Creationist scholar receives big settlement

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 5, 2016

Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Legal}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Fired after discovering soft dino tissue.

From Jennifer Kabbany at College Fix:

A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings.

…

Armitage, who has some 30 publications to his credit and is past-president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy, was hired by the university in early 2010 to manage a wide variety of oversight duties for the biology department’s array of state-of-the-art microscopes, court documents state. He also trained students on how to use the complicated equipment.

In the summer of 2012, while at the world-famous dinosaur dig at Hell Creek Formation in Montana, Armitage discovered the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site — complete with soft fiber and bone tissues that were stretchy.

He published his findings, first in the November 2012 issue of American Laboratory magazine, which published images of the soft tissue on its cover, and then online in February 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Histochemica, according to court documents.

The lawsuit contends that’s why Armitage’s employment at Cal State Northridge was terminated, with one professor allegedly storming into his office and shouting: “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” More.

It seems that Armitage’s religion had come up with some evidence the U didn’t want to have to face, let alone rebut. Perhaps he can use the money wisely.

But science today is under pressure at the highest levels to turn away from evidence-based reasoning and falsifiability. When all you do is work for the Man, all you need to do is fill in the paperwork, right?

More from College Fix.

See also: Nature’s sneery summary of creationist fossil hunter Mark Armitage’s wrongful dismissal suit against California State U

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Triceratops: The star of the show (kind of goofy but maybe accurate)

Comments

Querius, yup. That's pretty much it. It's been a while since I had a discussion with such a disingenuous slimy breed of Atheists.Vy_{October 12, 2016
October
10
Oct
12
12
2016
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

Vy, You mean the words.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
Obviously to master over the words conveys enormous power in any conversation, verbal or written! ;-) However despite all this power, it seems that goodusername has conceded the argument. -QQuerius_{October 11, 2016
October
10
Oct
11
11
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

You might start by actually reading Vy’s posts.
I'm starting to understand him. You need a bit of clairvoyance because you might just misinterpret what the little details in his posts mean to him.Vy_{October 11, 2016
October
10
Oct
11
11
2016
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

As to the presumed current lack of evidence for the existence of dino nucleotides, that's because it's treated like the rest of Darwinian pseudoscience - "if it doesn't fit our assumptions, dump it". Here:
To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been contaminated. That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know when they're on the right track, given that there are no living dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.4
This image makes the self-affirming Darwinian reasoning clearer. So if it doesn't fit the myth that birds are relatives of dinos and that they have some relation to crocs, goodbye DNA sample. This reminds me of your response to my request on giving me a list to support your claim that earlier dino DNA research showed most were contamination.
In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique. These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).
So what we have here is: - you claiming the existence of dino soft tissue isn't really a problem because some mammoth fossils are BBQable despite the fact that we find mammoths fossils older, as old as and younger than said BBQable mammoths making such a link absolutely nonsensical. - you being unable to substantially support your claim that Darwinists were justified in outright denial of the validity of Schweitzer's soft tissue discovery on the basis of your terribly unsupported claim that many, MANY of the previous discoveries turned out to be contamination. - you claiming that the list and links I provided to support my claim that Darwinists denied the existence of dino DNA by grasping onto crap experiments and the logical deduction that soft tissue and DNA can't last that long is a invalid because of failed links and a weird interpretation of the word "denier". - you claiming I claimed that insistence on the existence of non-dino DNA is unnecessary because you believe they exist and that "I was talking about dinos! diNOS! DINOS!!!" Hmm... In case you haven't noticed, you haven't answered this:
Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.
Oh wait, I'm misinterpreting the fact that your dogmatic insistence on "I was talking about dinos! diNOS! DINOS!!!" isn't because you feel a sense of confidence in being able to explain the existence of fossil DNA, right?Vy_{October 11, 2016
October
10
Oct
11
11
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

