It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers!

page: 2
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by StallionDuck
 


Yes - there is a serious problem with radio carbon dating, and all dating systems that rely on nuclear decay. The problem is the assumption that decay rates are constants - there is a great deal of evidence that they are NOT constant. The evidence is usually swept under the rug because of the huge amount of inconvenience it would cause if they were not constant.

I am no creationist - I am simply looking at evidence - especially the variation in half lives as determined in different parts of the world and at different times. The explanation of experimental error is not a good enough explanation, nuclear decay rates are effected by something that we dont yet understand - and it seems that decay rates were much higher in the past.

I think the earth is far younger than we think, perhaps 1 billion years - perhaps even less.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Amagnon
reply to post by StallionDuck
 


Yes - there is a serious problem with radio carbon dating, and all dating systems that rely on nuclear decay. The problem is the assumption that decay rates are constants - there is a great deal of evidence that they are NOT constant. The evidence is usually swept under the rug because of the huge amount of inconvenience it would cause if they were not constant.


Exactly what evidence is being swept under the rug? What do you think the inconvenience would be? This is physics after all where some of the most preposterous ideas can become mainstream science. The only "inconvenience" I can see would be recalculating dates and having to relearn the new data sets. I'd rather do that though than continue to work under the incorrect pretenses of current understanding if this turned out to be accurate.


I am no creationist - I am simply looking at evidence - especially the variation in half lives as determined in different parts of the world and at different times. The explanation of experimental error is not a good enough explanation, nuclear decay rates are effected by something that we dont yet understand - and it seems that decay rates were much higher in the past.


What evidence is there that decay rates were much higher in the past? I just looked through an abstract from Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins of Purdue University who postulated in 2008 that certain decay “constants” are influenced by the Sun and that there was a correlation with the distance from the Sun to the Earth. They think that in January, when the Earth is closest, the decay rate was faster; in July, when the Earth is farthest, it was slower. However they are unable to describe or show any evidence of a mechanism that could cause this. For their research they used silicon-32 as their corollary for measurement but the modulation was only .1% so they had to switch elements and isotopes to Manganese-54 only to find that the decay seemed to closely follow the usual exponential law. The only alteration in rate of decay they could reasonably claim was due to a solar flare for which they attempted to publish a paper on but it was rejected by Physical Review Letters sue to lack of a mechanism. Eventually they had to switch elements yet again to radium–226 in an attempt to correlate altered decay rates with the solar flare( but still no mechanism described) leading to a more recent paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, the Purdue researchers suggest that the radioactive nuclei are somehow affected by solar neutrinos. They then tried to use data from different experiments to back up their claims but failed to account for the difference between alpha decays — a process that is governed by the strong interaction and beta decays which are governed by the weak interaction making their conclusion pretty useless. Even really smart people are wrong sometimes.


I think the earth is far younger than we think, perhaps 1 billion years - perhaps even less.


In their unpublished paper prior to the Solar Flare correlation, they claimed that in winter when the Sun was closer the decay rate was faster and in the Summer it was slower. Even if that is the case, according to their data it would even out in the end. I couldn't find it in their work but they don't seem to address how the Earth's axial tilt plays into that hypothesis either. At this point there is very little data to say that the rates of decay are not constants and plenty that says otherwise. The only missive I would go with regarding non constant decay is that there IS a direct link between the decay rate and the amount of material you have that is decaying. to demonstrate-

the decay process can be described by a first order (exponential) rate constant. This means that the rate of decay is proportional to the amount of material present.
rate = - k * [X]
where k is the rate constant and [X] is the concentration of the material, X. The negative sign indicates that the amount of material is decreasing with time.

As a result, if we know the amount at any time and the rate constant we can predict how much was present at any time in the past and how much will be present at any time in the future.
[X]' = [X] exp (- k * t)
where [X] is the initial amount present, [X]' is the amount that will be left after time, t.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well thats not correct. It could very well be true considering carbon dating has a limit. We could be talking a could dozen million years as opposed to a couple hundred million.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   

CB328



we are never going to get anywhere if we just have blind faith in whatever the system tells us to believe


Like blindly believing in religious dogma that's not based on anything logical?

And if fossils with skin are young, then what about the thousands that don't have skin and feathers?

Seriously, anyone who believes in young earth theory has mental problems.


I'm glad you brought that up.


I believe that anyone who treads on the beliefs of others have serious mental problems stemming from self esteem issues. I think they call them bullies, these days. People on the internet call them trolls.






edit on 8-3-2014 by StallionDuck because: Too early fpr spellin - can't brain!



