Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 50
 [ 992 posts ] 
Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Question for everyone objecting to original biological material in dinosaur fossils:

To falsify your objection that original biological material has been discovered in dinosaur fossils, would sequenced proteins from dinosaur fossils disprove your assertion? Yes or No?


You mean this article Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins? This would beg the question Inferno has already asked.

Inferno wrote:
fightofthejellyfish wrote:12. Soft tissue remnants will be confirmed as belonging to species extinct for tens of millions of years, fragments will give genetic confirmation to relationships inferred from comparative morphology, strengthening our understanding of the phylogenetic tree of life and once more confirming The Theory of Evolution.


As indeed it already has. As one of the articles Bob Enyart cites:

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.


How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:13 pm
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You mean this article Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins? This would beg the question Inferno has already asked.

So is your answer to my question YES?
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:17 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You mean this article Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins? This would beg the question Inferno has already asked.

So is your answer to my question YES?


My answer is still no and it has to do with demineralization. Have you learned what that word means yet? Now pleas, go on to answer Inferno's question.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:23 pm
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

he_who_is_nobody wrote:My answer is still no and it has to do with demineralization. Have you learned what that word means yet? Now pleas, go on to answer Inferno's question.

Your answer is still wrong then. Demineralization is not magic. If all you have to do is demineralize a fossil to be able to sequence the proteins, then why don't they do that with every fossil? These specimens are different. So please tell me what the difference is between a fossil like Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex and any other fossil is.
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:34 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

Call me a cynic, but I don't think YYNJ actually understands the subject he's trying to defeat...
Image
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:38 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Question for everyone objecting to original biological material in dinosaur fossils:

To falsify your objection that original biological material has been discovered in dinosaur fossils, would sequenced proteins from dinosaur fossils disprove your assertion? Yes or No?


YYNJ -
They were fossilized. They were not "original biological material."
They had to be demineralized and, basically, reconstructed from trace elements and impressions.
There just happened to have fresh bones yanked from the ground in this particular case, and rushed them straight to the lab in order to try out a new sampling experement that worked once before and they just weren't sure about the results they had.

Your Yes/No options are not viable, since the whole premise of the question is irrelevant and not based upon fact.
Aside from the fact that you're jumping the gun on an article recently presented and not undergone the scrutiny of a well-placed peer review in terms of recently finding a celulose/protein sequence, you're not even presenting it in-full and most likely haven't even reviewed the paper yourself to be making this argument.

I'm not even a fucking biologist - I just have the tidbits of reading comprehension required of reviewing a scientific article and taking the paper as a whole.

Have you actually read the paper, YYNJ?
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:39 pm
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:YYNJ -
They were fossilized. They were not "original biological material."
They had to be demineralized and, basically, reconstructed from trace elements and impressions.
There just happened to have fresh bones yanked from the ground in this particular case, and rushed them straight to the lab in order to try out a new sampling experement that worked once before and they just weren't sure about the results they had.

Your Yes/No options are not viable, since the whole premise of the question is irrelevant and not based upon fact.
Aside from the fact that you're jumping the gun on an article recently presented and not undergone the scrutiny of a well-placed peer review in terms of recently finding a celulose/protein sequence, you're not even presenting it in-full and most likely haven't even reviewed the paper yourself to be making this argument.

I'm not even a fucking biologist - I just have the tidbits of reading comprehension required of reviewing a scientific article and taking the paper as a whole.

Have you actually read the paper, YYNJ?

Wrong. They couldn't get the bone on the helicopter so they had to cut it in half. The find was a complete accident.
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:44 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Wrong. They couldn't get the bone on the helicopter so they had to cut it in half. The find was a complete accident.


*cough*

The important part, kid:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Have you actually read the paper, YYNJ?
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:46 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:My answer is still no and it has to do with demineralization. Have you learned what that word means yet? Now pleas, go on to answer Inferno's question.

Your answer is still wrong then. Demineralization is not magic. If all you have to do is demineralize a fossil to be able to sequence the proteins, then why don't they do that with every fossil? These specimens are different. So please tell me what the difference is between a fossil like Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex and any other fossil is.


I am not saying that demineralization is magic (you obviously do not know what that term means). I will quote Potholer54 as to why this fossil is different (I linked his video; perhaps you should have taken the time to watch it).

At 5:24:

Potholer54 wrote:"¦ all the fossils containing this material had several things in common. They were all buried rapidly in sandstone. They were found several meters below ground. The soft tissue was found inside unbroken bones.


You can watch the video for more details.

Most fossils that are found are eroding out. That is why we know they are there to begin with. Most fossils are also not rapidly buried; they sit out on the surface for some time. That allows soft tissue to decompose. Therefore, you are correct, these fossils are special, and that is what leads to the unique fossilization of soft tissues.

Now please answer Inferno's question.

australopithecus wrote:Call me a cynic, but I don't think YYNJ actually understands the subject he's trying to defeat...


We have already established that. He cannot define evolution; remember?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:01 pm
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:YYNJ -
They were fossilized. They were not "original biological material."
They had to be demineralized and, basically, reconstructed from trace elements and impressions.

Wrong. See pictures below. How long do you think Mary Schweitzer spent "reconstructing" what you see in the pictures?

Image

Image
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:16 am
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am not saying that demineralization is magic (you obviously do not know what that term means). I will quote Potholer54 as to why this fossil is different (I linked his video; perhaps you should have taken the time to watch it).

At 5:24:

Potholer54 wrote:"¦ all the fossils containing this material had several things in common. They were all buried rapidly in sandstone. They were found several meters below ground. The soft tissue was found inside unbroken bones.

Wrong again. (This is really getting embarrassing for LoR.) The Mosasaur find disproved the sandstone theory.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You can watch the video for more details.

Most fossils that are found are eroding out. That is why we know they are there to begin with. Most fossils are also not rapidly buried; they sit out on the surface for some time. That allows soft tissue to decompose. Therefore, you are correct, these fossils are special, and that is what leads to the unique fossilization of soft tissues.

99.999% of all fossils ever found were buried rapidly. So why don't we just "demineralize" them all and sequence all their proteins?
Last edited by YesYouNeedJesus on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:19 am
brettpalmerUser avatarPosts: 174Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:21 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

If you want a sneak peek into how Bob Enyart is going to argue his understanding of phylogeny, you MUST listen to his radio show broadcast today (with co-host software engineer Fred Williams):

http://kgov.com/bel/20120210 (options at the top of the page for Download or Streaming)

Among other things, Bob and Fred discuss humming birds and the Venus Flytrap. They note that "[t]he beak of a humming bird is very flexible and can snap shut in amazingly fast" and is unique in the vertebrate world. The only other thing in nature that has a "snap buckling" mechanism like the humming bird's beak is a Venus Flytrap. And, because scientists think in an evolutionary, instead of a creationist, context, they would place them together phylogenetically because phylogeny is such a "superficial" concept, according to Bob and Fred.

As an added bonus, Bob and Fred talk about the "death pose" of some dinosaur remains, in which "[f]ossils of dinosaurs all over the world are found with their heads turned backwards". See the article from New Scientist here for details: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html
Because the "death pose" can be replicated in plucked chickens using water, Bob and Fred think this is evidence for Noah's flood! They can't seem to bring their over-active, and highly selective, imaginations to suppose these creatures died NEAR water, or FELL in water, or were part of a local flood (many of them over millions and millions of years), or why --if Noah's flood was indeed responsible and was a one-time global event why ALL dinosaur remains are not found in this death pose.

It's absolutely a must-listen-to episode (their misunderstanding of vestigials is worth the price of admission alone!) if you can stomach the entire 30 minutes. I found it a good microcosm of Bob's fantasy-science world.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:20 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:Wrong again. (This is really getting embarrassing for LoR.) The Mosasaur find disproved the sandstone theory.


The basic take away message from Potholer54 is that they need to be buried rapidly under something, which allows very little contact with air/water above it. Whether that is sandstone, shell, or mudstone does not matter. Glad to see you are not above scoring gotcha points. I am so embarrassed. :roll:

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:99.999% of all fossils ever found were buried rapidly. So why don't we just "demineralize" them all and sequence all their proteins?


Wrong again, most fossils we find are disarticulated. Thus, they were laying out on the surface long before being buried. However, it is good to see that you are not above pulling statistics out of nowhere. It is also obvious by now to anyone that you do not know what demineralization means, so could you please define this term?