I don’t think it is very testable. So your belief that amino acids can survive billions of years is based on...blind faith? Got it.
That’s why I don’t really put much stock in such studies that try to determine what will happen to tissue or molecules after millions or billions of years.
So you're bringing up tissues but I was talking about amino acids.
(Heaven only knows where you got the “500 million Darwin years” from).
You do realize there have been experiments on how long amino acids can last, right? The only thing that would keep amino acids around for more than a few million Darwin years is a perfect not-too-hot, not-too-cold, not-too-wet, not-too-disturbed...essentially, naturalistically impossible Goldilocks environment.
I only mentioned the study in case you were under the impression that amino acids are believed to last no longer than proteins.
Is it that you don't realize you've not supported this assertion?
I mentioned the amino acids because they seemed, by far, the most interesting thing mentioned in the article. Was it something else you found interesting?
While I could post shiny graphics highlighting how they used more than mere "amino acids" to compare them to modern microbes, I realize it'll be a waste of time. There's hardly any getting behind that selective blindness system.
I seem to recall addressing this. And yes, it’s… so… very… strange… that the third paragraph in #11 was only about dinosaurs. I’m starting to think you’re trolling.
Oh no, I'm trying to understand where you got the idea that because you posted "dino", I and anyone discussing fossil DNA with you has to refer to "dino" when the very fact that it being dino is as significant as it being "giant Jurassic mammal/worm thingy". It's like you complaining about me bringing up U-Th dating and its relation to C14 if we were in a discussion about C14 dating. I'd also like you to point exactly where I said "goodusername, so you don't believe fossil DNA has been discovered"
No.
smh
Yes.
So it's like the list then. Got it.Vy_{October 11, 2016
October
10
Oct
11
11
2016
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

goodusername,
So you’re assuming that the other times I included the w (including the post you responded to) were all typos?
No, it was an experiment. Reasonable people wouldn't try to defend their spelling errors and typos.
That’s ok, I’ve been doing enough troll-feeding this thread and I’m worried that they might start handing out fines.
Substantive information, in contrast to vacuous assertions and rhetoric, do not constitute trolling or baiting. A crucial point in evaluating the significance of purportedly ancient tissue and erythrocytes involves the question of their ability to survive background radiation. This is why Mary Schweitzer bothered to conduct experiments with ostrich bones. However, it seems like you're unable or unwilling to distinguish between the effects of ionizing radiation and convection heating on tissue, employing vast numbers of hapless ASCII characters in a hopeless defense against Vy, who actually knows what he's talking about. So, do you want to give it a try or concede the argument? -QQuerius_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Querius,
Oh you mean like you did in @41?
So you're assuming that the other times I included the w (including the post you responded to) were all typos?
You’re welcome, but are you sure that you don’t even want to take a wild guess at the difference in effects on tissue between ionizing radiation and convection heating? After all, it’s pretty fundamental to what you’re arguing against.
That's ok, I've been doing enough troll-feeding this thread and I'm worried that they might start handing out fines.goodusername_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

goodusername,
Objections to what?
You might start by actually reading Vy’s posts.
I know her name has a w. That’s why I put a w in her name.
Oh you mean like you did in @41?
That’s ok. The spelling lesson was enough for one day.
You’re welcome, but are you sure that you don’t even want to take a wild guess at the difference in effects on tissue between ionizing radiation and convection heating? After all, it’s pretty fundamental to what you’re arguing against. -QQuerius_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Vy,
So still no answer to “This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how”? Got it.
I don't think it is very testable. That's why I don't really put much stock in such studies that try to determine what will happen to tissue or molecules after millions or billions of years. (Heaven only knows where you got the "500 million Darwin years" from). I only mentioned the study in case you were under the impression that amino acids are believed to last no longer than proteins.
I went back to the article I linked and realized how presumptious “In other words, I think they found amino acids” was.
I mentioned the amino acids because they seemed, by far, the most interesting thing mentioned in the article. Was it something else you found interesting?
How is this an answer to my questions? You ask where I got the idea that you believe you don’t believe in the existence of other fossil DNA from your comments so try and focus on the questions and not attempting to dance around them. Here they are again:
Let's see the list of things I haven't addressed...
When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK.
I seem to recall addressing this. And yes, it's... so... very... strange... that the third paragraph in #11 was only about dinosaurs. I'm starting to think you're trolling.
Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with “dino” as a search term?
No.
Did you even read through the article in #13?
Yes.
Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking “Look, we haven’t found dino DNA just stuff ‘consistent with DNA-like stuff’ so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn’t done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn’t help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA”? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.
This pretty much confirms the trolling. (At least I hope that's what's happening.)goodusername_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

?? No, as I’ve stated, I believe they have found evidence that dna is present in dino fossils, and although they haven’t been able to do any sequencing, I believe that they will.
OK. Is that the only part you were able to see during the lapse in your selective blindness system? :/Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

