Page 31 of 35

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:22 pm
by LightBrigade
Because Starfire asked but I replied under pressure of time, thus touching the philosophical more than the practical, I am so much afraid,

I hope the following is a little bit more enlightening.

"Quantum" comes from "how much" in Latin. The practical side of this section of Physics, Quantum Mechanics deals with understanding the atomic and subatomic scale of matter or energy. It became necessary as we examined and discovered matter further. For example, what we found about electrons of atoms could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism. If Newtonian physics and the Maxwell’s laws governed the existence of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus.

In quantum mechanics, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex wave function which is sometimes referred to as orbitals in the case of atomic electrons or more generally, elements of a complex vector space. This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. It can be either in a particular region of space, or it is not. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sets the foundations for further understanding of quantum physics in concept. (There are many simplified books on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and that is a good start for one who would like to understand this field of Science : delete Science, and read Life.) The principle quantifies the inability to precisely locate the particle we are examining at the atomic or subatomic level allowing one to compute the probability of finding an electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a particular time.

Another inability of Science which led to quantum mechanics was what we observed about light but could not explain. Light behaves as a wave and as a charged particle. When it was found in 1900 by Max Planck that the energy of waves could be described as consisting of small packets or quanta, Albert Einstein exploited this idea to show that an electromagnetic wave such as light could be described by a particle called the photon with a discrete energy dependent on its frequency. This led to a theory of unity between subatomic particles and electromagnetic waves called wave-particle duality in which particles and waves were neither one nor the other, but had certain properties of both.

Inconsistencies arise when one tries to join the quantum laws with general relativity, a more elaborate description of space-time which incorporates gravitation. Resolving these inconsistencies has been a major goal of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics. Towards this goal, many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have laboured in the attempt to discover a "Grand Unification Theory".

So, Starfire, as I said in my previous posts in the matter here, the academic world has no solid proof that we are spiritual beings basing it on quantum physics. Some suspect that in the strict scientific sense and not necessarily based on quantum physics at all, there may be in the future as the ability of man to think develops. However, many believe that one or few sections of our systematic ability to think and examine Cosmos are not enough for the task. If we are to have proof about our nature as spiritual beings, this must come from many branches of our system of studying and examining, Science. This is since these branches are specialised fields and thus not capable of a complete overview for a holistic perception and comprehension of the issue. (The explanation of this matter may be very entertaining and further enlightening actually, if one is interested in knowing why this fragmentation, this breaking to pieces with Science, that is.)

There is something wonderful here.

People such as those I just mentioned, thinkers, scientists, call them what we will, have often admitted that the deeper they examine Cosmos, the more they realise that Science and Religion are merely two different languages speaking about the same topic. In more or less the same way, no matter if this statement sounds like a paradox to the average man. It is a reality they perceive quite well. They say *soft smile*
- - -
I do hope you understand that the two different language tones in this post are only because I found two different necessities, a very brief synopsis of a vast field of thinking and remarks to conclude particularly on your question.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:40 pm
by LightBrigade
Because I was asked today "can Science prove we are made of spirit?"
LightBrigade wrote:(Quantum Physics and)

Science in general shall never prove whether we are of spirit as well as flesh only because the spirit is of nature Science cannot touch, measure, put in a laboratory and experiment on, to repeat the findings it needs to prove what it usually does.

Science proves when it is able to in vitro (in laboratory conditions) repeat the same experiment in imitating nature, and produce the same results repeatedly and invariably each time.

Science can not dissect the spirit, in simple words.
...
I said "shall never prove" meaning _of what we understand as Science at present_.

No one knows if or when Science may at some time have the means to do it.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:02 pm
by Dark Knight
LightBrigade wrote:
Dark Knight wrote:
Dinosaurs Died Agonizing Deaths: Asphyxiation?

... an opisthotonic pose.
It is interesting the amount of evidence, for a world-wide flood, I can now add this to the list....

Of course not all dinosaurs died in the flood, some would have died before.....and some after....

Yes there would have been dinosaurs on Noah's boat....

In fact it is interesting the evidence that dinosaurs almost survived to the present day.....
So, Dark Knight, is your own personal belief about the very interesting matter you have mentioned here, that dinosaurs could have been in Noah's Ark, that some died in that flood and some died earlier and others later?

Which I would find a fairly logical assumption and for those who adopt the Bible, a well established belief.
Yes It is my own personal belief.... and it fits with the bible
But there is a point I do not quite grasp. Could you, please, tell again how you mean that they almost survived to the present day, if that is not too much trouble to ask of you? Of course I understand there may be little or no time for you to deal with this question.
Yes I have had not much time lately as I am now back at work... and all the talk in the sightings topic, which has not all been about sightings..

I mean there are sightings that are not that old...

