Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[he_who_is_nobody]

Reason 1 - Rapid Stratification:

Explain how we have shale and limestone in multiple separate layers found near the top of the Grand Canyon. Explain the angular unconformity at the bottom, which includes basalts. Explain the Cocomino Sandstones found under the Kaibab Limestone. Your sophomoric understanding of how sediments are laid down is laughable.

Reason 2 - Carbon 14 Everywhere:

One study about coal does not change the fact that you and I are both bathing in elevated radiation thanks to the uranium found in the Grants Mineral Belt (me) and Tallahassee Creek Area (you). Nor will it change the fact that some fossiliferous areas contain very high amounts of uranium and other radioactive material. Heck, they have found dinosaur fossils containing uranium. Get a geiger counter and take a walk around your area, it might surprise you.

Reason 3 - Wildly Unexpected Genomic Discoveries:

Of course, we are going to share large sections of our genome with other organisms, we all share a common ancestor. This is something that would be expected if universal common descent were true. I would believe that creationists would expect to see massive differences between the different kinds of organisms on earth, not us silly evolutionists. However, BobEnyart, please explain how sharing sections of our genome is expected from a creationists framework and not an evolutionary one.

- Chimp Y Chromosome:

I suggest reading this post BobEnyart; I quoted a section from AronRa's original post. AronRa has already handled this and exposed how little you know about genetics.

I will let AronRa handle the lions share of the soft tissue citations in his next post, but I would just like to point out that BobEnyart is in error about his Archaeopteryx claims, unless he thinks trace minerals count as original biological material. Isotelus and I have both pointed this out for each of the papers he presents on that topic here already.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"] :lol:

BobEnyart, have you even taken the time to read Bergmann et al. (2009)? Nowhere in that paper do they say they found soft tissue. What they do say they found are fossilized and chemical remains of what was once soft tissue. BobEnyart, you have either never read this paper and are just parroting this mistake from another creationist source, read the paper and did not understand it, or read the paper and tried to spin it in a way to suit your needs. I have already pointed out to YesYouNeedJesus that I believe this was do to your poor reading comprehension, but please do tell us how you were able to draw the wrong conclusion you have from that paper. This needs to go on your errata as well.

Isotelus[/url]"]The study actually sampled from the single covert found in 1861. This doesn't mean all of its feathers were black. But more importantly, the melanosomes were not "original biological material"; they were impressions that have preserved their morphology.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You must be referring to this quote on page one of Bergmann et al. (2009) paper:

Here we apply state-of-the-art synchrotron
rapid scanning X-ray fluorescence (SRS-XRF) imaging to
this remarkably well-preserved specimen revealing striking and
previously unknown details about the chemical preservation of
soft tissue, elemental distribution patterns most likely related
to the organism's life processes, insights into the chemistry of
the fossilization process, and details of curation history.

However, Bergmann et al. are referring to soft tissue fossils, much in the same way scientists would refer to a fossilized bone as a bone in a paper. To prove this point here are some quotes:

SRS-XRF thus allows
direct study of (i) structures that are not apparent in visible light,
(ii) macronutrient and trace metal distribution patterns in bone
and mineralized soft tissue areas related to life processes, and (iii)
chemical processes of fossilization.

Fossil XRF imaging studies on the basis of commercially
available devices showed that many specimens are not
simply preserved impressions but are actually
"chemical
fossils"
including elemental residue perhaps representing both soft and
hard tissues (7, 8).

Moreover, those are just from the introduction to the paper. Again, they are talking about fossilized soft tissue.

Isotelus[/url]"]Why would you give me a link from the news article when the paper it's reporting from is available to the public? And no, you are still incorrect. I'll say it again: there was no soft tissue found. Even in the news article, it says "soft tissue remnants". That is absolutely not the same as actual soft tissue. When it says 'more than just...impressions', it means that the feathers can now be considered as body fossils (which is stated in the original paper). The remnants are chemical traces only, like Zn, and that's it (hence soft-tissue chemistry). Are you seriously asserting that bare elements in a fossil qualify as soft tissue?

As pointed out in the quotes, this needs to go in your errata. In addition, this poor reading comprehension cast doubt on how well you understood the other papers you have cited.