And you accuse me of lacking reading skills?
Absolutely, you're yet to show evidence to the contrary. I will admit that I may have misjudged the context of the "I don't know" quote though reading through both articles makes me think its existence in the fossil DNA/soft tissue page was to give him the benefit of the doubt on his outright denial of dino soft tissue.Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Ah, you’re referring to this post: ... Let’s see, the first paragraph is about sequencing dna of… dinosaurs. The second paragraph is about dna of… dinosaurs. The fourth paragraph is again about… dinosaurs. What’s the third paragraph about? Hmm, the third paragraph doesn’t explicitly say dinosaurs, but does have an “And” to indicate I’m adding to a previous thought – perhaps adding to the previous sentence about dino dna? – and has “soft tissue” in quotes – what famous soft tissue is out there? So from where are the “bits of protein” that I’m talking about (bearing in mind the subject of the OP, and that I mention “microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils” in the very next sentence)? I know! I must be making the hilariously ludicrous claim that we’ve never found dna in any fossil of any kind, something routinely done – yeah, that makes much more sense than… dinosaurs. Yes, dinosaurs would be so very strange.
Boy, I couldn't have said it any better than this:
*facepalm*
How is this an answer to my questions? You ask where I got the idea that you believe you don't believe in the existence of other fossil DNA from your comments so try and focus on the questions and not attempting to dance around them. Here they are again:
When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK. Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with “dino” as a search term? OK. Did you even read through the article in #13? Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking “Look, we haven’t found dino DNA just stuff ‘consistent with DNA-like stuff’ so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn’t done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn’t help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA”? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.
Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

