The Dinosaurs: Bothering scientists since the 1800s

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I took the liberty of looking up the actual scientific paper for myself on Google Scholar. It's going to be troublesome for your Creationist site's claims as the abstract seems to suggest the preservation of the collagen peptides is something that CAN happen with fossils older than what you state. In order to get to the full paper you have to sign up for an account on the site, however doing so is FREE. I'm unsure of what their copyright policy is towards posting part of the paper, however I will post the part of the abstract to which I am referring (since the abstract was obtainable before signing up for the account:

Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event.

Source

I'm not sure if you will be able to access the link without first setting up a free account. At any rate the paper seems to not only NOT be a problem for Evolution but to actually confirm that dinosaurs and birds share common ancestry. The scientists involved seem quite clear that this is a Cretaceous dinosaur and not at all recent. So while Creationist sites may speculate and sensationalize they are not basing their rejection on anything academic or scientific.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

You can cry "logical fallacy" all you want (feel free to point out which brand of logical fallacy it is, by the way) but you're the one cherry picking the results from a radiometric dating method which is known to be inaccurate for any time period except the one you want it to be. Talk about working backward from your conclusion.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


yes, its been said that dinosaur collagen is similar to birds. i don't see a problem with that. pigs are genetically very similar to humans, but evolution doesn't say we evolved from them. the issue here is how old the fossils are. it isn't just one fossil, and it isn't just one dating method.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

the issue here is how old the fossils are

The paper was quite clear that the material was from the Cretaceous, the fossils are just as old as any other dinosaur fossils, they've just been fossilized in a way to leave the collagen preserved. Again this isn't a problem for Evolution even if Creationists want to pretend it is.

Our genetic similarity to pigs DOES indicate that we have common ancestry (as all mammals do). The study of this hadrosaur doesn't just claim similarity, it further supports what it identifies as the bird-dinosaur clade. Rather than serve as an issue for evolution this find actually supports it.

Of course Creationists just see the word soft-tissue and their brains go into a tizzy.

reply to post by iterationzero


circular reasoning. you're assuming something about the evidence (how old fossils are based on the theory of evolution), dating it only with methods that fall within the range of the assumptions, and then using the results as "evidence" of evolution. notice how immediately you said:

The first thought that came to my mind when reading the quoted text in your post was, "Why are they using radiocarbon dating when the calibration curves top out at about 50,000 years?"

then said:

Sorry, but if a bunch of creationist pseudoscientists can't be bothered to try and use an appropriate radiometric dating method instead of the one that doesn't go beyond the values they want to get

you're guilty of the same thing you accuse creationists of. assume the fossil's age, date accordingly.

c-14 dating is much more reliable than using some isotope with a half-life of millions of years. we know a bit about what the environment was like back 50,000 years and can adjust accordingly. oh well, lets just toss out the dates that disagree with the theory.

as for cherry picking, i posted a quote of the most relevant part of the article (the dates), and put a link. you do know what cherry picking means, right? taking something out of context and using it to support your argument. i never did that.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


you're completely ignoring the dates of the fossils! no matter how well preserved a fossil is, you can't slow down the c-14 decay rate. yes, they were found in the strata linked to the Cretaceous period, yet they were dated as 23,000 and 33,000 years old.

there's the circular reasoning problem again. "they were found in this strata, and the theory of evolution says this strata is about x years old, so lets date them with processes that give results in that window."

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

c-14 dating is much more reliable than using some isotope with a half-life of millions of years. we know a bit about what the environment was like back 50,000 years and can adjust accordingly. oh well, lets just toss out the dates that disagree with the theory.

Only if you assume that your fossil is less than 50,000 years old, unlike nearly every other radiometric dating method. There's a reason calibration curves aren't necessary except in the case of radiocarbon dating. Like I said, cherry picking data at its finest -- ignore all of the other data that doesn't agree and use an inappropriate test method because it gives you the result based on the conclusion that you started with before examining the evidence.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Which one did they carbon-14 date? Because I've checked several of the actual scientific papers about these specimens and can find no evidence that they were dated using C-14 dating methods.

I searched both a paper about the 2007 MOR 1125 T-Rex specimen and the one about the hadrosaur and found no mention of any scientists using C-14 Dating, in fact there was no mention of Carbon dating at all in either of them.

In fact each of the papers seems quite confident that these fossils are just as old as ordinary dinosaur fossils and that what science got wrong was its belief that collagen and certain other organic molecules were unable to be fossilized and preserved over such long reaches of time. What you and the other Creationists are suggesting is little more than throwing the baby out with the bath water. To toss out tried and true dating techniques merely because collagen can rarely be preserved in a fossil is not the logical response to take.

Here's a snippet from the scientific paper about the T-Rex (MOR 1125):

However, the discovery of intact structures retaining original transparency, flexibility, and other characteristics in specimens dating at least to the Cretaceous (8, 9) suggested that, under certain conditions, remnant organic constituents may persist across geological time.

Again in order to get to the paper you have to sign up for a free account.

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggests Protein

I'm no expert on these finds however, so in the interests of education I'll provide you with the email address of the main scientist whose name is attached to these finds:

[email protected]

If you have any further questions about these finds and how the do or do not affect the validity of dating techniques/evolution I'd recommend dealing directly with the actual scientists. I'm not sure what her policy is on personal correspondence with non-science personnel but the email address is made publicly available so feel free to email Dr. Schweitzer.

It is also worth noting that Dr. Schweitzer's finds have made her a controversial figure, some scientists do not believe the collagen found to be real and their some question as to whether it might not be bacterial growth. The issue is not one that has been entirely resolved by the scientific community, but that doesn't stop Creationists from just making stuff up out of thin air in the meantime.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Mammals didn't actually evolve after the dinosaurs

Also, we know how they evolved, it still happens every single day...and we have witnessed speciation, and using those findings every day in modern medicine...

LINK

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


the t-rex wasn't dated.

Both the C-14 conventional and Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) methods were employed as recommended by E. E. M. Hedges for ensuring RC dates are valid in situations demanding a careful investigation or try to pinpoint an absolute RC date.

"UGAM report," dated August 27, 2008: collagen 30,110 ± 80; bio-apatite 39,230 ±140.

the second quote is in reference to a triceratops femur.

Collagen, inside Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones was tested successfully for C-14. Collagen from a second Triceratops femur bone from Montana likewise contained collagen and C-14 in 2008

testing was done by the university of georgia. to go "table 1" and expand it. it will show you what bones from which dinosaurs dated how old using c-14.

reply to post by iterationzero


you must not understand how c-14 dating works. if the date came back as 125,000 years, then no, we couldn't say it is accurate, as there is statistically too little carbon 14 to estimate the date. this, however, didn't happen. the less c-14 there is, the greater the age.

the dates fell well within the range that c-14 can accurately measure. the fossils were also tested with AMS which is similar, but it doesn't need as large of a sample as the standard c-14 test. it's also a bit more accurate. the dates were very close for both tests on all the tested material.

Only if you assume that your fossil is less than 50,000 years old, unlike nearly every other radiometric dating method.

that isn't true. c-14 results are accurate so long as the age is less than 50-60 thousand years.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It says on the site that you linked that they receieved different dates for the same animal however:

The next four dates (Hd UGAMS-01935, 01936, 01937, 01938) came from one 56 gram sample of Hadrosaur bone and arrangements were made to divide the above sample into different portions to date: bio-apatite, charred bone, any collagen and any impurity that might be discovered. Again we obtained old RC dates for bio-apatite (portion pretreated with 1 N acetic acid to remove surface absorbed and secondary carbonates); charred bone (pretreated with 5 % HCl, dilute NaOH and dilute HCl again) and purified bone collagen. The oldest date was for the bio-apatite fraction and the youngest date was for purified collagen but all were essentially the same (see Table 1)

This makes sense because any carbon-14 present would undoubtedly be from the sample being contaminated with bacteria or other materials that contain Carbon-14. Which would mean they would get various different answers for samples from the same hadrosaur.

Again how is this a problem for Evolution? What it is is proof positive that Carbon-14 dating a dinosaur fossil turns up inconclusive results and is an improper method for dating them. Luckily legitimate science doesn't use Carbon-14 to date dinosaur fossils. They attempt to say that "all were essentially the same" even though according to Table 1 some of their hadrosaur is 22,000+ years old and some of it is only 1,950 years old. To put that into perspective they're essentially suggesting that these things still existed and were alive in the first century AD. Maybe the Apostle Paul was riding on the road to Damascus on a Hadrosaur

*sigh* you misread.

they tested 4 different parts of the one sample.

The next four dates (Hd UGAMS-01935, 01936, 01937, 01938) came from one 56 gram sample of Hadrosaur bone and arrangements were made to divide the above sample into different portions to date: bio-apatite, charred bone, any collagen and any impurity that might be discovered.

the dates they received for bio-apatite, charred bone, and collagen were:

25,670 +-220
25,170+-230
23,170+-170

the last thing they tested was the impurities that were removed during the chemical treatment to PREVENT any contamination. it gave an age of 2,560+-70. it is a common practice that they adopted, and they did the same for all the other samples. notice number "3" where it says "contamination".

they even tested the clay that the bones were found in to make sure the bones had not been contaminated in any way.

Bone bio-apatite can be unreliable due to potential contamination from calcium carbonate replacement containing modern or dead carbon [unless carefully pretreated]. However, a study of the 100 cm. of clay above the bones by Wayne and Doug Wilder6 indicated no contamination as carbon [from the flesh] apparently migrated away from the bones with 0.5% C immediately above and only 0.1 % C, 30 cm. well above the bone strata; this suggests that the RC date for the bones was reliable as clay acts as a barrier.

there was NO contamination, though that only applies to the bio-apatite. as for the collagen:

According to Dr. Libby, the inventor of the radiocarbon dating method, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age."3

i find it humorous that you sought to mock me, when you were actually wrong. you said evolutionists would follow where the evidence leads...obviously not.

WOW great debate guys I thought this thread was dead a couple of days ago.

Just to clear something up I am NOT a creationist I find that concept a bit ridiculous. But I do have questions about the dinosaurs which I have listed in my original post. I will have to sit down and read this all one day, will do over the weekend. Keep on debating.

I guess you could call this area that I am highly interested in, pseudo science, but I am not a scientist just a guy who has some questions. Don't hate lolz.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

you must not understand how c-14 dating works.

Quite familiar with it, actually. I think you just don't understand what I'm saying.

if the date came back as 125,000 years, then no, we couldn't say it is accurate, as there is statistically too little carbon 14 to estimate the date. this, however, didn't happen. the less c-14 there is, the greater the age.

Except if a sample has been contaminated with a modern carbon source -- then the apparent age of the specimen is reduced considerably. Which is why reputable scientists use multiple radiometric dating methods. The pseudoscientists you cite either didn't crosscheck using multiple dating methods, in which case they're incompetent, or they're not reporting those results, in which case they're dishonest. Would you rather have them be stupid or lying? Take your pick. I find both equally amusing.

the dates fell well within the range that c-14 can accurately measure. the fossils were also tested with AMS which is similar, but it doesn't need as large of a sample as the standard c-14 test. it's also a bit more accurate. the dates were very close for both tests on all the tested material.

See above -- a contaminated sample coupled with a lack of crosschecking results with another dating method would give the same results. So all of the other radiometric dating methods are wrong and radiocarbon dating, which these same creationists have spent decades claiming gives false results, is the only right one. Well, I guess we can be thankful that they're at least admitting that the fundamentals behind radiocarbon dating are right. Another decade or two and they might even learn to use it correctly.

that isn't true. c-14 results are accurate so long as the age is less than 50-60 thousand years.

See above -- a contaminated sample... sigh... never mind. It's not worth the keystrokes.

In a report published five months ago c14 dating was also done on the surviving soft tissue of a mosasaur. It dated to 24,600 BP. It was assumed that bacterial contamination occurred, although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected. The article also establishes that tissue preservation is not necessarily limited to sudden, deep burial in sandstone. www.plosone.org...

reply to post by iterationzero

Except if a sample has been contaminated with a modern carbon source -- then the apparent age of the specimen is reduced considerably. Which is why reputable scientists use multiple radiometric dating methods.

you must have not read the source i gave. multiple methods of dating were used c-14 and AMS multiple times on each sample. bio-apatite, charred bone, and collagen were all tested for each sample. the clay around the bones was tested to insure no contamination of the bio-apatite. collagen cannot be contaminated. university of georgia did the testing. all three numbers came back very close.

i'm not going to type it all out again, see my other post. in short, no contamination present, testing done by reputable source, accurate and concise dates.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

there's the circular reasoning problem again. "they were found in this strata, and the theory of evolution says this strata is about x years old, so lets date them with processes that give results in that window."

Actually, it's more like the Law of Superposition, but don't let getting a few facts wrong get in the way of your story.

reply to post by aorAki


no one is denying that the oldest layers are at the bottom assuming no disturbance. the problem is dating on assumptions. the strata is assumed to be "x" years old according to the theory of evolution, then dated with methods that give dates in that window, then using the result (based on presupposition) to confirm the previous assumptions.

as the c-14 and AMS testing shows, you've been told a story for so long that you no longer wish to see truth.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Bob mate...

You've been shown to be wrong so many times, maybe, just maybe, you should give up on your religious quest. Admit you're wrong.