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
There's some evidence that a nearby supernova that created a wave of high-energy nuclear particles and that these changed the ratios of isotopes of Carbon and other elements on Earth. This paper has some evidence and explanation from chemical analysis:

abob.libs.uga.edu...

When a star goes supernova, it's not a pure spherical explosion, but more of a spiky ball shape. So if Earth were in the line of fire for 16 hours or more, than would explain how carbon-dating can vary.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
S&F
Awesome post and more awesome find.
This may change everything we know to be true.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Phage
 


Well thats not correct. It could very well be true considering carbon dating has a limit. We could be talking a could dozen million years as opposed to a couple hundred million.


If you're using C-14 dating then you're not looking at 100,000 years let alone a million or couple dozen million. The uppermost limits of this dating technique are rather limited due to the short half life of C-15(about 5500 years) so beyond 40,000 years you get inaccurate results which get even more inaccurate the farther back you go. There are many other nuclear dating methods used in conjunction with stratigraphy for cross verification so I don't understand why C-14 (and its limitations) is so popular a method of debunking old dates. You're only going to get older dates in the range of millions or billions of years utilizing techniques like Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium or Uranium-Lead. There are as well many other techniques that can ne utilized and all work well within a given time frame/age of sample. As a rule, only one method is not used and for actual verification it is cross checked with other methods, sometimes an additional radiometric dating technique, sometimes in conjunction with stratigraphy. It all depends on the ages presented, the lab doing the testing and what the sample is.



edit on 8-3-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You say "There's no DNA in there," but your quote is about proteins. fyi - DNA codes for proteins; proteins are not DNA.


The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. The extraction of protein from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed. [14]

Also see: Pubmed



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




DNA codes for proteins; proteins are not DNA.

Yes. I know.
That's why I said there is no DNA.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Young earth, lol…

someone again please explain the fast forward formation of the Hawaiian Island Chain to support this "theory" then?


www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu...



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by soficrow
 




DNA codes for proteins; proteins are not DNA.

Yes. I know.
That's why I said there is no DNA.


eh if i had to guess i wuld say that snippets of DNA were present just not large segments of intact code. with modern DNA handling technology and techniques what dna remained could be spliced back together directly or indirectly. the problem is there was so little of it that it could not be recognized with early 1990's technology. DNA does survive longer than science has recognized until recently. the Moa DNA is probably the youngest with an age of possibly 700 years for the last survivors but probably 1000 years or more for some samples.

en.wikipedia.org...


Feathers and soft tissues[edit]


Megalapteryx didinus head
Several remarkable examples of moa remains have been found which exhibit soft tissues (muscle, skin, feathers), that were preserved through desiccation when the bird died in a naturally dry site (for example, a cave with a constant dry breeze blowing through it). Most of these specimens have been found in the semi-arid Central Otago region, the driest part of New Zealand. These include:
Dried muscle on bones of a female Dinornis robustus found at Tiger Hill in the Manuherikia River Valley by gold miners in 1864[44] (currently held by Yorkshire Museum)
Several bones of Emeus crassus with muscle attached, and a row of neck vertebrae with muscle, skin and feathers collected from Earnscleugh Cave near the town of Alexandra in 1870[45] (currently held by Otago Museum)
An articulated foot of a male Dinornis giganteus with skin and foot pads preserved, found in a crevice on the Knobby Range in 1874[46] (currently held by Otago Museum)
The type specimen of Megalapteryx didinus found near Queenstown in 1878[44] (currently held by Natural History Museum, London; see photograph of foot on this page)
The lower leg of Pachyornis elephantopus, with skin and muscle, from the Hector Range in 1884;[35][46] (currently held by the Zoology Department, Cambridge University)
The complete feathered leg of a Megalapteryx didinus from Old Man Range in 1894[47] (currently held by Otago Museum)
The head of a Megalapteryx didinus found near Cromwell sometime prior to 1949[48] (currently held by the Museum of New Zealand).
Two specimens are known from outside the Central Otago region:
A complete foot of Megalapteryx didinus found in a cave on Mount Owen near Nelson in 1980s[49] (currently held by the Museum of New Zealand)
A skeleton of Anomalopteryx didiformis with muscle, skin and feather bases collected from a cave near Te Anau in 1980.[50]