??
So still no answer to "This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how”? Got it. I went back to the article I linked and realized how presumptious "In other words, I think they found amino acids" was.
Taking advantage of the unique capabilities of STXM-based XANES spectroscopy at the carbon and nitrogen K edges to perform in situ experiments at the submicrometre scale, the present study shows that, in addition to the fine-scale morphologies, the molecular biosignatures of some Gunflint organic microfossils have been exceptionally preserved. In fact, despite the 1.88-Gyr-long geological history that they experienced, Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils exhibit C- and N-XANES spectra sharing strong similarities to those of modern cyanobacteria and modern micro-algae. Despite a higher content of aromatic compounds compared to modern microorganisms, these microfossils exhibit a quite high content of oxygen-based functional groups (carbonyl, phenolic, carboxylic and hydroxyl groups). In addition, these microfossils still contain amide functional groups (absorption feature at 288.2?eV), which were likely to be involved in the proteinaceous compounds synthetized by the once living organisms15,52,53. Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils exhibit quite high N/C values. These values may be secondary, that is, may result from diagenetic processes. In fact, inorganic nitrogen in fluids can be incorporated within kerogen molecular structures during diagenesis at temperatures as low as 100?°C57. Yet, although higher than those of modern micro-algae, the N/C of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils are comparable to those of modern cyanobacteria. It thus can be assumed that the Gunflint organic microfossils initially exhibited high N/C values as do modern cyanobacteria and some modern marine microorganisms showing N/C as high as 0.25–0.30 (refs 58, 59). The high N/C of Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach organic microfossils may thus result from their exceptional preservation. The molecular signatures of Triple Junction, Mink Mountain and Discovery Point organic microfossils have not been that well preserved. In fact, the Raman and XANES data reported here show that these organic microfossils are more ‘mature’ than the ones from Kakabeka Falls and Schreiber Beach, that is, they exhibit a higher aromaticity and contain less sulfur-, nitrogen- and oxygen-rich moieties49,50. In particular, these organic microfossils do not seem to contain amide, hydroxyl nor carbonyl functional groups. One explanation could be that the organic microfossils investigated here were initially chemically different and/or experienced variable decay60. In other words, they may have been originally composed of different organics, which may have followed different reaction pathways during diagenesis. Yet, morphologies, bulk mineralogy and silicon isotopic compositions suggest comparable depositional and burial histories. Another possibility would be that they have experienced different oxidation conditions: oxic conditions have been shown to be detrimental to the preservation of biosignatures14 and the association of Kakabeka Falls, Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils with nitrates and iron oxides suggests that oxygenated fluids have circulated27. Yet, Schreiber Beach and Kakabeka Falls organic microfossils exhibit very similar molecular signatures, even though only the latter are associated with nitrates. ... As the differences reported here are very similar to those resulting from thermal maturation49,50, the simplest explanation remains that they result from the different burial temperature conditions experienced by the organic microfossils investigated. Interestingly, with increasing maturity, a shift from 285.1 to 284.9?eV is observed for the aromatic/olefinic peak whereas the phenolic/carbonyl peak shifts from 286.7 to 286.4?eV. These shifts may result from the incorporation of heteroatoms in newly condensed aromatic units and from condensation reactions between amino acids and phenolic groups, respectively49,50. In any case, the present contribution demonstrates that a slight increase of diagenetic temperatures may be responsible for the significant degradation of fossilized molecular signatures. Regardless of their high N/C, to which inorganic nitrogen may contribute, the molecular signature of Discovery Point organic microfossils appears less pristine, that is, more degraded, than those of Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils (Figs 8 and 9), even though they experienced similar diagenetic temperatures (that is, 210–230?°C; Fig. 4). The possibility that Discovery Point organic microfossils were initially different from the other investigated Gunflint cherts cannot be entirely ruled out, even though nothing supports it (see above). In contrast, as illustrated by the similar XANES signatures of modern micro-algae (E. gracilis) and modern cyanobacteria (G. violaceus), prokaryotes such as the ones fossilized within the investigated Gunflint cherts probably originally exhibited very similar XANES signatures. The presence of nitrates might explain the better preservation of Triple Junction organic microfossils compared with those of Discovery Point. Yet, Kakabeka Falls and Triple Junction organic microfossils are also associated with nitrates but exhibit C-XANES spectra very similar to the nitrate-free Schreiber Beach and Mink Mountain organic microfossils, respectively (Figs 8 and 9). The postdepositional circulation of oxygenated fluids, which led to the precipitation of iron oxides27, may have also been responsible for the molecular degradation of organic microfossils. Yet, Triple Junction and Mink Mountain organic microfossils exhibit very similar C-XANES spectra (Fig. 6), even though only the latter are associated with iron oxides. Thus, the degree of molecular preservation of Gunflint organic microfossils is not correlated to the presence of nitrates and iron oxides. Alternatively and more probably, the higher maturity of Discovery Point organic microfossils could be related to the nanoscale association between organics and carbonates revealed by TEM, Raman and XANES analyses (Figs 3, 4 and 6). Among the Gunflint organic microfossils investigated, only the ones from Discovery Point exhibit such nanoscale association. It has previously been reported that the presence of calcium carbonates during high-temperature organic maturation processes may favour the formation of turbostratic (graphitic) carbons37,61, through the formation of calcium hydroxide and calcium carbide, especially under nitrogen-rich atmosphere62,63. This reaction pathway has been observed at high temperature; thus, such a scenario remains highly speculative in the present case. In any case, although dedicated and thorough experimental investigations appear required, the present study illustrates the potential impact of mineral phases on the preservation/degradation of fossilized molecular signatures. Altogether, the present contribution shows that the molecular signatures of the organic microfossils from the 1.88-Ga Gunflint cherts have been preserved, although they experienced temperatures of about 150–170?°C. Such preservation can be qualified as exceptional, as amide groups derived from protein compounds can still be detected. Amide groups are indeed generally lost during the very first stages of burial, either consumed by heterotroph organisms or thermally degraded at low temperature (<< 100?°C)64. ...
Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Vy,
So giving him credited for being humble enough to say he didn’t know about dino soft tissue is unrelated to his initial claims and denial of soft tissue on the basis of a baseless experiment? Bravo!
And you accuse me of lacking reading skills? Here’s the paragraph: “PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, "I don't know," which in itself does not prove that he is wrong nor that I am right, but it is pretty funny that the simplest of anatomy designs could stump one of the world's leading Darwinists.” I’ll grant that the website is very poorly written, and so there is ambiguity as to what he was responding to, but If you click the link to the “RSR Trochlea Challenge” they give there (one of the ones that actually works!) you’ll see what he said “I don’t know” to: “PZ Responds to Our Trochlea Challenge: "...Enyart has challenged me to explain how this feature evolved. I have an answer. It’s easy. I don’t know. I don’t see any obvious obstacle to an arrangement of muscles evolving, but I don’t know the details of this particular set." Bravo!
When you made this comment, “And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of proteinthat last much longer than dna.”, you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK.
Ah, you’re referring to this post: “I remember in the 1980s some scientists speculating that with new technology that was coming out that we may soon be able to find and sequence dino dna from fossils. This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park in 1990. Decades later we’re still waiting for a single dino nucleotide. And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.” Let’s see, the first paragraph is about sequencing dna of... dinosaurs. The second paragraph is about dna of... dinosaurs. The fourth paragraph is again about... dinosaurs. What’s the third paragraph about? Hmm, the third paragraph doesn’t explicitly say dinosaurs, but does have an “And” to indicate I’m adding to a previous thought - perhaps adding to the previous sentence about dino dna? - and has “soft tissue” in quotes – what famous soft tissue is out there? So from where are the “bits of protein” that I'm talking about (bearing in mind the subject of the OP, and that I mention “microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils” in the very next sentence)? I know! I must be making the hilariously ludicrous claim that we’ve never found dna in any fossil of any kind, something routinely done – yeah, that makes much more sense than... dinosaurs. Yes, dinosaurs would be so very strange. *facepalm*
You claim you believe we’ve found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA.
?? No, as I've stated, I believe they have found evidence that dna is present in dino fossils, and although they haven't been able to do any sequencing, I believe that they will.
You seem to think amino acids can survive on Earth past at best, 500 million Darwin years
??goodusername_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

