Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.
Regarding Mary Schweitzer’s work, no one truly knows (no, not even Sean Pitman) the limits as to how long soft tissue might persist in fossils. No one truly knows because, at this point, we have insufficient knowledge about the preservation process and the mechanisms and limitations of degradation within the microenvironments of bone.
That’s simply not true. Before Schweitzer’s accidental discovery of elastic soft tissues and sequencable proteins in a T. rex thigh bone the vast majority of mainstream scientists believed that there was in fact very clear evidence, based on kinetic chemistry, for a very limited maximum lifespan for DNA and proteins under ambient conditions (i.e., less than 10k years) and no more than 100k years under ideal conditions (i.e., dry and cold). Many mainstream scientists went on record noting as much.
It has been proposed that no original protein and/or DNA fragments can be recovered beyond ca 100 kyr (Lindahl 1993; Bada et al. 1999; Briggs et al. 2000; Hoss 2000; Stankiewicz et al. 2000), although some remnant molecules or fragments that are less phylogenetically informative may persist up to this point under exceptional circumstances (Briggs et al. 2000).
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183.full.pdf+html
To now argue that the evidence in hand is really too weak to know much of anything regarding the decay rate of proteins and DNA is, yet again, naive. At least Schweitzer is honest enough to admit that the kinetic chemistry evidence is a huge mystery given her soft tissue findings…
Recent evidence from both fossil and extant bone material suggests that microorganisms play an important role in the preservation process. The formation of microbial biofilms can wall off internal surfaces of bones during the early stages of preservation, and preserve primary soft tissues through a microbial “masonry†process involving mineralization. Fragmented bones, for example, are much more likely to be invaded by microorganisms, which degrade all soft material. However, microorganisms can only infiltrate whole bones via natural openings (the microscopic pores or foraminae), which act as microenvironments in which the biofilm becomes established, metabolizes available primary tissues, and then mineralizes to wall off further penetration of the bone. Further studies will undoubtedly shed more light on these processes.
The biofilm hypothesis was originally proposed as a challenge to Schweitzer’s findings – suggesting that the soft tissues and blood vessels and even blood cells she found were really biofilms that took on the original form of the soft tissues that they replaced. This counter hypothesis has since been falsified. The soft tissues discovered by Schweitzer are the original soft tissues of the dinosaur – not biofilms. Also, biofilms are not able to explain the stability of proteins or DNA over time due, yet again, to the problem of kinetic chemistry which works to rapidly destroy protein and DNA structure over time. Note also, from Schweitzer’s own paper (referenced above), that “microbial biofilms would not uniformly coat all vessel channels to leave extensive networks of hollow tubes with uniform wall thickness.” This is inconsistent with Schweitzer’s finding of extensive networks of vessels with uniform wall thickness.
Before we knew anything about the persistence of soft tissues in ancient material, neither creationists nor evolutionists would have predicted the extent to which such tissues are being found today.
Come on now. Creationists predictions of a very recent burial of these creatures is the only theory that is entirely consistent with the arguments of kinetic chemistry for protein and DNA decay rates…
Again, to suggest that there is an upper limit to how long the soft tissues can be preserved goes FAR BEYOND the available data. Of course, some will cherry-pick data derived from completely unrelated systems and make grandiose statements about whose “side†the data support. We have seen plenty of this and can expect more of the same.
There is no “cherry picking” going on here professor. This was the mainstream position not more than six years ago. There remains no valid counter argument against this position either. No one has come up with any reasonable explanation for the stability of elastic soft tissues, DNA or protein over such vast periods of time as are required by mainstream theories. Schweitzer’s own hypothesis of the formation of stabilizing cross-links via free radicals is admittedly inadequate. As far as her appeal to long-term preservation via mineralization (citing the work of Martill on the near instant fossilization of fish and other creatures in the Santa formation), such mineralization is dependent upon supersaturated watery conditions and extensive permeability of the preserved bone and soft tissues and still doesn’t explain the preservation of long sections of intact, sequencable, antigenic, proteins (and potentially DNA as well).
A wise man would sit back and say, “let’s see where the accumulating evidence will take us.†And the committed Christian should say, “none of this has ANY bearing on whether the Bible is true and God’s word can be trusted.â€
Of course, because, like our LDS friends, the faith of some in the a priori credibility of their chosen Holy Book, be that book the Bible or the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, is not subject to even the potential of testing or falsification.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Phil Mills:
One of these frequent posters claims to be a Young Earth Creationists, but believes in creation based on what he refers to as “faith.†One could get the idea that he fears that anything scientifically shown to support creation is actually bad since it would then somehow require less faith to believe. His faith, however, is more akin to the Catholic student who is reported to have said, “Faith is what you believe that you know ain’t so.â€
This is not Biblical faith. Neither is it the faith of the Adventist pioneers. It certainly doesn’t build faith, it actually destroys genuine faith. This pseudofaith more closely resembles a mere superstitious belief. It is no surprise that agnostics, evolutionists, and other doubters have such an affinity for those who possess this kind of “faith†on this site. Why wouldn’t they agree with it. It doesn’t threaten them in any way. It bolsters their ranks. It confirms their unbelief since they already believe faith is unreasonable.
I couldn’t have said it better myself…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:
Of course it’s a good thing; I never said it was bad. The problem is when you and Pitman maintain that empirical evidence from nature is essential to validate the Bible–and that is heresy and blasphemy.
You yourself made this “blasphemous” claim when you listed off several empirical evidences, like fulfilled prophecy (based on empirical investigation of real history), as reasons why you believe the Bible to be superior to other books claiming to be the true Word of God.
Here is what you wrote:
In short, there is ample evidence to support the Bible and Christianity, including fulfilled prophecy, the lives and testimony of the apostles, archeology, the impact of the Bible on personal lives, and so forth. All of this is “empirical evidence†that goes beyond what is needed to establish the validity of scripture. The other religions are confronted with serious shortcomings on these issues, in my opinion… – Professor Kent
Now, if the Holy Spirit is enough, as the Latter-day Saints believe, to lead you into all truth without having to use your brain, why did you appeal to these empirical evidences to support your belief or faith in the superior credibility of the Bible vs. other competing options held in higher regard by other faiths? Why didn’t you just appeal to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you as evidence enough?
So, the argument here isn’t really over the need for an empirical basis for one’s faith in the Bible before it can be considered rational. You yourself appeal to such. You admit to the need for an empirical argument as the basis for choosing the Bible over other competing options. You’ve made this argument several times now. Therefore, the real argument here is in regard to your notion that the empirical basis, or “weight of empirical evidence” for faith never changes or needs to be re-examined in any way over time – despite the discovery of new evidence and information?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777:
You missed my overall point. The first sentence I quoted from it was: The rates at which sediments accumulate vary enormously, owing to the natural variability of the processes that produce and transport sediments. — The rates vary greatly depending on the conditions… Your argument pre-supposes that the rate has not changed, and you have not demonstrated that it has. — And frankly, it doesn’t have to be.
You misunderstand the “rate” that the author is talking about here. This rate is not the overall rate of ocean sedimentation which is in fact fairly constant at ~30 billion tons per year. I’ve already tried to explain this to you, but the variability your reference is talking about is the local variability that is indeed due to many factors of sediment transport within the oceans themselves. This local variability does not affect the overall sediment load that is consistently delivered to the oceans.
— David E. Thomas says it much better than I ever could:
…much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not good clocks.
Indeed, and my calculations take into account all the sediment currently in the oceans, to include the sediment on continental slopes and shelves and river deltas. The total amount of sediment, taking all of these factors into account, is only 10^17 tons. That tonnage can be explained in just 15 million years. That’s a huge problem for mainstream theories of plate tectonics and the proposed age of ocean basins. Your arguments about the variability of sedimentation for different parts of the ocean floor are completely irrelevant to explaining the total tonnage that is currently in the oceans regardless of its location.
I heard one geologist call it a “crude†dating method. Looks more related to “relative dating,†not “absolute dating.â€
Again, you’re looking at local rates of accumulation over time, not the overall rate of accumulation over time. You’re confusing two separate concepts here. They aren’t the same thing.
Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point that the total amount of sediment, the total tonnage that is current in the oceans, irrespective of its location within the ocean basins, can be explained given just 15 million years… – Sean Pitman
And the paper I linked a while ago using the current rate gave the figure of 100 million years: (“At a rate of 0.5 cm (.2 in)/1000 years, it takes only 100 million years to accumulate 500 m (1600 ft) of sediment,â€)
Indeed – the local rate of sediment accumulation on some areas of the ocean floor may indeed be this slow. Again, however, this is completely irrelevant to the fact that the total sediment contained by all the oceans in the whole world, to include the sediment that is on or close to the continent shelves, is far far too low for them to be nearly as old as mainstream scientists propose…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