Preserved Megalapteryx foot, Natural History Museum
In addition to these specimens, loose moa feathers have been collected from caves and rockshelters in the southern South Island, and based on these remains, some idea of the moa plumage has been achieved. The preserved leg of Megalapteryx didinus from the Old Man Range reveals that this species was feathered right down to the foot. This is likely to have been an adaptation to living in high altitude, snowy environments, and is also seen in the Darwin’s Rhea, which lives in a similar seasonally snowy habitat.[6] Moa feathers are up to 23 centimetres (9 in) long, and a range of colours have been reported, including reddish-brown, white, yellowish and purplish.[6] Dark feathers with white or creamy tips have also been found, and indicate that some moa species may have had plumage with a speckled appearance.[51]


while mammoth carcasses are generally thought to be between 10 and 15 thousand years old. the DNA is not considered intact enough for cloning using technology at the time wiki created the last revision of this article:


In 2008, a Japanese team found usable DNA in the brains of mice that had been frozen for 16 years. They hope to use similar methods to find usable mammoth DNA.[107] In 2011, Japanese scientists announced plans to clone mammoths within six years.[108] In 2009, the Pyrenean Ibex (a subspecies of the Spanish ibex) was the first extinct animal to be cloned back to life; the clone lived for only seven minutes before dying of lung defects.[109] As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future.


however i believe that technology has progressed on beyond the state of the art at the time the article was written. now given a large enough set of fragments to contain all or nearly all of the unique mammoth genomic parts the rest could come from a related species since related species conserve DNA between them example; human DNA and Bonobo Chimp DNA is 98 percent identical. and we have automated gene sequencers that can easily output synthetic DNA provided it's code is known. i would guess a mammoth and an elephant would be nearly as identical as the Asian and African elephant DNA perhaps more.

therapods dinos may be 90 percent or more identical to primitive birds like the ratites. DNA is conserved even between dinos and chickens. if you turn on a certain gene in chicken embryos they grow a beak full of teeth. occasionally this happens naturally and is the source of the old saying rarer than hen's teeth.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Contrary to the well-known phrase, 'As rare as hens' teeth,' the researchers say they have found a naturally occurring mutant chicken called Talpid that has a complete set of ivories.
The team, based at the Universities of Manchester and Wisconsin, have also managed to induce teeth growth in normal chickens -- activating genes that have lain dormant for 80 million years.






edit on 8-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: hens teeth



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


eh if i had to guess i wuld say that snippets of DNA were present just not large segments of intact code. with modern DNA handling technology and techniques what dna remained could be spliced back together directly or indirectly.
But we're talking about dinosaurs. Not thousands of years. Hundreds of millions.

No cells have been recovered, just proteins. Collagen. No DNA.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

HomeBrew

StallionDuck

Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be?


I'm not ignorant enough to say flat out 'NO' as if I were blinded with an agenda to stomp and kill any out of the box thinking, however to answer both of the questions above, it dose seem unlikely. Over time they may discover new methods of dating or some otherwise previously unknown factors that may change the date of the earth, but I find it extremely unlikely it would do so drastically. Same with the Dinosaurs, but just because they have not found any beyond a certain archeological dating point does not mean it is impossibly so.

Either way, the presented info in the OP is quite interesting!
edit on 7-3-2014 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)


"Touche", says the flagrantly impulsive know-it-all lol.

In all seriousness, I agree that we should treat new information like new information: worthy of investigation. We are supposed to continually search for the truth, at any perceivable level, rather than outright possess it, because of our pant sizes. Otherwise, what good is this info and any questions that surface if they don't challenge our conventions, and can be instantly debunked by an armchair celeb typing "No"?

Interesting article, OP. I look forward to more developments.
edit on 12America/Chicago14pm12u03pm3 by HeyAHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


eh if i had to guess i wuld say that snippets of DNA were present just not large segments of intact code. with modern DNA handling technology and techniques what dna remained could be spliced back together directly or indirectly.
But we're talking about dinosaurs. Not thousands of years. Hundreds of millions.

No cells have been recovered, just proteins. Collagen. No DNA.
even if this is so or even if it remains so we still have probably about 95 percent of therapod DNA already available through living proxies. actually possibly more. many of the missing genes may well be present in the junk portions of living relatives chromosomes.

in embryology the fetus goes through evolutionary stages. it resembles for a time; fish, amphibians and reptiles before taking on mammalian traits and almost evolving in miniature up to human level. for it to have these stages it has genes that initiate them. we do not discard the DNA and eject it after each stage. it's still there. it is just turned off and the controls that could turn it on are also disabled. i am not saying that the complete DNA genome is still contained in modern animals just that large parts are. perhaps more of it than just in the coding part of the chromosome.
edit on 8-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: adding information



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
posting error. please delete.
edit on 8-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

peter vlar
What evidence is there that decay rates were much higher in the past? I just looked through an abstract from Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins of Purdue University who postulated in 2008 that certain decay “constants” are influenced by the Sun and that there was a correlation with the distance from the Sun to the Earth. They think that in January, when the Earth is closest, the decay rate was faster; in July, when the Earth is farthest, it was slower. However they are unable to describe or show any evidence of a mechanism that could cause this.