Furthermore, it is great that BobEnyart put all this effort into his last post, but again, his original four sources did not claim to have original biological material. It was not until scalyblue presented Peterson et al. (2010) that any of the citations given thus far made that claim. Now, according to what scalyblue cited and from what you have put together in your third post, it seems there is a great possibility that trace amounts of soft tissue has survived in these fossils. Again, I must emphasize, these conclusions come from the new papers presented, not the original four you cited in your second debate post; those four do not make that claim.

Beyond this point, the discovery of soft tissue in fossilized dinosaurs and dinosaur-aged creatures would not over turn the established dates. As I pointed out earlier, the Hell Creek Formation, which is where the T. rex came from has been radio-metrically dated. It also contains the very well dated K-Pg boundary inside of it. Unless you want to try to over turn all of the established radiometric dating methods (i.e. physics), the trace amount of soft tissue and trace carbon-14 (again, best explained by contamination of one sort or another) will not change that.

Now I am not going to have the time to look into these new papers, because I am starting a new job tomorrow, which will leave me with far less time to waste on this forum.

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request. I would like an apology from you on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior, giving Aron a pass for his "trust me" claim that the soft-tissue has "been refuted," while for no reason being utterly dismissive toward my references to journal papers. (I've only skimmed the other threads, but it seems that you all have treated Will Duffy, "YesYouNeedJesus," in the peanut gallery debate comment thread with this same bad behavior and arbitrary criticism.) It has been completely surreal Australopithicus that your site regulars have largely united behind the extremely absurd claim that "Enyart" et al., "do not even know what fossilisation means," for, allegedly from your evolutionist members, the reports above DO NOT EVEN CLAIM that soft biological tissue has been discovered. No? Well then, why all the controversy for 20 years? Could you apologize Australopithicus also for that extremely bad behavior?

:lol:

I cannot speak about the other users on this board (besides maybe one), but I did not arbitrarily dismiss your citations and give AronRa a pass. I read the four papers you cited and saw that none of them claimed what you said they did, especially the Archaeopteryx paper. In addition, from what I could tell, it seemed that most of the posters commenting on the soft tissue, besides the creationists, read the papers before dismissing the claims you made about them. Scalyblue even went beyond that and found a paper that supports your claims, one you had not cited yet. Why should anyone apologize for your poor citations skills?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Third, you apparently don't know what fossilization means, well at least your lackey doesn't. If I remember correctly, and I really can't be arsed going through 27 pages of drivel just to check which mistake he made, YYNJ claimed something about the fossil needing no demineralization, which was directly refuted by what Mary Schweitzer herself said. And so on and so forth.

No. YesYouNeedJesus seems like he was claiming that demineralizing a fossil would only leave biological material behind. Thus when Schweitzer preformed demineralization processes on the bone it would mean the material they were left with meant it was biological. This is not the case, because first off, there are several different ways to demineralize something, and depending on what you want to have left, not everything that is fossilized will dissolve away. That is the funny thing about chemistry; you can remove some chemicals without disturbing others.

 

[Inferno]

Third, you apparently don't know what fossilization means, well at least your lackey doesn't. If I remember correctly, and I really can't be arsed going through 27 pages of drivel just to check which mistake he made, YYNJ claimed something about the fossil needing no demineralization, which was directly refuted by what Mary Schweitzer herself said. And so on and so forth.

No. YesYouNeedJesus seems like he was claiming that demineralizing a fossil would only leave biological material behind. Thus when Schweitzer preformed demineralization processes on the bone it would mean the material they were left with meant it was biological. This is not the case, because first off, there are several different ways to demineralize something, and depending on what you want to have left, not everything that is fossilized will dissolve away. That is the funny thing about chemistry; you can remove some chemicals without disturbing others.

Like I said, couldn't be arsed looking for exactly what he got wrong. He got something wrong, that's all I remember and frankly all I care about, too.

