YEC Predictions on Dino Soft Tissue?

[Chris_Falter]

Actually, hadrosaurs had feathers.

Now let’s think for a second: Is it possible for an animal with feathers to live in a very cold climate?

Penguins might help us answer the question.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@PDPrice

The claim has been addressed.

@PDPrice

This sentence is wrong:

The idea that fossil material could have remained entirely flexible and original for 551 million years is laughable. [![Tweet: The idea that fossil material could have remained entirely flexible and original for 551 million years is laughable."

The soft tissues are not ORIGINAL; they have bonded with heme molecules in a configuration like formaldehyde.

Would you put a pound of formaldehyde-soaked hamburger from 1865 into your frying pan and eat it?

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

The claim has been addressed. If you choose not to acknowledge it because it wasn’t published in one of your preferred places, that’s entirely on you. The truth is the truth regardless of whether a team of evolutionists agrees to sign off on it. Here’s a bit more detail from Dr Brian Thomas on this paper you cited

Where did Dr. Brian Thomas demonstrate it was impossible for trace amounts of original collagen to be preserved in fossils over 6000 years old? Pleases supply a reference to such published research. Thanks!

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Chris_Falter

Actually, hadrosaurs had feathers.

I don’t accept that claim but that’s a whole other debate and is off topic. The point is, YEC scientists would not expect to find frozen dinosaurs in the same way that we find frozen mammoths.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@PDPrice

I don’t accept that claim but that’s a whole other debate and is off topic. The point is, YEC scientists would not expect to find frozen dinosaurs in the same way that we find frozen mammoths.

@PDPrice

For your statement to be valid, you have to insist that no mammoths died at the same time as the dinosaurs…

And that it is impossible for any part of the body of science to correctly date the really old exemplars of mammoth flesh.

And so your analysis fails on two counts.

[T.j_Runyon]

@PDPrice

I don’t accept that claim

For hadrosaurs or dinosaurs in general?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

In my opinion, this is an argument that has no traction, because it is truly hypothetical. As others have pointed out, a hypothetical prediction that was never made in reality can never be supported.

I understand the argument - finding soft tissue in bones was certainly a surprise! But this finding does not refute radiometric dating and every other bit of information regarding the age of the earth. It takes more than a shocking find and an Einstein quote to prove the age of the earth (and/or universe) is ~6,000 years old.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@PDPrice

This is my point. Whether some individual happened to record a prediction and get it published is irrelevant. That’s a question of history, not philosophy. The point is, when you look at what YEC would expect to find and compare that with what evolutionists would expect to find, soft tissue in dino bones very clearly fits with YEC and does not fit with evolution

This is still wrong for the reasons I stated here.

[John_Harshman]

@Chris_Falter

Actually, hadrosaurs had feathers.

News to me. Do you know this by phylogenetic bracketing only, or do you know of a feathered hadrosaur fossil? Note that the arctic was probably not cold when hadrosaurs lived there.

[John_Harshman]

@PDPrice

The point is, when you look at what YEC would expect to find and compare that with what evolutionists would expect to find, soft tissue in dino bones very clearly fits with YEC and does not fit with evolution.

Sorry, but that just isn’t true. It’s surprising from YEC perspective too, which is why no YEC predicted it. Further, all the other evidence, which you ignore, tells us that the dinosaurs are old, that sediments were not deposited by a global flood, and so on.

@PDPrice

Actually it takes the global Flood to even explain how we got an Ice Age (shortly afterward) to begin with.

Sorry, again no. You have to ignore all the data showing that there was no global flood, and that ice ages happened at several times in earth history, including what you probably consider to be both before and right in the middle of the flood. Further, a nuclear winter would cause only a brief cold spell, not an ice age.

@PDPrice

I know how science works in practice and I also know how it is supposed to work in theory.

Sorry, but I don’t think you know either of those things. I don’t know your background, but have you ever actually done any science?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@moderators Note:

The pace of this thread is too fast for meaningful contemplation, and also it is hitting on too many topics to get into any of them in depth.

This thread will close tonight, but the conversation is not over. We will start some focused threads, each one will be tightly scoped and have some clear rules. In particular, we will expect more substantive posts from everyone, and to avoid off topics on each of these.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

I know how science works in practice and I also know how it is supposed to work in theory. They are two very different things. In practice people believe what they want to believe.

Have you read any papers of books on the philosophy of science, specifically about the debate over falsificationism’s utility? It’s nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.

Besides, the discovery of “soft tissue” in purportedly ancient fossils would only falsify the ancient timescale if we were 100% sure that such molecules/tissues couldn’t possibly be preserved for such long ages. We certainly do not know that. Our knowledge of preservation mechanisms pales in comparison to our knowledge about the geological history of Earth. It’s far more likely that there is an as-yet unknown mechanism of preservation than all the other data we have indicating long ages being wrong.

[T.j_Runyon]

@John_Harshman

News to me.

There is evidence of some ornithiscians having a downy coat. So it may be an inference

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@evograd

It’s far more likely that there is an as-yet unknown mechanism of preservation than all the other data we have indicating long ages being wrong.

@evograd

And we HAVE identified the method by which these soft tissues have been preserved.

[Chris_Falter]

@John_Harshman Good day to you! My source is an article in the popular literature that refers to hadrosaurs as plumed:

New Answer for Why Hadrosaurs Showed So Much Skin

So far as I can tell, the article is based on peer-reviewed literature. However, I would certainly defer to someone who is deeply steeped in the peer-reviewed lit.

@PDPrice - Good day to you! I am not sure that you read the Biochemist PDF linked in the Portland Press before you cited it yesterday. It estimates that some biochemicals can be detected in fossils up to 117MYA. Moreover, the paper does not consider the longevity of collagen after binding to heme, which is the critical issue.

Best,
Chris

[T.j_Runyon]

@John_Harshman

Note that the arctic was probably not cold when hadrosaurs lived there.

There is some data that suggests some did live in snowy and icy conditions and had to live through long, dark winters.

[John_Harshman]

@Chris_Falter

My source is an article in the popular literature that refers to hadrosaurs as plumed

I’m afraid you have misconstrued your source. It refers to Microraptor, a dromaeosaur, not a hadrosaur, as plumed. It never mentions feathers in connection with any ornithischian.

As @T.j_Runyon has noted, a few ornithischians have been found with hairlike fibers that may be homologous to feathers, and so have some pterosaurs. This suggests that feathers (or hairlike protofeathers) may be ancestral in dinosaurs or even ornithodirans. An inference from that might be that hadrosaurs also had feathers; this is called “phylogenetic bracketing”. But of course it’s also possible that feathers were lost some time in their ancestry too. Phylogenetic bracketing, for example, would suggest that penguins can fly.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@cwhenderson

It takes more than a shocking find and an Einstein quote to prove the age of the earth (and/or universe) is ~6,000 years old.

There is no way to prove the age of anything. All you can do is measure things in the present and make extrapolations. Your extrapolations are only as good as the assumptions you used, but those assumptions can not be tested (otherwise they would not be assumptions).

Since you said “it takes more”, then what exactly does it take? You clearly disagree with what Einstein said about science being subject to falsification.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@evograd

Besides, the discovery of “soft tissue” in purportedly ancient fossils would only falsify the ancient timescale if we were 100% sure that such molecules/tissues couldn’t possibly be preserved for such long ages. We certainly do not know that. Our knowledge of preservation mechanisms pales in comparison to our knowledge about the geological history of Earth. It’s far more likely that there is an as-yet unknown mechanism of preservation than all the other data we have indicating long ages being wrong.

I can take the exact same route to ignoring the results of radiometric dating techniques. After all, we have had the Bible for a lot longer, and we have a lot more reason to trust the Bible than we do these newfangled techniques. Not to mention all the other pieces of evidence that don’t fit the picture, like ocean salt buildup, magnetic field decay, and many others.

The only real question you have to answer is, will you trust what the Bible says happened, or will you ignore it? If we have no reliable testimony then we really have no certain knowledge of anything.