurs and birds. If any creotard tries to spin this study to refute me I can use your response as a reply to them.

I owe you a beer. :p

Don

I have a dinner break from the 'intertudes.' See you in an hour or so.

Gary Hurd said: I would next expect that Asara will argue that they were looking at actual sequence data and not merely an IR. (I must say that I found your IR data most striking). However, given the immuno data of Schweitzer, I just don't see a way that a "biofilm" has the specificity for an avian v.s. crocodilian v.s. rabbit (IIRC) result. I am very interested in your results, as I have written a bit about this over the years.

AMS dates are not cheap, although the price has come down a lot since the 1980s. A real problem is that they use such small samples, any contamination is going to totally blow your date. I had one kid working for me as field crew, and he insisted on smoking in or around his unit. I took one C14 sample from material he collected and it was 500 years younger than any other data from that site.

Potentially, exposure to air could contaminate an organic rich material. I prefer using charcoal, or collagen. But, your results have an important implication there as well. If there is a significant bacterial load that is actively metabolizing modern carbon, and appears to behave like bone collagen, many other C14 dates might be younger than the parent bones really are.

That might be a funding angle all by itself. (I work for 5% plus beer).

It looks like that there are still questions unanswered but if it ends up being biofilm then using CSI and EF I make three predictions:
1. Some creationists for the next 20 years will still say "what about the soft tissue found in the dinosaur fossils"
2. Others will say that that this is another example of Darwinist Hoaxes just like the butterflies
3. Others will say that see science is wrong again, the Bible is the only source of truth

GuyeFaux said: And the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare.

The banana you see in the video is the result of artificial selection–that’s right, it’s a seedless, sterile variant selected by people…

The modern banana is the result of a well-documented chance mutation during the nineteenth century: Those first bananas that people knew in antiquity were not sweet like the bananas we know today, but were cooking bananas or plantain bananas with a starchy taste and composition. The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color—instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it was massively grown for world markets.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum said:

GuyeFaux said: And the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare.

Actually, it is the politico-religionist's worst nightmare, since the banana in its natural form contains tasteless starch and enormous seeds and is inedible. The banana you see in the video is the result of artificial selection--that's right, it's a seedless, sterile variant selected by people. . .

stevaroni said: The "fruity" banana you find at the local market is almost certainly a Cavendish, the end result of hundreds of years of selective breeding and developed primarily for its robustness during transport. Cavendish bananas are seedless, and therefore must be propagated by cuttings. Since they are, in essence, clones, they have had increasing difficulties over the years with rapidly spreading blights which take out entire plantations in one fell swoop.

stevaroni said: So, the creationists got one right, it turns out that the "ideally designed" food is in fact designed. Um, by man.

I am always struck by the way that an offhand comment on Pandas Thumb will, sometimes within minutes, bring out detailed information on almost any subject related to biology, physics or engineering.

In the space of maybe 4 hours, I've learned more about bananas than I have in the whole rest of my life.

Whenever one of us quoted a fact sloppily, someone else corrected it with a detailed reference.

Compare that to the typical chain of informed "discussions" over on the ID blogs, where most conversations begin and end with bronze-age religious texts as authoritative sources.

I have seen sciences "peer review" at work, and I have seen IDs "peer review" at work, and they are two distinctly different things.

HR Pufnstuf said: The propagandists for the religion of evolutionism thought that the existence of soft dinsaur tissue would win them more converts until Christians pointed out what that would mean for their "millions of years" fantasy--so now, they are in backtrack mode!

During the recent shootout between Conservapedia and Dr. Richard Lenski, “Dr. Paley” demonstrated his genius for handing the lunatic fringe juuuuust enough rope to hang themselves with: INFILTRATE. SUBVERT. DESTROY.

— iml8

Hey, and I’m just a lowly English teacher. You’d think the intellectual giants at DI would know this stuff.

— DistendedPendulusFrenulum

Frank J said: I only wish more fellow "Darwinists" would take more pointers from "Richard Paley" (note how it combines the most prominent names (William Paley) and against (Richard Dawkins) design).

iml8:

I should add that I don't recommend copying all, or even a majority, of "Paley's" methods. But there are a few lessons that we can even learn from - gasp - people like Dembski. The ought-to-be-obvious one is "don't take the bait." Or - pardon the mixed metaphor - "don't feed trolls."

Tom Kaye from the PLoS paper signing in ... I am willing to answer any reasonable questions.

bornagain77 said: The Cambrian Explosion - Darwin's Worst Nightmare http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=13d268e7356e095e9cad

one day, I will remember to use the appropriate tags on the for the appropriate software.

...and maybe even remember to hit backspace. /facepalm

stevaroni said:

The banana you see in the video is the result of artificial selection–that’s right, it’s a seedless, sterile variant selected by people…

Wild bananas are not really edible. They have large, indigestable seeds, and as a food source are primarily a source of starch, like tapioca. The "fruity" banana you find at the local market is almost certainly a Cavendish, the end result of hundreds of years of selective breeding and developed primarily for its robustness during transport. Cavendish bananas are seedless, and therefore must be propagated by cuttings. Since they are, in essence, clones, they have had increasing difficulties over the years with rapidly spreading blights which take out entire plantations in one fell swoop. According to Skepticwiki

The modern banana is the result of a well-documented chance mutation during the nineteenth century: Those first bananas that people knew in antiquity were not sweet like the bananas we know today, but were cooking bananas or plantain bananas with a starchy taste and composition. The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color—instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it was massively grown for world markets.

So, the creationists got one right, it turns out that the "ideally designed" food is in fact designed. Um, by man.

Frank J said: The ought-to-be-obvious one is "don't take the bait." Or - pardon the mixed metaphor - "don't feed trolls."

This may seem a nitpick, but I don’t think so.….…… The banana we now eat is in no way “designed”. The mutation that created it was random. It has been selectively chosen for certain traits. So if the anti-evolutionists want to use the banana as an example of “Intelligent Choosing” then that’s OK only then IC (Intelligent Choosing) will get mixed up with IC (Irreducible Complexity).

— jackstraw

I looked a bit into bacteria living in rock, particularly meteorite, for a review I wrote of Walt Brown's creationist book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.

Giuseppe Geraci et al., “Microbes in Rocks and Meteorites,” (Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2001, p. 51) claims to have documented living bacterial colonies in meteors. This article was published with a long list of objections and cautions that its conclusions were provisional, and that there were many doubts regarding methods used by the principal investigators. Forty years of meteorite investigations have always found terrestrial contamination to be the source of microorganisms found in meteorites, e.g. “Bacterial Contamination of Some Carbonaceous Meteorites” J. ORO T. TORNABENE (1965 SCIENCE, VOL. 150, pg. 1047-1048). The probability of contamination increases in direct proportion to the amount of handling the samples are subjected to under unsterile conditions. The two meteorite samples examined by Giuseppe Geraci had been recovered, handled and publicly displayed in museums for many decades, one for over a century.

Tom (if you check back), my last question is, "What were the curation conditions of the examined fossils used in Kaye et al?" I don't see this data in your paper.

Frank J writes... If they think that the designer occasionally inserts some “directed macromutations”...

When you did the 14C date, what information were you asked to supply about the expected date of the sample (how old you thought it was) and what information did you supply?

Tom Kaye replied to me in an email, and he invited me to share the details here.

He and his team excavated all the materials they tested over the course of time. The paleo speciments were stored in a warehouse in ziploc bags until they were selected for this analysis.

Thanks.

Frank J said: [...]. It’s interesting that you mention “random mutations.” Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” could be a sign that IDers are giving up focusing on the “limits” of natural selection, and retreating into the “limits” of “random” mutation. If they think that the designer occasionally inserts some “directed macromutations” (up to and including the life-from-scratch “macromutation” that their classic creationist fans desperately hope for), they need to start specifying in what lineages they occurred and when. And we need to keep demanding that they put up or shut up.