 

[Isotelus]

1995 - Science: Detecting dinosaur DNA by Hedges, S. Blair, Dept. of Biology, Institute Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, Penn. State University; Schweitzer, Mary H., Montana State University.
"The fact that DNA sequence can be obtained from fossil organisms has opened new windows of opportunity for research"¦ Recently, S. R. Woodward et al. sequenced DNA from"¦ bone fragments apparently from a dinosaur"¦ However, the likely source of those DNA sequences appears to be human contamination. [However] support has been presented for other findings of DNA surviving for millions of years (10)"¦"

Word of advice for Bob: It is improper to quote the introduction to an article and a sentence from the conclusion and place them together in one paragraph. That aside, here's the last sentence in its entirety: "Although phylogenetic support has been presented for other findings of DNA surviving for millions of years, real advance in this field will come only when it is demonstrated that those studies can be replicated in independent laboratories." Not quite the same, is it? This paper was critiquing Woodward et al., and outlined the likelihood that human contamination was responsible for the DNA found, as was confirmed in their own experiments. This paper did the exact opposite of what Bob claimed it did. I should also point out that the paper predicts dinosaur DNA should confirm morphological evidence that states birds and crocodilians are their closest living relatives.
For some reason, I can't access the 1993 article he linked, and therefore cannot comment on it.

I also wish Bob would stop inserting so many ellipses and his own words into some of his quotes. Like this one:

discovery of soft, pliable tissues recovered from... Tyrannosaur [involve] preserved biomolecules [of] preserved dinosaurian soft tissues [which if true would hold] the promise of biologic investigations of extinct animals.

A direct quote would have sufficed. I realize that he was probably trying to save space, which is nice, but it makes some of the quotes difficult to locate in the article. It could also potentially scew the original intended meaning of the sentence (or indeed the whole paper...), which I'm sure is not his intention.

I don't have time at the present to comment on all of his quotes and citations, but I'll make this one general observation on Bob's choice of bolded words. Melanosomes are organelles, collagen is a protein, amino acids are molecules, and molecules and compounds are bonded groups of atoms. None of these fulfill the definition of a tissue, and are rather what is left when the original material decays. I'll reiterate, once again, especially in regards to Archaeopteryx:

Once again, your interpretation is incorrect. Your friend may be right on what biomarkers are and how they apply to organic chemistry (although I have to say it looks like he took that from wikipedia), but he took a fall down the slippery slope and ended up in a big pile of fallacy. They did not recognize that the biomarkers are products of diagenetically altered natural compounds. I asked you before if you honestly thought that traces of elements in a fossil qualifed as soft tissue, so I'll ask you the same question, only replacing 'traces of elements' with 'chemical compounds'. The organosulphur residues are just that: remaining products of the organic material which is no longer present. I think you also missed the part where the paper stated that the melanosomes are indeed fossilized, mainly as imprints, but also as 3D structures.

Btw, thank you he_who_is_nobody for posting my other comments on the issue. I'll add as well that it would be wonderful if remains of soft tissue could be confirmed, and if for example Schweitzer's T-rex soft tissues turn out to be exactly that and not just partially fossilized remains and breakdown products, then yay! But, there is no valid reason to assume this is evidence of a very recent burial or young earth. It would makes no sense to agree with one aspect of a paper and not another when the same scientific methodology was used throughout. Viable means in which exceptional preservation can occur over long periods of time have already been suggested (like those in the some of the papers being dealt with in the debate), and I expect we'll see plenty more.

Oh, and I won't appologize for anything either. Boohoo.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

:shock: You'd think that reading all those papers that it would dawn on Bob that they don't actually say what he says they say, but no. He just reads them as confirming his preconceived notions.

Bob quotes papers talking of "collagen type I remnants", "fragments of original biomolecules", "protein fragments" yet continues to call it "original dinosaur biological tissue" and demands an apology when people disagree with him and YYNJ. Just for a minute stop and think what finding actual original dinosaur tissue would entail. Get a clue Bob, none of these papers support your original position of the finds being "actual, not decomposed, dinosaur tissue". Nor do they support YYNJ's analogy to a dehydrated grain of rice.
The papers support what AronRa said

she [Schweitzer] showed that very large bones, properly buried under the right conditions could effectively insulate the core sufficiently that isolated microscopic sections could contain original material not fully fossilized, meaning that demineralization might restore some original properties. Chemical decomposition would of course occur even then, (much the pity) so that these wouldn't be exactly what they were anymore, but the implications were still exciting to me at the time.

and what the people commenting in this thread have shown themselves saying.

As for myself since I seem to be last to come and quote back what I said compared to the accusation of not having understood these finds, let's have a look at what my thoughts on the subject were back on page 7.