Oh yeah, I am still waiting for you to answer Inferno's question about this discovery. Why do you find it so difficult to answer straight forward questions?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:38 am
YIM WWW
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

Isotelus, reading the original paper in Nature Communications, New evidence on the colour and nature of the isolated Archaeopteryx feather, I get the impression that the melanosomes were original biological material. It states:

"We interpret the feather's dark trace to be a melanic organosulphur residue, based on the following.

First, we detected no manganese among nine point analyses throughout the feather, indicating that preservation was not due to precipitation of the inorganic mineral, manganese dioxide (MnO2), as has been suggested"¦

Second, a potential organocopper biomarker for melanin was previously detected in this specimen; this biomarker has also been correlated with the presence of melanosomes in three fossil bird taxa. We hypothesize that melanosome structures fossilize simply by virtue of being solid aggregations of melanins"¦ resistant to degradation.

Third, the dark trace is associated with sulphur, which may have derived from the sulphur-rich feather keratin and crosslinked with the melanin; this is consistent with the sulphurization mechanism responsible for high-fidelity organic preservation in the fossil record."

A friend told me this:
A friend wrote:Because a biomarker is something that is an indicator of a biological state, and organocopper is a compound in organic chemistry, and within organic chemistry is the specialty of biomolecular chemistry that looks for biomarkers which are indicators of biological processes, it seems this paper is indicating the presence of original biological material in the Archaeopteryx feather.


But if folks can deny what their own eyes are showing them, blood vessels and cells, and ignore the many confirming tests and journal reports, then its unlikely they'll be able to objectively consider this.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:42 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YYNJ; given that you have admitted to not being able to define evolution in it's biological context, and also as you have admitted to lacking knowledge of the science in general, on what basis are you honestly able to judge any of the evidence presented?
Image
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:50 am
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

australopithecus wrote:YYNJ; given that you have admitted to not being able to define evolution in it's biological context, and also as you have admitted to lacking knowledge of the science in general, on what basis are you honestly able to judge any of the evidence presented?

I have eyes.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:52 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

I also have eyes, but that doesn't qualify me to be able to judge the evidence in subjects I know nothing about so I ask again; given you have admitted your ignorance of the subject previously on what basis are you able to judge this evidence?
Image
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:55 am
YesYouNeedJesusPosts: 253Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:54 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

he_who_is_nobody wrote:The basic take away message from Potholer54 is that they need to be buried rapidly under something, which allows very little contact with air/water above it. Whether that is sandstone, shell, or mudstone does not matter. Glad to see you are not above scoring gotcha points. I am so embarrassed. :roll:

They have to be buried rapidly for what? So we can get soft tissue and sequence proteins! When you demineralize something, you remove the minerals and have soft tissue left! If there was no soft tissue, what's left after demineralization?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Wrong again, most fossils we find are disarticulated. Thus, they were laying out on the surface long before being buried. However, it is good to see that you are not above pulling statistics out of nowhere. It is also obvious by now to anyone that you do not know what demineralization means, so could you please define this term?

Source please. Since when does "disarticulation" equal non-burial?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Oh yeah, I am still waiting for you to answer Inferno's question about this discovery. Why do you find it so difficult to answer straight forward questions?

He asked a great and fair question. I will answer when someone here can demonstrate some honesty and admit we have original biological material.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:55 am
brettpalmerUser avatarPosts: 174Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:21 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Wrong again, most fossils we find are disarticulated. Thus, they were laying out on the surface long before being buried. However, it is good to see that you are not above pulling statistics out of nowhere. It is also obvious by now to anyone that you do not know what demineralization means, so could you please define this term?

Source please.


Ya know, I'm gonna step in here real quick and hold someone's feet to the fire. YYNJ first stated:

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:99.999% of all fossils ever found were buried rapidly.

You first. "Source please."
Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:12 am
brettpalmerUser avatarPosts: 174Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:21 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:He asked a great and fair question. I will answer when someone here can demonstrate some honesty and admit we have original biological material.


Maybe the problem here is what seems to always be at issue between rationalists and apologists: definition of terms. Can you define what you mean by "original biological material" in sufficient enough detail that there is no question about what you mean? I think that would go a long way to breaking this loggerhead.
Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:16 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 50
 [ 992 posts ] 
Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests