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.

 

Paleontologists Discover Traces Of 80-Million-Year-Old Collagen In A Dinosaur Bone

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....


Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you



Still learning about posting youtube


Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.


Yeah but I am not stupid enough to be calling it science, dood


Yet you believe it.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....


Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you



Still learning about posting youtube


Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.


Yeah but I am not stupid enough to be calling it science, dood


Yet you believe it.


I do believe it, just dont call it science, call it faith, thats a big difference, not to be confused with what people like you, who think its science when its actually, its the roots of a religious belief masquerading as a science so those who think they are intellectually superior dont look as stupid to themselves when they look in the mirror.

See, I know what I believe isnt common sense, I am not delusional



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
It gets even better...



Ancient proteins dating back 195 million years have been found inside a dinosaur bone.

The discovery pushes back the oldest evidence for preserved proteins by 100 million years.

Scientists have also found traces of a mineral that probably came from the blood of the early Jurassic dinosaur.


www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.


Let's dumb it down for you, no confusion then...I hope
There are these really old bones, really really old, 80 million years old evidently
Keeping up
Some scientists found collagen in those really old bones, it doesn't make sense

Short and simple, does that help



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
80 million year old bone from a Brachylophosaurus, and the scientist are finding bio molecules. Contamination is a concern, but the scientists are looking for a bio molecule called collagen and this is abundant in bones. And that is what they have found.

www.forbes.com... 184f66a3
Not so long ago, finding traces of organic biomolecules in any fossil over about one million years old was thought to be an insurmountable challenge. Paleontologists never thought to look at dinosaur bones as a source of either DNA or protein sequences.

Proteins are made of peptides, and the goal of these studies is to find discernible peptide sequences in dinosaur bones that have not been contaminated. With an 80-million-year-old fossil, the question of contamination is important—are these real peptide sequences that reflect ancient biomolecules of once-living dinosaurs? Or something else, like bacteria, that moved in after they died? Schroeter and Schweitzer were looking for a specific peptide sequence called collagen I, which is the most abundant protein in bone. Previous research has found this protein in a 66-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil and an 80-million-year-old Brachylophosaurus specimen. A sensitive chemical analysis technique called mass spectrometry is used to detect these faint organic signals of ancient life.



This is pretty far out there, they did the same test in 2009 and found the same peptide called collagen and they just found it again in 2017. So the test is repeatable, and passes another test to go from a theory to a law.


Findings of peptide sequences in dinosaurs need to be replicated to be reliable. In this study, they use new experimental methods that are variations on ones used in the previous studies—along with a new lab set up and a freshly cleaned mass spectrometer to reduce the chance of contamination. Eight peptide sequences were recovered from the reanalysis of the Brachylophosaurus femur, with two of the same sequences recovered in both the 2009 and 2017 study, showing that these results are reproducible. "We are confident that the results we obtained are not contamination and that this collagen is original to the specimen," Schroeter says.


This is what I call "Fake Science" masquerading as news.

Or is it fake news masquerading as science?

Either way, it has no merit.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.


Let's dumb it down for you, no confusion then...I hope
There are these really old bones, really really old, 80 million years old evidently
Keeping up
Some scientists found collagen in those really old bones, it doesn't make sense

Short and simple, does that help


The "80 million year old bone" is a dead give away that either:

The reporter who wrote the article is ignorant or

No idea what a fossil is as opposed to a "bone".

Carbon dating method is another give away.

Which dating method was used?

C-14 or Radiometric Dating?

C-14 is for dating artifacts less 55,000 (to borrow cooperton's link)

While Radiometric are for artifacts more than 100,000 yo i.e. rocks, fossils,


The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.


newgeology.us...


Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years


Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

pubs.usgs.gov...

Fake Science.


edit on 31-1-2017 by edmc^2 because: fixed it. didn't properly post 1st/2nd time edit.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.


Let's dumb it down for you, no confusion then...I hope
There are these really old bones, really really old, 80 million years old evidently
Keeping up
Some scientists found collagen in those really old bones, it doesn't make sense

Short and simple, does that help


Come on! You didn't dumb it down, you went full retard! The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy!

Just because you can't understand something or it doesn't make sense to you, does not make it incorrect.

I will ask again. Show me your evidence that the science is incorrect.
And if it does not make sense or you don't understand it, at least have the balls to admit your just a simple troll and you don't have a clue what it is their talking about.

The same goes for your ignorant post as well edmc^2.. Put up evidence for your assertions or face troll persecution!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




The "80 million year old bone" is a dead give away that either: The reporter who wrote the article is ignorant or No idea what a fossil is as opposed to a "bone". Carbon dating method is another give away. Which dating method was used?


First try doing a little research before trolling.

They are actually and demonstrably observing peptide sequences using high-resolution mass spectrometry, and bioinformatics analyses. Why are you going on about C4 dating and half- life values?

Unlike you, they can't just make stuff up and get away with it. It must first pass intense scrutiny and peer-review before it even has chance to be viewed by laymen reporting it.

Here, you can actually email the authors with your highly technical questions and maybe even show them the errors in their data. LOL.
Please post their response here. I think we could all use a good laugh.

edit on fTuesday175018f501408 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.


Let's dumb it down for you, no confusion then...I hope
There are these really old bones, really really old, 80 million years old evidently
Keeping up
Some scientists found collagen in those really old bones, it doesn't make sense

Short and simple, does that help


Come on! You didn't dumb it down, you went full retard! The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy!

Just because you can't understand something or it doesn't make sense to you, does not make it incorrect.

I will ask again. Show me your evidence that the science is incorrect.
And if it does not make sense or you don't understand it, at least have the balls to admit your just a simple troll and you don't have a clue what it is their talking about.

The same goes for your ignorant post as well edmc^2.. Put up evidence for your assertions or face troll persecution!


Full RETARD? Maybe there was a reason, want to guess...

How about you admit you are a troll who doesnt understand science, irrespective a troll or not, its clear you dont have a clue about science

The onus is not on me to prove or disprove anything, I am not making a claim, those who make the claim must prove the science.
I cant dumb it down for you anymore FF
I cant make it any simpler than that
If you cant understand that simple point, I suggest this site is better for you
teletubbies.wikia.com...:Index


Please go learn what science is, your primary school concepts are embarrassing to every adult on this forum



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think you're the master of confusion, but you can only fool some of the people.

You can't masquerade faith as a science, science has nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You must be able to question the science, it must be falsifiable, it must have evidence. Faith and beliefs do not require any of these things and in fact encourage the opposite, to not question your beliefs.

Instead of making fallacious assertions do you have any questions about the science of this paper? What exactly are you refuting is incorrect and I don't want hear your bull-crap deflections about faith. Show me the parts that are incorrect and the evidence you have for your assertions.


Let's dumb it down for you, no confusion then...I hope
There are these really old bones, really really old, 80 million years old evidently
Keeping up
Some scientists found collagen in those really old bones, it doesn't make sense

Short and simple, does that help


The "80 million year old bone" is a dead give away that either:

The reporter who wrote the article is ignorant or

No idea what a fossil is as opposed to a "bone".

Carbon dating method is another give away.

Which dating method was used?

C-14 or Radiometric Dating?

C-14 is for dating artifacts less 55,000 (to borrow cooperton's link)

While Radiometric are for artifacts more than 100,000 yo i.e. rocks, fossils,


The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.


newgeology.us...


Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years


Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

pubs.usgs.gov...

Fake Science.



This isnt science, this is religious like faith in action
Only true believers grasp and hold onto this stuff
They need it

The funny thing is, many fundamental atheists consider this science stupid but wont get involved
Others, they just need it to justify their own values, full on fundamentalist atheists will fight tooth and nail, ignoring the pseudo science, the faith steps, the utter stupidity of the reasoning.

Its their choice and they are welcome to it, evolution is easier to believe than creation.
80 million year old dinosaur bones with collagen though
Full Retard...



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Trolls gonna troll.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: edmc^2




The "80 million year old bone" is a dead give away that either: The reporter who wrote the article is ignorant or No idea what a fossil is as opposed to a "bone". Carbon dating method is another give away. Which dating method was used?


First try doing a little research before trolling.

They are actually and demonstrably observing peptide sequences using high-resolution mass spectrometry, and bioinformatics analyses. Why are you going on about C4 dating and half- life values?

Unlike you, they can't just make stuff up and get away with it. It must first pass intense scrutiny and peer-review before it even has chance to be viewed by laymen reporting it.

Here, you can actually email the authors with your highly technical questions and maybe even show them the errors in their data. LOL.
Please post their response here. I think we could all use a good laugh.




lol, talk about making stuff up!




They are actually and demonstrably observing peptide sequences using high-resolution mass spectrometry, and bioinformatics analyses. Why are you going on about C4 dating and half- life values?


so you say it's a "bone"? Or is it a fossil they found?

It's a fossil in case you don't know.

Next q - what's a fossil?

And how do you date a fossil as opposed to bone?

There lies the answer.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Trolls gonna troll.


stop trolling!



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Does anyone remember that counterfeit mummy that was dated to be 250 years old, then they ID the body and its a missing person from 1997 hahahaha



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

pubs.usgs.gov...

Fake Science.



Good point. The half-lives of these elements are huge, not to mention we can never know the initial ratios of parent-daughter so we can never accurately date that way. C-14 is the closest we have to accurate because you can at least reasonably estimate the initial C-14 present upon death of the organism (through present concentrations of atmospheric C-14), yet even that relies on many assumptions. i.e. freshly dead seals being measured to be 2000 years old.

One thing the presence of C-14 does indicate is that these animals (dinosaurs) died less than 100,000 years ago. the more you look into the empirical evidence on your own, the more you realize the old-earth estimates are based in the imagination.
edit on 3-2-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: edmc^2

Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

pubs.usgs.gov...

Fake Science.