Where they unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime? Or, time dilation? Supposedly, time itself will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity.

Radioactive decay is affected by time dilation...

Maybe when the Earth is closer to the Sun, there is a stronger gravitational field causing decay rates to increase. When the Earth is further from the Sun, the gravitational field is weaker, causing decay rates to decrease.

Now here is a funny thought...

What if Earth was a lot younger than we all imagine. Many years ago, Earth was moving at a slower velocity, or had a stronger field of gravity, or was in a stronger field of gravity, and that caused all decay rates to be extremely high. Then over time Earth started to increase velocity, or move into a lower field of gravity, or lost gravity, and that gave us our current decay rates.

That would mean our dating techniques would show the Earth was billions of years old, when really it was less, because time was moving faster than it is now causing time dilation.

That would mean all our dating techniques that revolve around radioactive decay rates are useless. Unless we can prove the Earth has always been traveling the same velocity, or exited in the same strength of gravitational field, or had itself a lesser or stronger gravity field.


edit on 9-3-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Well, since I don't trust the establishment at all, I have no choice but to take everything that comes my direction from them with a lot of salt.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
They never died.

They are still with us today.

They are all around you.




posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Amagnon


Yes - there is a serious problem with radio carbon dating, and all dating systems that rely on nuclear decay. The problem is the assumption that decay rates are constants - there is a great deal of evidence that they are NOT constant. The evidence is usually swept under the rug because of the huge amount of inconvenience it would cause if they were not constant.

except there isn't any evidence, it's all creationist lies and flawed methodology. no real scientists doubt dating methods only creationist liars do and claim dating methods are flawed, but they are the only source of the flaws not the method itself. no one needs to sweep anything under any rug because there is no problem with dating methods if you use them correctly.



I am no creationist - I am simply looking at evidence - especially the variation in half lives as determined in different parts of the world and at different times. The explanation of experimental error is not a good enough explanation, nuclear decay rates are effected by something that we dont yet understand - and it seems that decay rates were much higher in the past.

but this isn't true, and you aren't very convincing when the only source for this is from creationists. decay rates are affected but it is so minuscule that anyone bringing it up is just quibbling. i mean is it really a huge deal if a fossil is 99 million years old instead of 100? because that is your argument. dating methods even take that into account, they are always dated to be within a certain amount of time give or take, only the media and those with an ax to grind over science make the dating unmovable.


I think the earth is far younger than we think, perhaps 1 billion years - perhaps even less.

and your evidence is what? because all the evidence says 4.65 give or take a few million.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

WeAre0ne


Where they unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime? Or, time dilation? Supposedly, time itself will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity.

Radioactive decay is affected by time dilation...

are you even familiar with radioactive decay? or time dilation? how the heck would time dilation affect radioactive decay? the isotopes are in the ground and time dilation affects time in relation to moving objects farther away from the mass of another object. ie: farther away from the earth the faster something appears to something closer to the earth, it wouldn't affect radioactive decay.


Maybe when the Earth is closer to the Sun, there is a stronger gravitational field causing decay rates to increase. When the Earth is further from the Sun, the gravitational field is weaker, causing decay rates to decrease.

nothing you posted was right... at all. if this was true they would have noticed it a century ago.


Now here is a funny thought...

What if Earth was a lot younger than we all imagine. Many years ago, Earth was moving at a slower velocity, or had a stronger field of gravity, or was in a stronger field of gravity, and that caused all decay rates to be extremely high. Then over time Earth started to increase velocity, or move into a lower field of gravity, or lost gravity, and that gave us our current decay rates.

That would mean our dating techniques would show the Earth was billions of years old, when really it was less, because time was moving faster than it is now causing time dilation.

That would mean all our dating techniques that revolve around radioactive decay rates are useless. Unless we can prove the Earth has always been traveling the same velocity, or exited in the same strength of gravitational field, or had itself a lesser or stronger gravity field.


edit on 9-3-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

go read what time dilation does please, this isn't remotely what it does, it would never do something like that.



new topics




 
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join