Dinosaur Soft Tissue

[Collecemall]

Full paper here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1855/20170544

I honestly feel really bad for Schweitzer's team. These results are pretty damning if you ask me, at least with regards to proteins. Maybe they can still learn how cell structure can be preserved over deep time, but I cant imagine having all my work trashed like that. They seemed to make really obvious mistakes in hindsight.

I admit ignorance but after reading this it sounds like there really haven't been any discoveries of soft tissue. It's been contamination from other samples that this new study has shown a match to a high probability to be Ostrich and Aligator bits?

A) This sucks for Schweitzer etc.
B) No way will creationists drop this juicy nugget no matter how much it's shown to be bollocks

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Full paper here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1855/20170544

I honestly feel really bad for Schweitzer's team. These results are pretty damning if you ask me, at least with regards to proteins. Maybe they can still learn how cell structure can be preserved over deep time, but I cant imagine having all my work trashed like that. They seemed to make really obvious mistakes in hindsight.

I admit ignorance but after reading this it sounds like there really haven't been any discoveries of soft tissue. It's been contamination from other samples that this new study has shown a match to a high probability to be Ostrich and Aligator bits?

A) This sucks for Schweitzer etc.
B) No way will creationists drop this juicy nugget no matter how much it's shown to be bollocks

That's what they're saying. 100% likeness to alligator and ostritch, and the sequences they thought were genuine dino ones were consistent with contamination.

This is pretty depressing if you ask me. I'll try to reach out to Mary for comment.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm sure she'll be disappointed, but not that much. It would have been nice to overturn something that we long thought but, ultimately, she's a scientist, and will be more concerned that knowledge progresses.

Also, I don't think creationists are going to get any more mileage out of this than they did out of the discovery itself. The key point is that science is self-correcting, and incorrect models always get ruled out in the end.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I'm sure she'll be disappointed, but not that much. It would have been nice to overturn something that we long thought but, ultimately, she's a scientist, and will be more concerned that knowledge progresses.

Also, I don't think creationists are going to get any more mileage out of this than they did out of the discovery itself. The key point is that science is self-correcting, and incorrect models always get ruled out in the end.

Nah, this will somehow be the next great fraud that proves evolution false and all scientists liars, just like the Piltdown hoax. I expect maximum dishonesty.

 

[Visaki]

Nah, this will somehow be the next great fraud that proves evolution false and all scientists liars, just like the Piltdown hoax. I expect maximum dishonesty.

Well because the original discovery was the nail to Evolutions coffin this new one is just a cover up that proves that the first one was real. And thus Schweitzer is made a creationist hero (though unwillingly I bet) who uncovered the truth but was shut down. Or maybe she'll be the villain that sold her soul for 30 pieces of silver and helped to cover up the truth of her findings? Who knows, creationists have never been very consistent.