Good point. The half-lives of these elements are huge, not to mention we can never know the initial ratios of parent-daughter so we can never accurately date that way. C-14 is the closest we have to accurate because you can at least reasonably estimate the initial C-14 present upon death of the organism (through present concentrations of atmospheric C-14), yet even that relies on many assumptions. i.e. freshly dead seals being measured to be 2000 years old.


The seal your referring to was only dated to 1300 CBP not 2000 but that's what happens when one gets their "facts" from the mind of Dr. Dino without due diligence of their own. What you're referring to is called the "reservoir effect" and is a well known issue when attempting to date anything that lives in the water. It occurs when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In regards to our seal born before Christ,they fed off of animals that lived in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone where old carbon dioxide was present within deep ocean bottom water that had been circulating through the ocean for several thousand years prior to upwelling along the Antarctic coast.


The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.

The reservoir effect is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. It is explained, for example, in Faure (1986) and Higham (n.d.). Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.



One thing the presence of C-14 does indicate is that these animals (dinosaurs) died less than 100,000 years ago. the more you look into the empirical evidence on your own, the more you realize the old-earth estimates are based in the imagination.


No 14C dating does not indicate any such thing. This point has been addressed repeatedly. If you're comfortable accepting a fraudulently obtained date derived through trickery then more power to you but it falls into question the motives of those engaging in such tactics if they require subterfuge to falsify data to make it look like they were correct and also calls into question your personal interpretation of empirical data because your citation is entirely devoid of anything resembling science. Pat Barnum would've been proud of those gents!


Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Higham, Thomas, n.d. Corrections to radiocarbon dates. www.c14dating.com...
Wakefield, Dort, Jr., 1971. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal 6(5): 210-211



Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England.

Bowman, Sheridan, 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Taylor, R. E., 1987. Radiocarbon Dating. An archaeological perspective. Orlando, USA: Academic Press



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Great find! F&S&


Kinda speaks to the durability of proteins, important info when building bio-computers.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not going to argue that all the data indicating dinosaurs to be between 4,000-40,000 years is fraudulent. Both the University of Arizona and Georgia's AMS labs detected such levels: Arizona Lab measure C-14 in Allosaurus, Georgia Lab measures C-14 in dinosaur bones.

This empirical evidence should spark your interest, but you are too bogged down by the bias of your old dogma to grow along a growing field.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: edmc^2

Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

pubs.usgs.gov...

Fake Science.



Good point. The half-lives of these elements are huge, not to mention we can never know the initial ratios of parent-daughter so we can never accurately date that way. C-14 is the closest we have to accurate because you can at least reasonably estimate the initial C-14 present upon death of the organism (through present concentrations of atmospheric C-14), yet even that relies on many assumptions. i.e. freshly dead seals being measured to be 2000 years old.

One thing the presence of C-14 does indicate is that these animals (dinosaurs) died less than 100,000 years ago. the more you look into the empirical evidence on your own, the more you realize the old-earth estimates are based in the imagination.


Actually if you think about it, depending on the dating methodology employed, the result can be subjective or objective.

Meaning, if one's goal is to prove a preconceived idea - i.e. evolution, then one has to employ a methodology that will support it.

For example, geologist employ radiometric dating, not C-14, to date the age of the earth. Why? Because it's the right tool to use.

The Table below proves this to be the case due to the Half-life values of radioactive isotopes present within the earth's strata.

=====
Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-Life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

=======

And since it's a common knowledge that...


... the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.


pubs.usgs.gov...


Using such tool for dating "ancient artifacts - 'bones' (i.e. fossils)" will become subjective or objective.

Why subjective?

It's subjective because the dates gathered from such artifacts is not the actual date of the ORIGINAL organic material but the date of the minerals present in the fossilized "bone".

Simply put:


Most of the dinosaur skeletons you see in museums exist because of sedimentary rocks. These fossils got their start when a dinosaur died in an environment that had lots of moving sediment, like an ocean, riverbed or lake. One such place is the benthic zone -- the deepest part of a body of water. This sediment quickly buried the dinosaur, offering its body some protection it from decomposition. While the dinosaur's soft parts still eventually decomposed, its hard parts -- bones, teeth and claws -- remained. But a buried bone isn't the same thing as a fossil -- to become a fossil, the bone has to become rock. The organic parts of the bone, like blood cells, collagen (a protein), and fat, eventually break down. But the inorganic parts of the bone, or the parts made from minerals like calcium, have more staying power. They remain after the organic materials have disappeared, creating a fragile, porous mineral in the shape of the original bone.


science.howstuffworks.com...

Depending on how you interpret the data, it becomes subjective to your interpretation.

Was the radioactive "isotopes" detected from the ACTUAL BONE?

Or was it from the mineral deposits that FORMED the fossilized "bone"?

If you're a proponent of evolution theory, how would you answer this question?

Why Objective:

It's objective IF your goal is to support a preconceived idea. Radiometric Dating method is the tool to use if your objective is to prove that the "bone" was prehistoric dating back to millions of years.

Hence C-14 will fail as a tool due to the accuracy half life of 5700.

In other words, it's like using a giant digger like a excavator machine to dig a very delicate flower.





top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join