Dinosaurs...

[rossum]

Some mammoths were frozen when found. Amino acids and proteins are different things. Water breaks protein down into its amino acids. Fossils were all buried quickly through the action of water and/or preserved in low oxygen or acidic water, and fossils remained buried for hundreds of millions of years more often than not below the water table.

The dinosaur proteins that have been found have all been found inside fossilised bones, usually large bones, like femurs. Bone is essentially not permeable. An intact bone buried in water, or watery sediment, will not allow large amounts of water to penetrate. Remember also that some dinosaur fossils are from aeolian (wind blown) layers. There will have been no water at all present during fossilisation. Think of a dinosaur buried in a desert sandstorm.

rossum

 

[You]

The dinosaur proteins that have been found have all been found inside fossilised bones, usually large bones, like femurs. Bone is essentially not permeable. An intact bone buried in water, or watery sediment, will not allow large amounts of water to penetrate. Remember also that some dinosaur fossils are from aeolian (wind blown) layers. There will have been no water at all present during fossilisation. Think of a dinosaur buried in a desert sandstorm.

rossum

Hi rossum, I know the organic tissue was found inside the bones. I know that in humans, and I expect in dinosaurs also, the blood cells are made in the bone marrow. This requires passages through the bone for blood vessels connecting to the bone marrow. They also provide the passages for water into the bone.
I know there are many ways to cover a body but I expect the majority are through the action of water.

 

[inocente]

They don’t, they were responding to your query.

My query was whether you had an unbiased recent source for your claim, reproduced below, and what you linked actually shows your claim is more likely to be false than true - do I assume you can’t find any evidence for your claim?

The amino acids found in the dinosaur soft tissue should only have survived “a few million years at best”.

Which is, incidentally, about as old as our human ancestors are!

 

[rossum]

Hi rossum, I know the organic tissue was found inside the bones. I know that in humans, and I expect in dinosaurs also, the blood cells are made in the bone marrow. This requires passages through the bone for blood vessels connecting to the bone marrow. They also provide the passages for water into the bone.

A good point.

I know there are many ways to cover a body but I expect the majority are through the action of water.

The majority, yes. But not all. The majority of dinosaur fossils don’t have surviving biomolecules either.

rossum

 

[You]

My query was whether you had an unbiased recent source for your claim, reproduced below, and what you linked actually shows your claim is more likely to be false than true - do I assume you can’t find any evidence for your claim?

You are becoming a bit tedious on this point, inocente. I linked you to the National Geographic website, a Wikipedia article on the Chemical Process of Decomposition and the Science Daily website. On the Science Daily website article Bio-archaeologist Professor Matthew Collins, from the University of York’s Department of Archaeology, said: …"We believe protein lasts in a useful form ten times as long as DNA which is normally only useful in discoveries of up to 100,000 years old in Northern Europe. "

All of which means that you are correct to say that what I said about protein only surviving ‘a few million years at best’ is false. As Professor Matthew Collins and presumably his co-author Dr Mike Buckley, from the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester, believed that protein can only survive for 1 million years, not ‘a few million years’.
Which is strange because protein has been discovered in a scorpion carapace fossil dated to 410 million years old.
So, thanks for pointing out to me that protein was or is believed to survive for only 1 million years not a few million years at best.

 

[You]

A good point.

The majority, yes. But not all. The majority of dinosaur fossils don’t have surviving biomolecules either.

rossum

Not sure about that, rossum. As nobody ever believed organic matter would ever survive so long they never tested fossils for organic remains. It was only recently, and by accident, that organic remains were discovered. So the testing for organic tissue in fossils is just beginning. It has been found in a T-Rex 68 million years old, a duck-billed dino 80 million years old, a scorpion 410 million years old. So I expect that every fossil they test between and younger than those ages will also yield organic tissue. Logically speaking at least.

 

[inocente]

You are becoming a bit tedious on this point, inocente.

If you find it tedious when your claims are questioned, I suggest it was perhaps the wrong move to make them in a forum - maybe a blog would be more your style.

Now remembering that I’m unqualified in this field, the general view is that (as Wikipedia has it) “Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.” The oldest human DNA discovered is far newer – 14,300 years according to this.

Both these datings are much more recent than the 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein from your National Geographic article or even the 600,000-year-old mammoth protein from the Science Daily article.

*Which is strange because protein has been discovered in a scorpion carapace fossil dated to 410 million years old.
So, thanks for pointing out to me that protein was or is believed to survive for only 1 million years not a few million years at best. *

Errr … if protein 410 million years old has been discovered then surely it stands to reason that protein can survive at least 410 million years.

A quick search shows the oldest intact DNA so far discovered is from 419-million-year-old salt-cured bacteria, and as you quoted to me that "We believe protein lasts in a useful form ten times as long as DNA“, naively (for I have no qualifications in this field) it seems theoretically possible to find amino acids up to 4.2 billion years old.

Tedious, eh?

 

[Studer]

I cannot belief that there are adults here who say that dinosaurs/dragons lived together with humans…

Please go read a book about evolution from a good university of your country.

The Catholic Church is pro-science and pro-intellectual.

The fact that you use a computer and the internet is the result of countless scientific experiences. Don’t tell me that the scientific method doesn’t work.

Don’t forget that (at least) two Popes believed in evolution and have written about it.

Peace,
Studer

 

[buffalo]

I cannot belief that there are adults here who say that dinosaurs/dragons lived together with humans…

Please go read a book about evolution from a good university of your country.

The Catholic Church is pro-science and pro-intellectual.

The fact that you use a computer and the internet is the result of countless scientific experiences. Don’t tell me that the scientific method doesn’t work.

Don’t forget that (at least) two Popes believed in evolution and have written about it.

Peace,
Studer

Believe it. and much more…

Done that.

Yes it is.

Lot’s of trial and error in inventions.

Personal opinions of pope’s are just that. See my signature though. The bottom three are PBVI

 

[You]

If you find it tedious when your claims are questioned, I suggest it was perhaps the wrong move to make them in a forum - maybe a blog would be more your style.

Now remembering that I’m unqualified in this field, the general view is that (as Wikipedia has it) “Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.” The oldest human DNA discovered is far newer – 14,300 years according to this.

Both these datings are much more recent than the 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein from your National Geographic article or even the 600,000-year-old mammoth protein from the Science Daily article.

Errr … if protein 410 million years old has been discovered then surely it stands to reason that protein can survive at least 410 million years.

A quick search shows the oldest intact DNA so far discovered is from 419-million-year-old salt-cured bacteria, and as you quoted to me that "We believe protein lasts in a useful form ten times as long as DNA“, naively (for I have no qualifications in this field) it seems theoretically possible to find amino acids up to 4.2 billion years old.

Tedious, eh?

Yes, tedious.
Amino acids are crystalline solids, and as long as they are not unduly stressed by heat or microbes they will last, like any crystalline solid, for a long time.
Proteins are chains of these amino acids. Water decomposes proteins by introducing a water molecule between two amino acids in a chain. No heat, pressure, or catalyst is needed for this reaction, it is a natural decomposition thing. It occurs naturally with water and time.
It is the two scientists, professors of Biology, (who I quoted, unusually), who say that proteins had a limited useful life of one million years. Presumably after that period they decompose and cease to be identifiable protein sequences.

 

[You]

…

A quick search shows the oldest intact DNA so far discovered is from 419-million-year-old salt-cured bacteria, …

Heres a quote from that article;

"…The first representative of the group, Halobacterium salinarum, was found living on a salt-cured buffalo hide in the 1930s. Scientists assumed it was a modern species, but the team’s work has shown that H. salinarum is in fact a close genetic relative of bugs that lived between 121 and 419 million years ago.

Vreeland tracked down the origins of the buffalo skin and found that the salt probably came from a mine in Saskatchewan.

Rocks in the mine formed when a sea dried up around 300 million years ago, and Vreeland suspects those first H. salinarum spent the entire time living inside tiny brine-filled defects in salt crystals, waiting for the right moment to re-emerge."

In case anyone did not get that. These bacteria did not die despite being buried and fossilized for 419 million years. As soon as they were dug up and water added they sprang to life!
Good heavens, 419 million years.

 

[nonanon]

In case anyone did not get that. These bacteria did not die despite being buried and fossilized for 419 million years. As soon as they were dug up and water added they sprang to life!
Good heavens, 419 million years.

To be clear, the article didn’t say that the bacteria were fossilized.

But I am having trouble following your argument. There’s been evidence shown from multiple sources of different kinds of proteins remaining at least partially intact after burial at different locations for tens to hundreds of millions of years. And the objection to all of it comes down to “that’s a big number”? Or is there something more?

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps we should reframe the question - how long do we expect soft tissue to retain its elasticity?

 

[You]

To be clear, the article didn’t say that the bacteria were fossilized.

But I am having trouble following your argument. There’s been evidence shown from multiple sources of different kinds of proteins remaining at least partially intact after burial at different locations for tens to hundreds of millions of years. And the objection to all of it comes down to “that’s a big number”? Or is there something more?

Well the fact that life itself as well as organic matter can survive fossilized, or sealed in a crystal, for 400 million years could mean one of two things, technically. Either life can survive that long or it cannot survive that long.

 

[nonanon]

Well the fact that life itself as well as organic matter can survive fossilized, or sealed in a crystal, for 400 million years could mean one of two things, technically. Either life can survive that long or it cannot survive that long.

No, “the fact that life itself as well as organic matter can survive…400 million years” only means one thing–it can. Either it is a fact, or it’s not.

 

[You]

No, “the fact that life itself as well as organic matter can survive…400 million years” only means one thing–it can. Either it is a fact, or it’s not.

Isn’t it only a fact if you know the rock is dated to 400 million years ago? It is extraordinary that a bacteria which lives for four or five days can enter a dormant state and survive for 419 million years and come back to life when exposed on the surface to air and light. It is so extraordinary that it makes me want to check the date of the rocks again…

 

[inocente]

Yes, tedious.

I guess if I’m unworthy of your expertise then you could always make your claims on a specialist forum like biology-forums.com/ or biology-online.org/biology-forum/ and see how well you do.

Proteins are chains of these amino acids. Water decomposes proteins by introducing a water molecule between two amino acids in a chain. No heat, pressure, or catalyst is needed for this reaction, it is a natural decomposition thing. It occurs naturally with water and time.

We all no doubt learned that at school, I’m not that much of a non-specialist.

It is the two scientists, professors of Biology, (who I quoted, unusually), who say that proteins had a limited useful life of one million years. Presumably after that period they decompose and cease to be identifiable protein sequences.

It doesn’t matter what authority figures believe, science is about evidence, not presumptions. The facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts. I’d say the fact is that easily found non-specialist articles show that both amino and nucleic acids have been discovered intact which are orders of magnitude older than one million years, and therefore the belief that they necessarily degrade within one or two million years is falsified.

Which in turn would mean this area can’t be used to support the idea that humans and dinosaurs were ever contemporaries, and in fact weighs against it by adding to the evidence that life on Earth has been around far longer than humans.

 

[inocente]

Heres a quote from that article;

“… …] Rocks in the mine formed when a sea dried up around 300 million years ago, and Vreeland suspects those first H. salinarum spent the entire time living inside tiny brine-filled defects in salt crystals, waiting for the right moment to re-emerge.”

Yes, tenacious little critters.

Isn’t it only a fact if you know the rock is dated to 400 million years ago? It is extraordinary that a bacteria which lives for four or five days can enter a dormant state and survive for 419 million years and come back to life when exposed on the surface to air and light. It is so extraordinary that it makes me want to check the date of the rocks again…

I’d start by finding and reading the original research paper to double-check the facts. Perhaps once protected by their dry salt time-capsule, 400 million years might be no more extraordinary than 1 million.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps we should reframe the question - how long do we expect soft tissue to retain its elasticity?

To what end? If at first you don’t succeed, rearrange the parameters?

 

[You]

Yes, tenacious little critters.

I’d start by finding and reading the original research paper to double-check the facts. Perhaps once protected by their dry salt time-capsule, 400 million years might be no more extraordinary than 1 million.

This is the last post on these salty bacteria. Neither of us possess the expertise to go further with this question. Their dry-salt capsule as you call it was actually wet. They lived in microscopic amounts of interstitial briny water within salt crystals.
Investigations carried out with these salt-loving bacteria types simulating evaporating conditions in the lab over a period of 8 months discovered that between 99.6% and 84% perished, depending on the bacteria strain. This was after a period of only 8 months, so I suppose time may eventually tell if they could survive dormant for 419 million years.