Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Qinopio · 03-20-2003, 11:42 PM

This local Christian radio talk show that I sometimes hear occasionally invites creation/evolution debates. One topic that I haven't heard an answer for from the evolutionary side of things is the existence of unfossilized dinosaur bones. This is claimed as evidence for a recent dinosaur extinction. My question is, do they really exist? And if so, is there an alternate explanation?

Couple things a quick Google search turned up, from the creationist side:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp
http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.a...aur_bones.html

[the board search doesn't seem to be working, apologies if this has been covered recently]

Doubting Didymus · 03-20-2003, 11:55 PM

I think It's true that some of the original bone molecules can survive in the fossil, but that alone does not prove that the bones are young.

Naturally, neither of your links contains any kind of evidence at all that would suggest any young dinosaur bones exist, even if they did have original molecules in them.

Duvenoy · 03-21-2003, 04:44 AM

Nah. There ain't no such animal as an unfossilized dino bone.

I read a neat story at the ICR site a couple of years ago. Seems that a couple of intrepid Christians went to Alaska in search of that very thing. After many rousing adventrues, they found an all but raw, Miasaure (sp?) jaw imbedded in a sandbar.

Well, I thought this was just fabulous and sent them an e mail congratulating them on the find, and asking where exactly I and my good friend, Jack Horner might view this treasure.

The E was never answered, which is ok. I've never met the esteemed Mr. Horner, either. They lie, I lie.

One reason that natural bone is rare in Nature is simply that rodents chew it. It doesn't last long. Only burial under exact conditions, and after a LONG time, will produce a fossil. All the rest becomes mouse and porcupine snacks. I think it's safe to speculate the same was true 65+mya, just different species.

doov

Qinopio · 03-22-2003, 10:26 PM

So when told "There are unfossilized dinosaur bones", I should respond "Nuh uh!"?

I was kind of hoping at least for some explanation of why they would say that they found them if they did not, in fact, exist.

LaFlavor · 03-23-2003, 02:46 AM

they think it would be evidence of a young earth...which would be evidence against evolution.

answer your question?

Duvenoy · 03-23-2003, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qinopio
So when told "There are unfossilized dinosaur bones", I should respond "Nuh uh!"?

I was kind of hoping at least for some explanation of why they would say that they found them if they did not, in fact, exist.

"Nuh uh," followed by a dismissive chuckle is the proper response. If you want to fo further with it, politly ask where some of these bones might be viewed, what peer review they've had, and why wasn't The journal of Nature or Science Magazine informed of them?

I do not know what prompts the ICR, AiG, and others to come up with such outrageous balderdash. At best it seems to be a flim-flam to convince believers that the book of Genesis is literally true. Genesis is an interesting creation myth, neither more nor less. Why try to turn it into something else with blatant lies? Especially in the face of overwhelming, physical evidence if favor of a very old earth? It makes no sense to me.

Here's a line that you might enjoy perusing:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Talk Origins is a favorite around here, written for the layman, and it is extensive, honest and highly accurate.

luck,

doov

PS, Welcome to II!

Bane · 03-23-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

"Nuh uh," followed by a dismissive chuckle is the proper response. If you want to fo further with it, politly ask where some of these bones might be viewed, what peer review they've had, and why wasn't The journal of Nature or Science Magazine informed of them?

Uh, there has been unfossilized dinosaur bones found. One or two samples I believe?

A student of Jack Horner(Mary Schweitzer sp?) found a T-Rex sample. Under the right anoxic enviroment it seems that collagen and heme can survive for a lot longer than we previously thought. The interior of the bone provides a perfect place for these compounds to be preserved. DNA has yet to be extracted from the samples due to contamination and crystallization.

Of course young earth creationists are milking this for all it's worth even though Mary's an OEC.

I believe Mary's paper on the find was published in Nature or in one of the paleo journals?

This has been addressed here on the forums a while back. I'm surprised TO has nothing on it? I did a search on Google and just came up with creationist sites.

Dr.GH · 03-23-2003, 08:27 PM

This is the second time I have come across this today.

I have been working off and on writing a full scale resopnse, but the rest of my life keeps intruding.

Short form:

"Fresh" dino bones have never been found, heme and some hemoglobin fragments have been extracted from dino bones, but no "cells" were ever found.

Ostiocalcin readily preserves in several long fragments.

None of this is evidence for a young earth, or recent dinos.

Albion · 03-23-2003, 09:20 PM

Just about every hit on a google search is to creationist sources; WHAT a surprise. There are a couple of non-creationist journal articles mentioned but no details of the papers themselves. And it seems as if creationists have got into the act; Buddy Davis (an AiG staff member) claims to have found unfossilised dino bones in Alaska.

The only source I could find that wasn't a "praise Jesus, the Earth is young!" one was this:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter53.html

The relevant stuff is about a quarter of the way down.

Bane · 03-23-2003, 10:03 PM

Found two more bits of info. This was posted here on the forums a while ago. I think Dr.GH posted it? Anyway, here is an e-mail from Jack Horner on the find:

Quote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John R. Horner [mailto:jhorner@gemini.oscs.montana.edu]
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:35 AM
>To: Crenshaw, Adrian
>Subject: Re: Student needs info: Dinosaur red blood cells
>
>
>Hi Adrian,.....Young Earth Creationists are like the "Flat Earth" people of
>last century, they latch on to pieces of straw, ignoring the bale.
>
>No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red blood
>cells have been hypothesized on the basis of Heme, a kind of iron produced
>biologically. The discovery of heme, by my graduate student Mary
>Schweitzer, in a skeleton of T-rex (Not SUE, however, but the Museum of the
>Rockies Wankel T-rex) indicates that the remanants of cells can be
>preserved.
>
>1. Was it really blood? NO
>
>2. Does it mean anything? It means that under optimal conditions the
>fossil record can preserve some very interesting things that make it
>possible to hypothesize the nature of extinct organisms.
>
>Jack

And another poster here(Kevin) posted this on theforce.net forums over a year ago in response to a creationist making similar claims:

Quote:

Kevin's response: There is no basis for this claim except a layperson's misleading expectation of what "should" have occured. In fact, in anoxic environments, fossil bones can survive quite well. However, blood cells were not[i] found (and here we can see the unreliability of creationist reports). The paper (link to it at the end of the paragraph) only reports the existence of heme compounds and byproducts of the breakdown of hemoglobin. It's exciting, but not inconsistent with a date of approx. 65 million years, since the fossils were preseved in an anoxic environment.

See: Schweitzer, M. et al. (1997) "Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone" [i]Proc. Nat'l Acad Sci USA, 94(12):6291-6.
[link]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291[/link]

Creationist response: Also, a creation scientist found "fesh" frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska. Now even evolutionists would not argue that this deposit of bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out. The bones were not fossilized! They should not be in this state if they really were millions of years old.

Kevin: First, a creation scientist did not find anything here. Creationists rarely do field work, and this one was discovered by quite conventional paleontologists. Again, if the specimens are frozen over in an anoxic environment (like being encased completely in ice), then they may not exhibit as much fossilization as could otherwise occur. However, these bones are not "fresh" and do exhibit enough enrichment to be considered fossils.

See: Goodwin, M. and Grant, P. "Evidence for postmortem enrichment in late Cretaceous dinosaur bone using microbeam PIXE" Paleobios supplement to 2:57.

03-20-2003, 11:42 PM	#1
Qinopio Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 40	Unfossilized dinosaur bones? This local Christian radio talk show that I sometimes hear occasionally invites creation/evolution debates. One topic that I haven't heard an answer for from the evolutionary side of things is the existence of unfossilized dinosaur bones. This is claimed as evidence for a recent dinosaur extinction. My question is, do they really exist? And if so, is there an alternate explanation? Couple things a quick Google search turned up, from the creationist side: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.a...aur_bones.html [the board search doesn't seem to be working, apologies if this has been covered recently]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2003, 11:55 PM	#2
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I think It's true that some of the original bone molecules can survive in the fossil, but that alone does not prove that the bones are young. Naturally, neither of your links contains any kind of evidence at all that would suggest any young dinosaur bones exist, even if they did have original molecules in them.

03-21-2003, 04:44 AM	#3
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Nah. There ain't no such animal as an unfossilized dino bone. I read a neat story at the ICR site a couple of years ago. Seems that a couple of intrepid Christians went to Alaska in search of that very thing. After many rousing adventrues, they found an all but raw, Miasaure (sp?) jaw imbedded in a sandbar. Well, I thought this was just fabulous and sent them an e mail congratulating them on the find, and asking where exactly I and my good friend, Jack Horner might view this treasure. The E was never answered, which is ok. I've never met the esteemed Mr. Horner, either. They lie, I lie. One reason that natural bone is rare in Nature is simply that rodents chew it. It doesn't last long. Only burial under exact conditions, and after a LONG time, will produce a fossil. All the rest becomes mouse and porcupine snacks. I think it's safe to speculate the same was true 65+mya, just different species. doov

03-22-2003, 10:26 PM	#4
Qinopio Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 40	So when told "There are unfossilized dinosaur bones", I should respond "Nuh uh!"? I was kind of hoping at least for some explanation of why they would say that they found them if they did not, in fact, exist.

03-23-2003, 02:46 AM	#5
LaFlavor Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA Posts: 267	they think it would be evidence of a young earth...which would be evidence against evolution. answer your question?

03-23-2003, 08:27 PM	#8
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	This is the second time I have come across this today. I have been working off and on writing a full scale resopnse, but the rest of my life keeps intruding. Short form: "Fresh" dino bones have never been found, heme and some hemoglobin fragments have been extracted from dino bones, but no "cells" were ever found. Ostiocalcin readily preserves in several long fragments. None of this is evidence for a young earth, or recent dinos.

03-23-2003, 09:20 PM	#9
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Just about every hit on a google search is to creationist sources; WHAT a surprise. There are a couple of non-creationist journal articles mentioned but no details of the papers themselves. And it seems as if creationists have got into the act; Buddy Davis (an AiG staff member) claims to have found unfossilised dino bones in Alaska. The only source I could find that wasn't a "praise Jesus, the Earth is young!" one was this: http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter53.html The relevant stuff is about a quarter of the way down.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.