Teleological evolution, in general, can not be overruled (in my opinnion). Thus, asking creationist to specify lineages and time stamps is futile.

— Eric Finn

Frank J said: If by "overruled" you mean falsifiable, IDers have 2 problems if they try to weasel out of "connecting the dots." First, like classic creationists, they swear that their "theory" is falsifiable. And while they still refuse to "specify lineages and time stamps," they can't ignore the fact that classic creationists have already done that. The cat is out of the bag. They have testable alternate hypotheses ready-made for them.

With or without design, IDers cannot have it both ways. If evolution's claims are subject to intense scrutiny (actually cherry picking and quote mining specifically geared to promote unreasonable doubt) then they need to do the same for the mutually contradictory YEC and OEC claims. Otherwise they can whine all they want that ID "is not" creationism, the fact is that they enable it, and that's counts a lot more than whether one calls ID "creationism" or not.

The Cambrian explosion is kind of a horrible term, as the variety of organisms likely still came about by gradual evolution. The 'sudden' appearance of myriad fauna may have more to do with the chance amount of fossiliferous rock preserved in that time. We only get glimpses.

I agree that ID is clearly creationism in disguise,...

— Eric Finn

...and is used mainly for political goals.

— Eric Finn

Eupraxsopher said: The Cambrian explosion is kind of a horrible term, as the variety of organisms likely still came about by gradual evolution. The 'sudden' appearance of myriad fauna may have more to do with the chance amount of fossiliferous rock preserved in that time. We only get glimpses.

The banana you see in the video is the result of artificial selection–that’s right, it’s a seedless, sterile variant selected by people

Frank J said:

I agree that ID is clearly creationism in disguise,...

— Eric Finn

While I agree with you mean, I never state it that way, because most people who don't follow the "debate" define "creationism" as "honest belief in a ~6000 year ago, abrupt, independent origin of many 'kinds'." Both the ID strategy, and the apparent beliefs of most major ID promoters, are nothing like that. In contrast, we critics of anti-evolution pseudoscience define "creationism" as "any strategy that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and proposes a design-based alternative. And no one can deny that that includes ID.

Maybe that kind of distinction is well worth of making.

— Eric Finn

Every time I read "Cambrian explosion" I imagine groups of stunned dinosaurs violently flying into bits.

I'm sure images like that would keep Darwin up at night, but this would hardly be his worst nightmare.

GSLamb said: Every time I read "Cambrian explosion" I imagine groups of stunned dinosaurs violently flying into bits. I'm sure images like that would keep Darwin up at night, but this would hardly be his worst nightmare.

Frank J said: Whatever way we say it, the investment of a few sentences that prevents the activists from spreading misinformation is well worth it.

I.D. = evolved Creationism.

(Or would "devolved" work better there?)

I tend to use "anti-evolutionist" for the generic label.

Henry

I just call them “Darwin-bashers”...

Henry J said: I.D. = evolved Creationism.

Seven protein fragments were originally reported in 2007 (in Science) by Asara, Schweitzer, and colleagues. However, this study was poorly done and has come under criticism by other scientists who are more expert in mass spectrometry than either Asara or Schweitzer (neither of whom is an expert on interpretation of mass spec data). As a result they revised (in a letter to Science in Sept 2007) one of their interpretations, reducing the number of supposed T. rex fragments to 6. Gary Hurd points out a further discussion - printed in a technical letter to Science in January 2008 - that was pretty devastating to Asara and Schweitzer's claims. Essentially, they didn't perform adequate tests to show that the T. rex DNA was truly ancient, and it almost certainly was a contaminent. Further evidence - re-analysis of the original mass spec data - is likely to show that the protein fragments don't match birds particularly well (as the original article claimed), but instead match bacteria even better. Other articles are pending (not by me) that will make this argument more clearly.

Gary Hurd said: I had one kid working for me as field crew, and he insisted on smoking in or around his unit. I took one C14 sample from material he collected and it was 500 years younger than any other data from that site.

MPW said:

Gary Hurd said: I had one kid working for me as field crew, and he insisted on smoking in or around his unit. I took one C14 sample from material he collected and it was 500 years younger than any other data from that site.

Seriously? Where'd you bury the body?

Henry J said: I.D. = evolved Creationism. (Or would "devolved" work better there?) I tend to use "anti-evolutionist" for the generic label. Henry

It’s slightly perverse but we should just start calling them “Darwinists”. After all, they’re the ones religiously obsessed with what Darwin said or believed. It’s always them prefacing with “Darwin thought this”, “Darwin never knew that”, “Darwin’s Black Box”, “Was Darwin Wrong?”, etc. etc. It’s a masochistic sort of idolatry.

— GyueFaux

I.D. = evolved Creationism.

— Henry J

Frank J,

I'm with you on this. I think we should use the terms "creationism" and "creationist" and object strongly to the common usage of the terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist". This is more important than the benefits of any shorthand usage.

I also like to refer to ID specifically as a type of creationism. While you might be correct that, technically speaking, this is not entirely accurate, given the duplicitious nature of ID advocates, it certainly is appropriate as a descriptor of the origin and true motivation of most individuals who identify themselves as ID supporters. Why should we help them perpatrate a scam?

Of course, I think we should also be very careful to use the term "hypothesis" whenever appropriate as well. That would certainly help our cause. I cringe when I hear the inapporpriate use of the term "theory" as I did on CSI last night. I love to use that show as an example of how science works.

This is a PR battle, at least in part, and we shouldn't roll over and play dead when some dipstick tries to swiftboat entire fields of science just to get the chance to brainwash young children at taxpayer expense.

David Stanton,

I use "Darwinism/Darwinists" and "evolutionists" only in quotes. "Evolutionism" is a story in itself; I never leave it to the context to suggest that I am mocking it.

As for "creationism/creationists", the most important distinction ought to be between the anti-evolution activists and the "rank and file believers." There really is no "rank and file IDer"; they are either some "kind" of creationist (including Omphalos) or maybe a TE who has more sympathy for the political/religious ideology of the activists than with mainstream science (which has no ideology). Also, when I say "IDer" I mean "anti-evolution activist who prefers the 'don't ask, don't tell what the designer did when' approach.

Bottom line, never say "creationism/creationists" without specifying what "kind" if there are people listening/reading who define it as "honest belief/believers in a ~6000 year ago creation" and others who define it as "any strategy/strategist that misrepresents evolution and proposes a design-based alternative."

Ouch. See how easy it is to lazily say "creationist"?!

Please change "..some 'kind' of creationist.." in the middle paragraph of my 10:21 comment to "..some 'kind' of believer of classic creationism..".

Once again in case anyone didn't notice: By "classic creationism" I mean YEC or OEC, IOW, an anti-evolution position that specifically denies common descent and makes testable statements of basic "whats" and "whens" of natural history.

Steven Salzberg http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/07/preserved-t-rex-or-bad-science.htmlhas some further thoughts about Schweitzer's research that I recommend.

Steven Salzberg has some further thoughts about Schweitzer's research that I recommend.

Yeah, that "evolved Creationism" analogy doesn't really work, does it. It analogy doesn't work when somebody goes and actually examines the details - why'd somebody have to go and do that, it's like they're tying to do science or something. Oh wait...

Henry

To Tom Kaye,

I noticed this from 7/30: "One carbon date is not enough to hang your hat on. We found that out when we called and they said “you only want one!?”. We had to spend our own money so one was it. We reported what came back and as you see, we didn’t say much more about it. Once a biofilm is mineralized it could be any age in our opinion. Since the biofilms cover the framboids, we think the framboids came first and could be REALLY old."

What is your explanation of your getting a 135% of modern content result? And why do you think it is relevant at all to C14 test the bacterial scales taken from the surface of a dino bone (as I recall, that is where they came from)...if you intent is to prove the age of the material found deep inside a bone after it has been demineralized? Surface formations by bacteria on a dino bone would be expected to give modern C14 dates I would think and therefore would be irrelevant no matter what date you got. Sorry to say it but IMO you wasted your money.

What WOULD be useful perhaps is to get some of the actual stretchy tissue inside the bone of a dino and C14 date THAT. Of course when C14 is found, as I expect it would be, even if it is far above the sensitivity thresholds of the AMS equipment, it will "have" to be attributed to contamination. Why would that not be the explanation for your C14 date...especially since it came back with an impossible number of 135%?

Also to Tom Kaye,

I believe that your article must do more than simply suggest SIMILARITIES to biofilms...if you are going to refute the claim the tissues are dinosaurian. Wouldn't they have to be indistinguishable rather than just similar? In other words, if we had the "blood vessels" which MS found sitting side by side with the biofilm tubes you studied, and they both were stretchy and tubular...but had other very definite distinctive differences, wouldn't we have to say that you have not successfully explained the features as being from bacteria? In my opinion based on your photos and hers, the framboids you identified as inorganic don't look much like the "blood cells" she ID'd. Those spheres you showed with no nuclei don't look much like the fat discs she found WITH nuclei.

Also, I apologize for using "scales" and 135% in my prior post. I just checked your article and you reported 139% and also said the material C14 tested was from "coatings" which "appreared to be dislodged" after being pressure fractured. I am wondering if you could identify for sure that the single sample you tested came from inside the bone, since you said "APPEARED". Also, even if some bones do have biofilms inside the vascular canal walls, which are indeed formed by modern bacteria, that would not mean necessarily that what Dr. S found was only that would it? I mean she could have found true dino tissue AND there could also be modern bacteria in her vascular spaces of her samples.

One more point. What may be the most astonishing part of her work was the 4th point in the list of the 4 things she found, but you only were able to find similarities to the first 3 (in your opinion) with your work. Do you agree that you found nothing that would resemble the 4th? Here is what you wrote:

Four categories of tissues were initially discovered in 2005 [1]: (A) Clusters of spheres that showed an iron-oxygen elemental signature appeared red under the light microscope. (B) Soft, branching, tube-like structures that contained spheres. (C) Free floating “osteocytes” complete with fillapodia and (D) a filamentous mass that remained pliable and elastic. Subsequent tests using immunochemistry showed positive for proteins [3]. Three of these structures were found commonly in this survey and discussed below.

Thanks.

The dinosaur thing is a joke at Harvard, we all know the shanigans in research misconduct that occurs frequently there. . Shitzers and Asora's research is a hoax, or certainly misrepresentation. The tissues are porous ---liquids go through them. how this collagen tissue remain for 80,000,000 years?!?!!? Can federally subsidized (tax payer, white collar welfare) can Shitzer and Asora please explain this. thanks.

Whether the tissue stays porous after death is a different question than whether it's porous while the organism was alive.

Henry

test

You guys trashing MS/Asara and praising Kaye need to read the 5/09 SCIENCE. In it a separate lab CONFIRMED that MS's group were right in IDing dino collagen. "Contamination" ain't gonna save the day for you.

Y'know, they REALLY oughta lock down these threads after 90 days. If you don't you just get some passerby kicking on a dead horse.

wile_coyote said: Y'know, they REALLY oughta lock down these threads after 90 days. If you don't you just get some passerby kicking on a dead horse.

Since most fungal skin infections are surface infections, antifungal treatments are usually applied directly to the skin in the infected area (topical treatments). There are a variety of treatments available in the form of creams, lotions and medicated powders. If the rash covers quite a large area of skin, or affects the nails or scalp, then tablets may be required. Some treatments are available over-the-counter from a pharmacist, without a prescription. For example, sprays are available for treating athletes foot. Ask your pharmacist for advice. Stronger forms of topical treatments and antifungals in tablet form are only available on prescription. You may also be prescribed antifungal shampoo for scalp infections.