Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Guess what? Fossils do come with remains...here is just one example (there are more)


Over 100 Frozen Original Mammoth Proteins Found

Researchers were able to find 126 unique proteins from a frozen wooly mammoth in the first ever "shotgun sequence" of fossil protein content.1

The same team confirmed similar but fewer proteins in a Columbian mammoth fossil found in a temperate, not permafrost, climate. They said that the frozen wooly mammoth was 43,000 years old, but this is impossible to reconcile with the integrity and array of the discovered proteins.

A small international team analyzed the mammoth bones and published their findings in the Journal of Proteome Research.2 They used "the world's fastest and most sensitive ion trap mass spectrometer," according to the product's website.3 Older versions of similar technology could only detect large amounts of proteins, but this new machine is able to accurately identify small amounts.

The result was an unprecedented array of proteins, including serum albumin, which plays the essential role of transporting hormones in animals. Most of the proteins were actually fragmented but digitally stitched together to reconstruct their original forms.

North Carolina State University paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who discovered a few intact proteins in ancient dinosaur fossils in earlier studies, told science news site ProteoMonitor, "The discovery and sequencing of proteins other than collagen is a major advancement to the growing field of 'paleoproteomics' [the study of ancient proteins]."4

Schweitzer and a host of colleagues sequenced dinosaur proteins that included collagen, elastin, and laminin, even though dinosaurs are considered to be millions of years older than mammoths.5 Scientists know that such proteins exist in the spaces between cells, like in bone and connective tissues. But Schweitzer's team had used the older detection technology, and paleontologists now want to try this newer equipment on more samples in the hopes that it will reveal even more protein sequence information.

But in the process of reconstructing ancient proteins, this research is inadvertently uncovering evidence that these animal remains are not nearly as old as some say they are.

Decay rate studies have clearly shown that proteins disintegrate after only a few thousand years. For example, one study by ancient protein expert Jeffrey Bada compared the collagen protein inside modern seashells with fossil seashells deposited during the Ice Age. It showed, based on an assumed 10,000-year-ago Ice Age, that collagen cannot last longer than 30,000 years.6 But if he had assumed a biblically consistent Ice Age of 4,000 years ago instead, then the resulting extrapolation would shrink to even less time than 30,000 years.

Similarly, a 1959 study estimated protein decay rates by comparing the amount of water that ancient proteins of known age were still able to absorb with amounts that fresh protein could absorb.7 It also showed a shelf-life for protein of only a handful of millennia.

So, scientists know full well that collagen protein should no longer exist in any sample that is 43,000 years old. And the problem is even more severe for other, less resistant proteins. For example, while collagen doesn't dissolve in water, albumin does. And water dramatically accelerates the decay of biomolecules, causing "hydrolytic" and "oxidative" damage.

The researchers reporting on the mammoth proteins wrote, "Strong evidence was observed of amino acid modifications due to post-mortem hydrolytic and oxidative damage."2 In other words, they captured these proteins in just the state of decay that one would expect to find them in if they were only about 4,000 years old, a figure consistent with the biblical record of early earth history.
References
  1. Shotgun sequencing involves digitally reconstructing the protein sequence by comparing the sequences of multiple, overlapping protein fragments.
  2. Cappellini, E. et al. Proteomic Analysis of a Pleistocene Mammoth Femur Reveals More than One Hundred Ancient Bone Proteins. Journal of Proteome Research. Published online before print November 21, 2011.
  3. Thermo Scientific LTQ Orbitrap Velos product description. Accessed on thermoscientific.com January 4, 2012.
  4. Bonislawski, A. Proteomic Analysis IDs More Than 100 Proteins in 43,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth Fossil. ProteoMonitor. Posted on genomeweb.com December 16, 2011, accessed January 4, 2012.
  5. Thomas, B. Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 12, 2009, accessed January 4, 2012.
  6. Bada, J. L., X. S. Wang and H. Hamilton. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354 (1379): 77-87.
  7. Burton, D., J. B. Poole and R. Reed. 1959. A New Approach to the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nature. 184 (4685): 533-534.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on January 10, 2012.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Denial is not just a river in the Nile.   In fact, that is not spelled right.  But while Darwinists try to deny it, remains of dinosaurs and amphibians and mammals have all been discovered.  Collagen and other remains are not supposed to last for many thousands of years, let alone millions.   Does this cause the Darwinists to reexamine their beliefs like a real scientist would?   Nohohohoho!!!!   They just move the goalposts again.  What else is new?

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the world were really only 6,000 years old, wouldn't we be seeing a heck of a lot more proteins in fossil remains?

Jon Woolf said...

[jokerlaugh.wav]

A frozen animal a mere 43,000 years old is not a fossil. It's just a frozen animal. To be a fossil, it must have been fossilized: a specific term with a specific meaning.

As always, Radar, your rhetoric far outruns the facts.

AmericanVet said...

No, Jon, there are classic found-in-stone fossils with remains. Mary's T Rex did have them and you can naysay all you want, I posted proof. Oh, the Gingeriches of the worls were furious I am sure!

It is likely that other fossil finds included remains but the Darwinist paleontologists ignored that or kept it quiet until Mary Schweitzer let the cat out of the bag. Now we hear of a fossil or a frozen animal with remains that supposedly could not be that old!

China will be your Darwin bane. The Chinese do not really care about Darwinism anymore, most of them. They just publish what they discover. The more they publish, the more the world will be enriched with new information about fossils and landforms which make Darwinism defunct.

The remains of that frozen animal contained lots of proteins that should have broken down way before 43,000 years! It is more evidence that all the frozen Mammoths we find were trapped and preserved during the ice age after the Flood which would make that find maybe 4,000 years old and would then make all the proteins found just what science would expect.

We will keep hearing of more frozen critters and fossils with remains now that people know it happens. Not every scientist has your attitude, Jon, some of them want to know what is true. Some of them are willing to change their worldview and assumptions if the evidence warrants. That is why creationist and ID organizations are growing with both scientists involved and with more readers and members.

You see, you can say what you want. Darwinism is the modern-day Geocentricism. It may have been started in the 19th Century but didn't get widely accepted until the 20th. It was dead as soon as we discovered what DNA was and how cells operate but then again Geocentricism was dead when really good telescopes were devised and calculations done. Geocentricism then was a scientific zombie that kept going until the head was taken off. In this case the Darwinist "head" is the naturalists who will not accept that evidence has killed their pet hypothesis.

But in zombie movies eventualy some guy with a shotgun or an axe or whatever kills the last zombie and life goes on. So it will be with Darwinism and hopefully soon.

Anonymous said...

Comment deleted. Again.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

And again. I'd ask Radar to retrieve it but he hasn't had the decency to do that in a while. Oh well, just one of the many reasons I'm losing interest in this blog.

-Canucklehead.

P.S. - Don't get me wrong, the work of Jon, whatsit hot lips etc. is still pretty great. It's just that having been stopping by here for as long as I have, Radar's lies and intellectual laziness are getting really really old at this point.

AmericanVet said...

There are no deleted comments on this post. When comments are deleted there is a record, as I showed earlier. There are deluded commenters though.

AmericanVet said...

The WORK of whatsit and Jon is great? Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was funny...

Anonymous said...

Do you just enjoy lying Radar? Why don't you check that "spam folder" you have referred to in the past. They'll be in there.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
radar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
radar said...

Now it is obvious that Canucklehead is lying about me deleting comments. I just deleted a comment using both of my online identities and in both cases the comment is listed as deleted.

If you make a comment and it does not publish then blogger filtered it out as spam or inappropriate. Not me. Does Canucklehead have the cojones to admit he is wrong in calling me a liar?

Jon Woolf said...

Mary Schweitzer's T-rex contained traces of organic material in a section of femur that had remained completely sealed from the outside world.

"It is likely that other fossil finds included remains but the Darwinist paleontologists ignored that or kept it quiet until Mary Schweitzer let the cat out of the bag."

Yeah, right, sure, whatever. As with most True Believers, Radar, any time you can't produce actual evidence you conjure up a nebulous conspiracy to 'explain' it. The fact that you have no evidence simply becomes proof of how effective the conspiracy has been. I wonder if you even realize how much like a Truther or a Birther you sound.

Tell me, do you also believe that Noah's coffin is stored in the bowels of the Smithsonian, and the Ark of the Covenant is squirreled away in a warehouse at Dreamland?

Perhaps you can explain for all of us: if all fossils are less than ten thousand years old, then why are so few found with organic tissues associated with them? You have only one example, and you can't even tell the truth about that one. On the other hand, there are tens of thousands of other dinosaur fossils known, along with more tens of thousands of mammal fossils, hundreds of thousands of fish fossils, millions of invertebrates of all shapes, sizes, and ages. And all of them -- all of them -- are fully fossilized. Even clams and brachiopods, which are often preserved as complete, sealed shells. No organic remains. Not ever. None. Just fossils. Why is that?

AmericanVet said...

Poor Jon! Since I have already posted proof that fossilization can happen very quickly and that Mary's T Rex had remains in full posts, I have debunked you before you even commented. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of well-preserved fossils debunks Darwinism because this could only happen in catastrophic conditions. You are so blind!

Jon Woolf said...

Your refusal to see what's right under your nose is quite impressive, Radar. I know your god calls you his sheep, but perhaps you shouldn't take the metaphor quite so literally.

Mary Schweitzer's T-rex fossil isn't what you claim it was. Her own notes and personal testimony establish that beyond a doubt. 99.99999% (at least) of all fossils are fully fossilized. The claim that all those fossils are less than ten thousand years old doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Anonymous said...

Another comment gone. Oh well. If this is how you want the comment section to look then fine.

Part 1

Radar says,

"Now it is obvious that Canucklehead is lying about me deleting comments. I just deleted a comment using both of my online identities and in both cases the comment is listed as deleted."

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 2

If you make a comment and it does not publish then blogger filtered it out as spam or inappropriate. Not me. Does Canucklehead have the cojones to admit he is wrong in calling me a liar?"

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 3

First, calm down. Second, I said my comment was deleted, and it was. The only thing I accuse you of is not pulling it out of the "spam folder" you have talked about, and retreived comments from, in the past.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 4

What's interesting though is that you seem to admit that it might be in there but are hiding behind the idea that "blogger" found my comment to be "spam or inappropriate", so it therefore was. Which is a complete joke.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 5

I've never even cursed in a comment before on this blog and I'm clearly not a "spammer". So that leaves the idea that you think that blogger actually objects to the ideas/messages in my comments and so you defer to the "spam filter" on this matter. So freaking weird. The filtering process appears to be broken and so all I'm asking is that you attempt to fix it, and/or pull the non-spam, swear-free comments out of there.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 6

Not to mention the fact that recently a commenter pointed out a "delete forever" feature that appears to allow you to delete anything you want... forever. Further calling into question your integrity on this matter.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 7

Oh and your lie was that you stated that "There are no deleted comments on this post". Which is not true as I posted one, it showed up in the comment window, but when I refreshed the main post page, it had been deleted. It's your blog man, figure it out.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 8

Well this appears to work. Time to start working on my comment from yesterday, I guess.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

So once again one of you accuses me of lying, are found to be in error but you do not apologize for the false accusation?

I am waiting for my apology.

Anonymous said...

Part 1 - Jan 12th deleted comment.

Hey, so this, "Mary's T Rex did have them and you can naysay all you want, I posted proof.", is a complete lie, and you know it, Radar. I mean it's not like you can provide a link to your supposed "proof", can you? Didn't think so.

...

C.

AmericanVet said...

Because if I "delete forever" a comment it appears as "comment has been removed" and does not disappear.

AmericanVet said...

...and it is not my job to continually repost my links when i have made entire posts on such matters as the Mary T Rex. I've already done that. Go look or go away.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, why would you want to provide proof for what you're saying. That would be crazy, right? OR maybe just maybe it's that you are painfully aware that those "proof" posts you're always talking about, consistently also include embarrassing comments sections where your "proof" is eviscerated by more educated individuals than yourself, using real repeatable provable science.

Not that it matters really, as simply google-ing "ted talk Jack Horner" clears up most/all of your lies on this topic.

Oh and still nothing on that spam folder, hey... I know you read my comments above buddy. Why don't you tell me why you won't pull my comments out of there, as they're clearly neither crude nor spam?

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Part 2 - Jan 12th deleted comment.

And in the end, yet again, Jon devastated your entire post with one line and a link. Tough stuff Radar, tough stuff.

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 3 - Jan 12th deleted comment.

And before you get ahead of yourself here, the ONLY "scientists" to publish anything antievolutionary are religious creationists. That's it. So when you say to Jon that "Not every scientist has your attitude... some of them want to know what is true". You are ONLY referring to religious extremists. In other words, people with a strong motivation to lie about this very subject. Now, don't you find that even a little bit suspicious? Or are you actually trying to say that the only individuals interested in truth are ones that put the bible and god first?

...

C.

Anonymous said...

Part 4(final) - Jan 12th deleted comment.

Not a single secular scientist the world over is seeking truth? And if you object to the idea that only religious nut jobs support any of your preposterously negative positions on "Darwinism", why don't you provide us with even a single instance of a secular scientist opposing evolution, or supporting any YEC position for that matter? I know why. It's because they don't exist. Kinda like your god (sorry, I couldn't resist).

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Poor radar, always playing the victim. He says,

"So once again one of you accuses me of lying, are found to be in error but you do not apologize for the false accusation?"

In error?!? Seriously? I even reposted my deleted comment from yesterday above. Do you have some kind of degenerative reading comprehension problem or something, Radar? I said my comment was deleted, it was, you said there were no deleted comments, and I called you a liar, which you are. Looks like you're going to be waiting a loooooong time, there buddy. Anyway, still no comment on the spam folder. Why so shy now buddy?

That said, you lie all the time on this blog and are continuously called on it. So what's the big deal here again?

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Jon did not devastate anything other than perhaps in his own mind. This whole comments situation in which you anonymous commenters call me a liar, are proved wrong and will not admit it is simply revealing your character to those who read the comments.

Hundreds of people click on this site each day, over two dozen read it daily and hundreds of those readers come from non-USA sources. I have not seen anyone from the Antarctic come to my blog but I figure anyone who is down there doing research is kind of busy getting that research done and then getting warm as quick as they can.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of blog readers do not either comment or read the comments. Most of them click in an read a bit of the post and either the first couple of paragraphs snag them or they move on to other things. This is the nature of the blog world.

I am far too busy to read all my linked blogs daily so I hit and miss, going to one and then another. Today I am taking more time from work than usual as there is this storm of anonymous commenters making all this fuss.

If you say I have deleted you, you are lying. The comments thread records it when I or anyone else deletes a comment. No, I am not going to hunt up what Google considers spam. That is your job.

Some of my friends ask me why I let the troll say what they wish. Because when you do what you do, Canucklehead, you are being a troll. But I believe in first amendment rights. So despite your lack of courtesy and respect I give you the right to post. If Google (which owns blogger) does not like your comment or you cannot figure out how to use the "secret word" system that filters out bots, that is on you. Not me.