This is your answer to my question of what led you to believe that I believed that we’ve never retrieved dna from any fossils of any kind?
Interesting. When you made this comment, "And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna.", you were ONLY referring to the special DNA contained in dinos, right? Strange but OK. Now, when you read through my response to that in #13, you thought I posted it for you to Ctrl/CMD + F through it with "dino" as a search term? OK. Did you even read through the article in #13? Again with that your comment, when you posted it, where you thinking "Look, we haven't found dino DNA just stuff 'consistent with DNA-like stuff' so we Darwinists have no need to provide evidence that DNA can survive up to 65 million years and the research on how long DNA can survive wasn't done on dino DNA which is special but on normal DNA so when you bring up such research it doesn't help to bring up other discoveries of DNA older, just as old or younger than our nonexistent special dino DNA"? That brings us to the question, does dino DNA exist in a vacuum? You claim you believe we've found non-dino DNA and seem to have no problem with it, just a problem with dino DNA. Please tell me the special properties of dino DNA that would make its existence less/more problematic than the existence of other DNA.
So you CAN read. Notice it’s about how long DNA can last? And?
What were you responding to in #11. X & Y: We walked across the street. You: You raced across the skies screaming loudly. X & Y: ? Here's an audio recording of us on our journey. Here's an article showing it's impossible for humans to do such. .. .. .. .. .. .. You: What? Whatever gave you the idea that I didn't believe humans don't race across the skies? I was referring to you not humans. X & Y: What?"Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Fascinating how you say that about the amino acids tests but not the dna tests.
This is your answer to "This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how"? You seem to think amino acids can survive on Earth past at best, 500 million Darwin years, so there's something substantial and testable you're obviously seeing in the article. While it'd be nice to point out how flawed such an idea is, I realize I'm discussing with someone who'd read "We were walking on the street" and translate it "We raced across the skies screaming loudly".Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

For crying out loud. Yes, try and read… it’s exactly as I described – no quotes
Really? What you said is consistent with ...
P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn…..r-morsels/
... a link to an article where he claims contamination is a better explanation (which if I'm reading it right is a claim based on Kaye's baseless experiment) ...
It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited.
... with this in the article I linked to ...
PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, “I don’t know,”
---
But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-)
*facepalm*
other than an “I don’t know” that is completely unrelated to dino tissue.
So giving him credited for being humble enough to say he didn't know about dino soft tissue is unrelated to his initial claims and denial of soft tissue on the basis of a baseless experiment? Bravo!
We see claims about what’s at his website but no quotes. So guess what?? I actually went to his blog and posted what I found.
You may have to his to house and had a genuine heart to heart for all I care but that doesn't change the fact that your claims were outright false.
The rest of the article makes more claims (no quotes) with links that are dead or don’t back their claims.
Awwww! Sorry but we have better things to do that catalogue the websites with Darwinists shooting themselves in the foot at the waybackmachine. You've managed to ignore everything before PZ Myers and pretty much everything after the 's' in the name as it appeared in the article.
Why on earth did you think posting it again would help?
Like I said before, based on your responses we're talking about two different lists.Vy_{October 10, 2016
October
10
Oct
10
10
2016
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Querius,
Seems like Vy has slam-dunked your objections.
Objections to what?
Yes, a lot of people do understand the significance. That’s why there was such push-back on Mary Schweitzer’s discovery (her name includes a w, by the way) as Vy has so aptly demonstrated to you.
I know her name has a w. That's why I put a w in her name.
I can help you. Let’s start with the question you haven’t answered:
That's ok. The spelling lesson was enough for one day.goodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Vy,
You’ve been dancing around the fact of the impossibility of soft tissue and fossil DNA surving past a few million years with crap about mammoths and appeals of future discoveries and you ask this?
This is your answer to my question of what led you to believe that I believed that we’ve never retrieved dna from any fossils of any kind?
So you CAN read. Notice it’s about how long DNA can last?
And?
Try and read:
For crying out loud. Yes, try and read… it’s exactly as I described – no quotes, other than an “I don’t know” that is completely unrelated to dino tissue. We see claims about what’s at his website but no quotes. So guess what?? I actually went to his blog and posted what I found. The rest of the article makes more claims (no quotes) with links that are dead or don’t back their claims. Why on earth did you think posting it again would help?
This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how?
Fascinating how you say that about the amino acids tests but not the dna tests.goodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

goodusername, Seems like Vy has slam-dunked your objections.
I don’t understand the significance. Not even close. But then, does anyone else? Experts were all over the map prior to such discoveries as to whether such findings were possible or not, and almost all of them now accept the findings. Do they understand the significance?
Yes, a lot of people do understand the significance. That's why there was such push-back on Mary Schweitzer's discovery (her name includes a w, by the way) as Vy has so aptly demonstrated to you. I can help you. Let's start with the question you haven't answered: Ok, how about just a sentence or two describing the difference between the effects of ionizing radiation on tissue as compared to convection heating? -QQuerius_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

You said
I quoted an article with them saying very clearly it was impossible so your "response" was utterly irrelevant even more so by the fact the article I quoted preceeded your "popular" experiment and the fact that said experiment was baseless and has been absolutely refuted.
What on earth did I say that led you believe that I making the absolutely ludicrous claim that we’ve never retrieved dna from fossils of any kind?! Such work is routine now and probably done, literally everyday, and has been done for decades.
You've been dancing around the fact of the impossibility of soft tissue and fossil DNA surving past a few million years with crap about mammoths and appeals to future discoveries and you ask this?
What, pray tell, was “And oh, it IS DNA” in #12 a reply to if not my claim about dinosaur nucleotides – in the very previous post – and the only time I mentioned such a thing until that point? #13 says “Some more even in stuff older than dinos.”
While I can requote my posts for the umpteenth time highlighting the parts you seem to be blind to, I have better things to do.
#16 isn’t you
So you CAN read. Notice it's about how long DNA can last?
so maybe you mean #17, except there’s nothing about dna there.
*facepalm*
... ? ... ? ... ?
???
What did I miss about Myers? They give no quotes of him talking about dino soft tissue, and most of the trail of links were dead. At the links that did work I didn’t see anything by him denying that dino soft tissue had been found. So I did my own search to see what he said on the issue.
Try and read:
PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, "I don't know," which in itself does not prove that he is wrong nor that I am right, but it is pretty funny that the simplest of anatomy designs could stump one of the world's leading Darwinists. PZ, being severely out-of-date on what is the greatest paleobiology discovery yet, as late as November 2011 doubted the existence of dinosaur soft tissue by critically writing about "Will's rants here" regarding dinosaur soft tissue for which Myers linked to his long out-dated report of "a good alternative explanation: this is an example of bacterial contamination producing a biofilm." (Update: As late as August 2013, still in denial, PZ continues to irresponsibly suggest the falsified biofilm hypothesis.) If PZ weren't a soft tissue denier (or doubter) he would have instead indicated that the biofilm interpretation against actual primary tissue had been repeatedly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. Like LoR's AronRa, Myers didn't mention all the confirming studies, and he preferred to keep telling the story, although contrary to the latest science, that is far more comfortable to Darwinists. (And regarding Carbon 14 PZ Myers, like so many evolutionists have, went on to mock Will and me for our $23,000 grant offer to Jack Horner to carbon date his dinosaur fossil, which PZ says, "makes no sense at all," even though peer-reviewed studies are now carbon dating dinosaur soft-tissue fossils.)
Perhaps I need crayons.
Just as you cherrypicked the list –
Er, nope that's clearly you.
although by then there isn’t much of a list left.
Kneejerk?
I agree. Just in case it isn’t clear (as I’m not sure what if anything is at this point) I agree that dino soft tissue has been found.
But for some reason you keep claiming this unrelated and refuted link is a response to a comment based on an article that preceeded said link. Sheesh!
The site explains that. Earth has an atmosphere that protects the amino acids from galactic radiation.
This and their claim about amino acids surving a billion Darwin years on Mars is testable how?Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Querius, In that case let me just save you the trouble and say: I don’t understand the significance. Not even close. But then, does anyone else? Experts were all over the map prior to such discoveries as to whether such findings were possible or not, and almost all of them now accept the findings. Do they understand the significance? Would you say that Schweitzer understands the significance? How about the ID proponents here (most of whom I think are old earthers)?goodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Vy,
What? Are you sure you’re replying to my posts?
You said: “Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because “previous experiments” found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop.” So I quoted the very Darwinist that did the most famous experiment claiming that the dino tissue was contamination and asked if he sounded like your characterization. So yeah, it was a response to your post.
You got that from comments #12, #13, #16 and a whole lot of others with links to fossil DNA and soft tissue? Really?
What on earth did I say that led you believe that I making the absolutely ludicrous claim that we’ve never retrieved dna from fossils of any kind?! Such work is routine now and probably done, literally everyday, and has been done for decades. What, pray tell, was “And oh, it IS DNA” in #12 a reply to if not my claim about dinosaur nucleotides - in the very previous post - and the only time I mentioned such a thing until that point? #13 says “Some more even in stuff older than dinos.” #16 isn’t you, so maybe you mean #17, except there’s nothing about dna there.
I didn’t realize fossil dino DNA existed in a vacuum.
?
Um nope, we (excluding probably you) have been talking about fossil DNA and tissue, dino or otherwise. See comments #9 and #16.
I have been clear about what *I’m* talking about. When I wrote that “we’re still waiting for a single dino nucleotide.” That meant dinosaur nucleotides. Not algae that are a fraction of the age of dinosaurs.
I don’t remember mammoths being dinos.
?
You don’t say? Perhaps this ought to have been enough to point that out:
?
So you’re selectively blind and an adorable cherry picker. Great! When you get to reading the part about PZ Myers (that involves more than just glancing and seeing his name “PZ Myers” btw) then you have an argument.
What did I miss about Myers? They give no quotes of him talking about dino soft tissue, and most of the trail of links were dead. At the links that did work I didn’t see anything by him denying that dino soft tissue had been found. So I did my own search to see what he said on the issue.
Based on your response to terribly cherrypicked portions of it, I’m not sure the list I posted is the one you read.
Just as you cherrypicked the list – although by then there isn’t much of a list left. The [Ir]rationwiki site is rather indefensible though: Get on the ball guys!
As for your link to Kaye’s incredulity, read this and pretty much every paper on soft tissue which clearly debunk his claims.
I agree. Just in case it isn't clear (as I'm not sure what if anything is at this point) I agree that dino soft tissue has been found.
Why do you think it would, assuming the billion Darwin years were not imaginary, last longer?
The site explains that. Earth has an atmosphere that protects the amino acids from galactic radiation.goodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Should amino acids last that long?
Good question.
I remember a study saying that amino acid remains of life on Mars should last “only” a billion years because of the lack of an atmosphere that would block galactic radiation.
And how does a pretty much untestable study on an imaginary billion year old past of another planet help?
How much longer would they last on Earth? I couldn’t find that study again, but I did find this that mentions the study: http://www.space.com/32962-ali.....ation.html
Why do you think it would, assuming the billion Darwin years were not imaginary, last longer?Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

As for your link to Kaye's incredulity, read this and pretty much every paper on soft tissue which clearly debunk his claims. "Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues" from a Darwinist is not even a teeny tiny bit convincing. I see Kaye based his argument on C14 dating, so again, did you miss this from comment #25:
I do know what’s not possible though, carbon 14. But alas, it’s in almost all of them. “It’s contamination, stuff stuff ..”, right?
Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

The first quote on the page: “Switek wrote, “The supposed dinosaur leftovers may be microfossils created by bacterial biofilms…”. That’s the sort of thing that gets someone on this list as a “Denier”?
Hmm, I'm beginning to realize I wasn't wrong in thinking you're selectively blind.
P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....r-morsels/ It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited. But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-)
So you're selectively blind and an adorable cherry picker. Great! When you get to reading the part about PZ Myers (that involves more than just glancing and seeing his name "PZ Myers" btw) then you have an argument.
From the list it sounds like all one has to do is express any skepticism at any time for any reason to be a “DENIER”! I guess such folks have to be on the list or it’d be too short to even bother having a list.
Wow! I must have imagined this:
Nigel Deplege, commented at Discover Magazine's site against a challenge by Bob Enyart, posted Sept. 1, 2011. Published evolutionist Deplege wrote, "...soft dinosaur tissue has never been discovered or reported. What you perhaps refer to is the discovery of fossilised impression of soft tissue structures." If Nigel (or any of these evolutionists listed) contacts Real Science Radio admitting error, we will post his admission here.
Or this:
YEC's continued claim there was "soft" tissue found, represents a failure to even read the peer reviewed papers. No organic material was ever found. The material that was found was calcified, which became "soft" after a bath in acid. Learn to read!"
Or the [Ir]rationwiki article that despite being updated numerous times continues to make the same dumb claim. Some great logic you got there.
I didn’t claim that there weren’t deniers, just that they were a minority

Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that? Even if there are such folks they’re a pretty small minority.
---
(and the list hardly changes my mind about that)
Based on your response to terribly cherrypicked portions of it, I'm not sure the list I posted is the one you read.Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

This has a section that lists many of the problems from reports of retrieved ancient DNA in the 1990s due to contanimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
Er, nope. I don't need a Wiki (???) article on probablymaybeshouldabe ancient DNA contamination stories. Read:
Please provide such a list for “many of the claims turned out to be contamination”.
---
Scheitzer and I are surprised to hear that we aren’t Darwinists. ????
*facepalm*
Here’s an article about the scientist, Thomas Kaye, that made the most famous claim about dino soft tissue being biofilm contamination: http://phys.org/news/2008-07-n.....rvive.html “Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in the previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.”
What? Are you sure you're replying to my posts?
Do you still agree with your characterization?
Absolutely.
I’m not sure why you posted this. My claim was that we haven’t found a “single dino nucleotide”. You responded with “And oh, it IS DNA.” To which I responded “but so far (AFAIK) haven’t been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing.”
Wow! You got that from comments #12, #13, #16 and a whole lot of others with links to fossil DNA and soft tissue? Really? I didn't realize fossil dino DNA existed in a vacuum.
So we were talking about dinosaurs, not 1.4m year old algae dna.
Um nope, we (excluding probably you) have been talking about fossil DNA and tissue, dino or otherwise. See comments #9 and #16. I don't remember mammoths being dinos.
Cool find, but if I’m reading the article right, they didn’t find soft tissue, but rather “molecular signatures of some organic microfossils” and “amide groups likely derived from protein compounds”. In other words, I think they found amino acids.
You don't say? Perhaps this ought to have been enough to point that out:
Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.
How about TWO BILLION Darwin years?
Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Vy,
OK, you’ve made this claim quite a few times. Time to put up or shut up.
This has a section that lists many of the problems from reports of retrieved ancient DNA in the 1990s due to contanimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
Really? Did you miss this:
No, as I’ve said, that many believed we wouldn’t find any soft tissue while others believed we’d be sequencing dino DNA long by now shows how little we know about tissue preservation.
Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because “previous experiments” found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop.
Scheitzer and I are surprised to hear that we aren’t Darwinists. ;-) Here’s an article about the scientist, Thomas Kaye, that made the most famous claim about dino soft tissue being biofilm contamination: http://phys.org/news/2008-07-notion-dinosaur-soft-tissues-survive.html “Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in the previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.” Do you still agree with your characterization?
Here’s an extensive list of soft tissue deniers in the past and present.
The first quote on the page: “Switek wrote, "The supposed dinosaur leftovers may be microfossils created by bacterial biofilms...". That’s the sort of thing that gets someone on this list as a “Denier”? P. Z. Myers is also somehow on the list. Here he reposts his reaction to the 2005 report of dino soft tissue: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/30/tyrannosaur-morsels/ It looks like he was perfectly willing to accept it and was rather excited. But the same site also shows that when the 2008 report came out he was persuaded that the biofilm was a “good alternative explanation”. Well, I guess that makes him an “outright denier”! :-) From the list it sounds like all one has to do is express any skepticism at any time for any reason to be a "DENIER"! I guess such folks have to be on the list or it’d be too short to even bother having a list. I didn’t claim that there weren’t deniers, just that they were a minority (and the list hardly changes my mind about that) and weren’t representative of Darwinism then (and especially now as you acknowledge).
As for your assertion that we’ve only been able to find “material consistent with DNA”, good luck with the denial.
I’m not sure why you posted this. My claim was that we haven’t found a “single dino nucleotide”. You responded with “And oh, it IS DNA.” To which I responded “but so far (AFAIK) haven’t been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing.” So we were talking about dinosaurs, not 1.4m year old algae dna. But I guess that still makes me an “outright denier.” :-) For the record I believe that dino nucleotides will eventually be found. Although I’m starting to think that they might have to use more frog dna than originally anticipated.
How about TWO BILLION Darwin years?
Cool find, but if I’m reading the article right, they didn’t find soft tissue, but rather “molecular signatures of some organic microfossils” and “amide groups likely derived from protein compounds”. In other words, I think they found amino acids. Should amino acids last that long? I remember a study saying that amino acid remains of life on Mars should last “only” a billion years because of the lack of an atmosphere that would block galactic radiation. How much longer would they last on Earth? I couldn’t find that study again, but I did find this that mentions the study: http://www.space.com/32962-alien-fossils-mars-europa-radiation.html The link above did update to say that - in the soil near the surface - most are destroyed in only 20 million years. But again, that’s because of Martian conditions.goodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

goodusername,
For one the former [background radiation] causes ionization. Don’t really have the time so if you want more I’ll give you a website.
Ok, how about just a sentence or two describing the difference between the effects of ionizing radiation on tissue as compared to convection heating? Just wanted to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you actually understand the profound significance of finding soft, pliable tissue that’s purportedly 65 million years old or more in some cases. -QQuerius_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.
How about TWO BILLION Darwin years? And no: - not "deep inside the bones" - not "at an ideal preservation temperature of 5 ºC" ;)Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply