Prior to the 1990’s when soft, pliable tissue began to be reported in supposedly ancient dinosaur bones (now such findings have proliferated immensely), would evolutionists have ever predicted such a find? Would such a find square with what would be expected in an evolutionary worldview? Note: this discussion is not about what people did or did not say. This is hypothetical and philosophical.
On the other hand, would such a find be predicted in a young earth creationist worldview, where dinosaurs died out only hundreds, rather than millions of years ago?
For me the answers to these questions are obvious, but what do you think? If the answer to question 1 is no, and the answer to the second question is yes, then would that not count as a prediction confirmed for YEC, and a failed prediction for evolution? Again these are theoretical predictions, not actual historical statements that anybody may or may not have made.
Do you understand the chemistry of these soft tissue finds?
We have found Mammoth MEAT (not just traces of blood vessels) that is thousands of years old… why do we not find dinosaur MEAT equally fresh?
I agree that I don’t think anyone would have been able to predict these soft tissue remnants… but if Creationists predicted finds of MEAT … those finds have not come to fruition either.
No, I don’t think that was really the point of my question. Would such a find be predicted in a young earth creationist worldview? I think so. And certainly it would not be predicted under evolution. Therefore is this not a successful prediction confirmed within YEC, and a failed prediction from an evolutionary standpoint?
Twenty years ago, any skepticism about whether certain proteins would be found after 70 million years would have been based on chemistry considerations (i.e., the longevity of the proteins). Biology in general and evolution in particular would have played zero role in a prediction.
Suppose that 20 years ago you had posed this hypothetical to a mainstream paleontologist:
“Let’s play a parlor game: Suppose that certain proteins from dinosaurs could survive intact for 70 million years or longer. Given that supposition, would you predict that such proteins would be found in fossil-bearing geological formations?”
The answer would have most assuredly been “Yes!”
This is ill-posed, because its focus is far too narrow.
Let’s give the prediction a more suitable scope. What would a YEC predict about finding lightly decayed, fleshy remains of dinosaurs?
Given that scientists have found almost completely undecayed remains of mammoth flesh and even humans from thousands of years ago, a YEC who believes that dinosaurs lived alongside humans and mammoths would certainly predict the discovery of almost completely undecayed remains of dinosaur flesh.
Here’s a question for you, @PDPrice: Is there some reason to think that dinosaur flesh would rapidly decay under conditions in which mammoth flesh and human flesh do not?
I agree that nobody would have predicted it … except for YECs… but YECs would not have predicted just some soft tissue remnants… they would have predicted dino MEAT… just like we find in Mammoths.
But we don’t find Dino MEAT at all… nowhere.
We don’t even find humans and dinosaurs in the huge valley of the Nile… why? The Flood would have occurred sometime AFTER the first dynasties of Egypt.
soft tissue remnants are about how chemicals in the blood bonded with the soft tissue in a kind of molecule very similar to formaldehyde! This soft tissue is a huge leap from MEAT, which should have been preserved much more commonly if all these dinosaurs died so recently.
Obviously! All the information we have is very clear that such proteins can by no means last over such timespans, no matter what the conditions. Evolution plays a role by way of the fact that evolutionists assert these creatures were buried 65 million years ago, rather than more recently.
Is there some reason to think that dinosaur flesh would rapidly decay under conditions in which mammoth flesh and human flesh do not?
Finding dino flesh would not be predicted under YEC either. Flesh decays very quickly and is also eaten by scavengers. Dinosaurs did not live in cold climates like Mammoths did. That’s why we don’t find them encased in ice like we do mammoths.
What would a YEC predict about finding lightly decayed, fleshy remains of dinosaurs?
YEC would not expect to find dinosaur meat, since we do believe they are extinct and probably went extinct hundreds of years ago. However, finding dinosaur meat would not disconfirm YEC, but rather confirm it. It would surprise us by showing that dinosaurs died out even more recently than we thought.
You seem really confident in this assertion. Could you supply some links to the relevant peer-reviewed literature that have led you to this conclusion?
You really need to read about the “formaldehyde” reaction in the blood vessels… this soft tissue is not “good tasting”… or even “meat” … it’s a network of PRESERVED circulation networks.
There are probably better articles… but this one is a good start:
A QUOTE:
“Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.”
"After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging. “The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.
Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis , a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. [Paleo-Art: Illustrations Bring Dinosaurs to Life]
Sure, you mean in the fossil record, right? You don’t mean frozen dinosaurs in the same way we’ve found frozen mammoth carcasses. The fossil record was deposited by the Flood, and modern-day climate regions were not the same before the Flood.
So you do admit that this is a confirmed prediction for YEC, and a falsified prediction for evolutionism. So that means 1) creation does have the ability to make testable predictions just like evolution does (but neither are open to direct testing) and 2) it is not the case that all available evidence supports evolution over YEC.
You are incorrect in saying YEC would predict meat to be found. Meat decays away rapidly and is eaten by scavengers. Mammoths are an exception because they lived in extremely cold environments, unlike reptiles.
Schweitzer’s idea is that iron generated free hydroxyl (.OH) radicals (called the Fenton Reaction ) causing preservation of the proteins. But free radicals are far more likely to help degrade proteins and other organic matter. Indeed, the reaction is used to destroy organic compounds. It also requires that the hydroxyl radicals are transported by water. However, water would have caused hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, and very fast deamidation of the amino acids residues asparagine and glutamine. Aspartyl residues should also have isomerized to isoaspartyl residue if exposed to water. Tyrosine, methionine and histidine would have been oxidized under Schweitzer’s proposed conditions. But the dino proteins show that these unstable residues are still present:
Yes exactly, I do mean in the fossil record. Just like the mammoths are in the fossil record; bones, meat, hair, DNA and all. So where are the dinosaur fossils; bones, meat, feathers, scales, DNA and all? The scale of this inconsistency is simply immense - there are hundreds of thousands of permineralized dinosaur skeletal remains on catalog, found all over the planet, and not so much as one, solitary, carcass to be found.
And about those tar traps, with all the megafauna. No plump dinosaurs there either. Did they not hang around long enough to be carved into Cambodian temples and feature in native american petroglyphs?