The papers aren't flawed, your interpretation of what they say is. The archaeopteryx paper doesn't conclude the discovery of "original biological material", it doesn't even mention it. What they talk about is chemical residues trapped within the rock as it set to form not just, as was previously thought, impressions but "body fossils" that is fossils of the the soft tissue (not the soft tissue itself). A significant find yes, but not the one you claim it is. The reason scientists don't know about the the discovery you claim has been made is because no such discovery has yet been made.

As with many finds in science, if confirmed, in retrospect it should not have been a surprise that in the right circumstances such chemical residues could survive trapped within the rock of the fossil. Or even that with the rock stripped away they would still hold some of their original structure as seems to be the case with the T.Rex.

It is indeed an exciting prospect that the scientists may be able isolate fragments of proteins, and open a window to the genetics of animals once thought completely lost

From the comments being made quoting what has been said on this thread and the citations made by Bob it is clear that the claims made by people active on this thread are in accord with what the papers actually said. Whereas the claims of Bob and YYNJ were not.

Just as an aside why is Bob accusing us of claiming that the finds have been refuted as biofilms. The only time the issue has even come up was a citation of a paper confirming the presence of both biofilms and endogenous material. Will Bob or YYNJ apologise for this dishonest misrepresentation?

So now that he's done all this reading, and is now quoting sources that undermine his original position by showing the finds are fragments and remnants of molecules and structures that have been embedded in rock and not "actual, not decomposed, dinosaur tissue" as he claimed. Will he or YYNJ go back and reread what AronRa and members of this forum wrote and acknowledge that what they said was correct from the beginning and what Bob was saying was wrong? I doubt it, but we could always hope for some honesty from people who claim to be the purveyors "Real Science".

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

 

[bluejatheist]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

Someone's kissing ass.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

Dude, grow up.
Seriously - grow up.

I don't know how old you THINK you are, or what respect you THINK you deserve, but any 6 year old child can tell you that you're throwing a mini-tantrum.

This is the League of Reason - your reputation only stands with the evidence you present, and respect is only given to those who promote themselves of equal footing in instances of maturity and evidence.

In my PM exchanges with you, you expressly outlined your reason for not contributing to the thread that was given because you were no toddler, being told where and how to play. Of course, this was after you throwing a fit of Kindergarten proportions and flinging accusations of censorship (the highest insult available on this forum, might I add) towards everyone. You have essentially walked into public, got called an idiot, deprived ONCE for wasting my damned time, and then proceeded to flip coffee tables and piss on the entire community.
Here, in the GROWN UP WORLD we have rules. Those rules state that you stay on topic, and that you don't spam the forum with useless whining and pleading to make yourself look like a Martyr for the sake of martyrdom.

If you want to call someone an asshole, then call me an asshole - nobody was censuring you nor your two-bit apologetic bullshit of a "scientist" Remine. We even opened a new thread SPECIFICALLY ON-TOPIC and instead of standing upon the weight of facts, and the truth, you're more concerned about what little tale you can weave this out to be and pay politics of persecution and martyrdom.


Fools will return to their folly like a dog into his own vomit.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

So in other words, you can't really justify the thread being locked. Grown men apologize when they've made a mistake. I'm not going to listen to story after story on LoR of how creationist sites lock threads, block accounts, kick evolutionists out, etc. and partake in the same garbage. That's hypocrisy. I do want to discuss the issues, but I'm not going to be treated like a child and told "you have to play by our rules and when/where we want you to." No thanks.

How's your peer review of the Humphrey paper coming?

1) We have rules.
2) You will be treated how you act.
3) Find me a single instance in the League's history of "censorship" in the past years it had been active... Go on, this is my challenge into you. I've already competed my analysis and replication of the work of Humprey's claims, and have begin compiling of a video of my own making towards it's validity.
It's your turn to pony up.

You weren't being censored, and you damned well know it. And now you are trying to get Bob to fish an apology for you.

 

[IBSpify]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

Your devotion to bob would be cuter if we didn't know that he was paying you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

No. that would go to this post, or perhaps this one. However, you would not know this because you refuse to read them.

Speaking of things you are refusing to do, we have a whole list of unanswered questions for you here. Care to give them a go?

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

Your devotion to bob would be cuter if we didn't know that he was paying you.

Agreed.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

she [Schweitzer] showed that very large bones, properly buried under the right conditions could effectively insulate the core sufficiently that isolated microscopic sections could contain original material not fully fossilized, meaning that demineralization might restore some original properties. Chemical decomposition would of course occur even then, (much the pity) so that these wouldn't be exactly what they were anymore, but the implications were still exciting to me at the time

I think that Aron meant "remineralization" here - correct me if I'm wrong.

As others have posted, the papers do not indicate actual tissue being found.

Just as a fossil is, for all intents and purposes, a naturally-occurring "plaster-cast" of bone, so too, this is a "plaster-cast" of soft tissue. Most likely, this is just chemical left-overs - "remnants" - of soft tissue - not actual tissue per se.

As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, just because one finds "the building blocks of life" in space, doesn't mean you've found "tissue", let alone life.

YesYouNeedJesus, all websites have rules by which its users must abide - the League of Reason is no different in this.

It can be difficult to find one's beliefs questioned - it may feel as if one is being assailed, given the amount of our egos we invest in them - but that is how we grow. Many have come here - including myself - and found our assumptions wanting. There are those here who, I agree, tend to use vinegar instead of honey, but that's how they choose to question others' assumptions and beliefs - one should not take it personally. It's indicative of the discomfort (fear) they feel in dealing with a supposedly intelligent, adult, human being who appears to be unthinking and/or uninformed/ill-informed/misinformed. Such derision is, however, deserved - and, in my view, should be only reserved - for those who are deliberately obtuse.

I still look forward to discussing your reasons for believing in Ussher's chronology and Young-Earth Creationism.

I also am awaiting your response to mine on page 11 of this thread.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Whenever I read Dragan Glas' posts, I get this "How I Met Your Mother" narrorator running through my head.

CURSE YOU, BEST SCREENPLAY WRITERS AND SHOW ACTORS IN AMERICA~!

 

[DutchLiam84]

Just challenge YYNJ to a written debate like Aron and Bob are doing, and using creotionist logic, if he declines he's a chicken that is afraid to debate an "evilutionist"!

This is what I think to myself everytime I read a reaction by YYNJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZMhGkWNdy0&t=5m50s

 

[brettpalmer]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

What did I tell you? This isn't about having an intellectually stimulating discussion with Bob and his cohorts. It's about an image. It's about "gotcha" points. It's about making the "Post of the Year." They have no more care about the "truth" or "real" science than a 5 year old cares about the price of gas.

 

[scalyblue]

Wow, I just skimmed bob's replies and there are so many quote mined excerpts.

Misrepresenting somebody's position is NOT okay if you add ellipsis in place of words you changed. It is still quote mining, and it is dishonest.

Here's the bob enyart version of Matthew 14:13-14

Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on...Jesus said, "Let the little children come..." when he had placed his hands on them.

 

[brettpalmer]

Just as a fossil is, for all intents and purposes, a naturally-occurring "plaster-cast" of bone, so too, this is a "plaster-cast" of soft tissue. Most likely, this is just chemical left-overs - "remnants" - of soft tissue - not actual tissue per se.

Are you suggesting, contrary to Bob Enyart's exuberant assertion to the contrary, that this "tissue" isn't just like that which would come straight out of a "butcher shop"?

 

[Frenger]

Just as a fossil is, for all intents and purposes, a naturally-occurring "plaster-cast" of bone, so too, this is a "plaster-cast" of soft tissue. Most likely, this is just chemical left-overs - "remnants" - of soft tissue - not actual tissue per se.

Are you suggesting, contrary to Bob Enyart's exuberant assertion to the contrary, that this "tissue" isn't just like that which would come straight out of a "butcher shop"?

HOW DARE YOU insinuate Enfart has gotten something wrong!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just as a fossil is, for all intents and purposes, a naturally-occurring "plaster-cast" of bone, so too, this is a "plaster-cast" of soft tissue. Most likely, this is just chemical left-overs - "remnants" - of soft tissue - not actual tissue per se.

Are you suggesting, contrary to Bob Enyart's exuberant assertion to the contrary, that this "tissue" isn't just like that which would come straight out of a "butcher shop"?

Yes, to be brutally frank.

At least, from what I've understood of the papers and comments by Aron and others.

It's either a "plaster cast" (fossil) of soft tissue or mere chemical traces (molecular remnants/fragments).

(I trust that this question/reply won't be interpreted as "evolutionists" being at each others' throats!)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[australopithecus]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

Only if you ignore the all the other problems.