[asa] Fw: Re: [MKnet] T- rex closest living relative - the dangerous....chicken

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi folks,

I posted the below article from the bbc to another list and received
(to my surprise) the below response. I am not qualified to reply. Is
there anyone here who can advise me witha reply?

Iain (the other one)

Di bawah ini adalah email/pesan yang asli:

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:08:46 -0600
From:
To:
Subject: T- rex closest living relative - the
dangerous....chicken ID: 4620EE7E.5040600@mknet.org

IW wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6548719.stm
>

> The discovery of protein in dinosaur bones is a surprise - organic
> material was not thought to survive this long.

...

> According to theories of fossilisation, original organic material is
> not thought to survive as long as this; finding them in a fossil this
> old is a genuine surprise. They are by far the oldest such molecules
> extracted from fossils.
>
> "It has always been assumed that preservation of [dinosaur bones] does
> not extend to the cellular and molecular level," said co-author Mary
> Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.
>
> "The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms.
> And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone
> completely in 100,000 years, maximum."
>

This is not the first such attempt, I recall reporting on an effort to
extract organic material from dinosaur bones a while back. (Or maybe,
this is the research results from that earlier effort).

A couple of obvious things come to mind however. First, "the pathways
of decay are well known for modern organisms" has an implied assumption
that "the pathways of decay" have remained virtually the same over
millions or billions of years -- without any real evidence of that. The
Bible implies, at least, that the "pathways of decay" have perhaps not
been the same even over the past few thousand years.

Second, the whole theory of the earth being four billion years old is
based on scientific research that is at least 120 years old. Nobody has
though to go back and look at the old evidence in the light of current
research to see what happens to the timeline then. Specifically, the 4
billion years age is based primarily on the idea that currently
observable processes (such as erosion or volcanic activity), primarily
in their modern, observable forms, can account for everything we see.
So when we measure the current rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon (ok,
the pre-dam rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon) by the Colorado river,
and we take that and divide the rate of erosion by its depth, we come up
with the number of years the Grand Canyon must have taken to form.
Similarly, if we look at current sedimentation rates where we can
measure them in the ocean floor, we come up with a value of how long it
takes to form the layers of rock that make up the Grand Canyon, so we
can add those years to the number of years it took to carve the canyon,
and we know about how old the canyon must be. The problem with this is
that nearly any scientist today accepts that "catasrophism" is a more
accurate scientific model. IN catastophism, you have long periods or
relative stability in in the earth, including climate, etc, followed by
brief periods of "catastrophe", for example, when the supposed asteroid
hit in the Yucatan that wiped out the dinosaurs, or Krakatoa, or the
Yellowstone major eruptions. On a more local scale, events like Mount
St. Helens that don't necessarily have major global impacts, but
regionally have catastrophic effect on the local ecosystem, including
erosion rates, sedimentation rates, all sorts of fun stuff like that.
But no scientist wants to revisit the "gospel" 4 Billion year old date
in the light of how much we know about how erosion and volcanic activity
REALLY take place.

Finally, the third point is so obvious it is almost painful. Maybe
organic material really doesn't survive more than 100,000 years? Maybe
- - -- I know this is a stretch -- maybe the fossilized remains are *gasp*
NOT MORE THAN 100,000 YEARS OLD. I know its a shocking thought, but,
perhaps it is the assumption of the age of the fossil that is wrong, and
 not the assumption about the rate of decay. (especially when the rate
of decay is measurable objectively, but the age of the fossil is not
(ok, I know that's going to stir up controversy)). Occam's Razor
dictates that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. The
simplest solution is that the fossil remains are less than 100,000 years
old. But this attacks the virtual "holy grail" of evolutionary theory
right at its core. You will never see studies or real research done on
this, because you'd never get published in a peer review journal,
regardless of the correctness of your claims. And in today's scientific
environment, if you don't get published, you don't have a job, so,
people are pretty much only going to do research, and report results,
that they know will get published. That, of course, is a different
topic entirely :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Email me for public key

iD8DBQFGIVUL90Gf33Iu52URAqd1AKCelu3gbH7dr3ISzCeXgx5Jdx6yKwCgvQtv
XWu3SnV7hS0V14O64NDoeU4=
=mpPg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 14 18:27:01 2007