I may get round to post this sighting in detail in the sightings topic....

so here is a sighting:
A Psychologist saw a Living Pterosaur, According to American Author Jonathan Whitcomb

A prehistoric-looking creature flies over an island in Papua New Guinea, according to psychologist Brian Hennessy

LONG BEACH, Calif./EWORLDWIRE/June 8, 2007 --- A psychologist at a university in Central China asserts that he saw, in 1971, a prehistoric-looking creature flying in Papua New Guinea. Brian Hennessy of the Chongqing University of Medical Sciences described the creature as black or dark brown with a "longish narrow tail" and a beak that was "indistinguishable from the head."
from http://s8int.com/phile/eyewit29.html

Did he see a Living Pterosaur?

If he did then it is possible it survived to the present day....it is also possible that there are some still surviving some where...

But up to you, what you think....

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:16 pm
by Dark Knight
FOCUS MAGAZINE’S COELACANTH CONFESSIONS

By, Harun Yahya

Harun Yahya is a pen name used by Mr. Adnan Oktar.

An interesting article appeared in the April 2003 edition of Focus magazine. More than its actual content, the interesting thing about this article was its publication in Focus, a magazine known for its devotion to the theory of evolution, yet which still carried a report about the fish known as the coelacanth, “living proof” that totally undermines all the claims of the theory of evolution.


Even more interesting was the manner the magazine dealt with the subject. Focus had no compunctions about setting out, one by one and in the most open manner, all the blows dealt to the theory of evolution by the coelacanth. The “astonishment” awoken in evolutionists by this fish, and the way that it and other “living fossils” represent a complete dead-end for evolution were objectively described.


This article, which may be regarded as a “confession” from the point of view of emphasizing the invalidity of the theory of evolution, genuinely dealt with the subject in a most objective manner.


We hope that this attitude will continue, and we repeat the blows dealt to evolution by the coelacanth below.


The coelacanth is a large fish, some 150 cm long, covered in thick scales reminiscent of armor. It belongs to the Osteichthyes class, and the earliest fossils from it are found in strata from the Devonian Period (408-350 million years). Up until 1938, a great many evolutionist zoologists assumed that the coelacanth walked on the sea bed using its two pairs of double fins, and that it represented a transitional form between land and sea creatures.


As evidence for this they pointed to the bony structure of the fins in the coelacanth fossils to hand at the time. A development in 1938, however, totally overturned this intermediate species claim. A living coelacanth was caught in the waters off the Republic of South Africa!


Furthermore, study of this animal, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, revealed that coelacanths had undergone absolutely no changes at all for 400 million years. The astonishment caused by this discovery is expressed in Focus magazine in these terms:


“Even the discovery of a living dinosaur would have been less surprising. Because fossils show that the coelacanth existed 150-200 million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs.


The creature put forward by many scientists as the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, had been found!”


In the years which followed, some 200 living Latimera chalumnae were caught. It was realized that these fish, which had undergone absolutely no changes, lived between 150 and 600 meters down and possessed a perfect bodily design.


In 1987, Professor Hans Fricke of the Max Planck Institute descended some 200 meters off the Comores Islands, to the east of Africa, in the mini-sub Geo, and observed these creatures in their natural habitat. He saw that their bony fins had no functional connection to the protrusions which allow tetrapods (four-footed land-dwelling animals) to walk. This is how Focus magazines reports the results of this research: “The flexible fins had no similar functions to those in four-footed land vertebrates. These allowed the creature to swim head-down and in all directions, even backwards.”

In order to better understand how a living thing which has experienced no changes for a 400 million-year period can make things so difficult for evolutionists it will be useful to have a look at some information from the fossil record. Just about all today’s known phyla (the largest category used in the classification of animals) emerged in the Cambrian Period. That refers to the period between 543 and 490 million years ago.


The beginning of the Cambrian period shows that the history of complex living things on earth, if we exclude single-celled and elementary multi-celled creatures, goes back some 550 million years. The period during which the coelacanth has remained unchanged therefore represents considerably more than two-thirds of that period.


If life on earth emerged by evolution, how is it that this creature was able to come down to the present day, over such a long period of time, without being affected by the mutations and natural selection which are claimed to lead to evolution? Evolutionists have no answer to this.


When one also considers the continental shifts that took place during these 400 million years when coelacanths remained totally unchanged, then evolutionists can be seen to be in a completely helpless position.


Focus magazine writes: “According to the scientific facts, all the continents were joined together some 250 million years ago. This enormous area of land was surrounded by a single giant ocean. Around 125 million years ago, the Indian Ocean opened up as the result of continents changing places. The volcanic caves in the Indian Ocean, which form a large part of the coelacanth’s natural habitat, came about under the influence of this movement of continents. An important truth emerges in the light of all these facts. These animals, which have been in existence for some 400 million years, have remained unchanged despite the many changes in their natural environment!”
from http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=546

And they still don't see a problem with the thoery or the dates?

If a coelacanth can still be around after all those years, then why not a Dinosaur?

No mutations here!

No evolution here ether!

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:47 pm
by Boikat
If a coelacanth can still be around after all those years, then why not a Dinosaur?
There are no fossils of Latimera chalumnae . The article gives the impression that that same species is several hundred million years old. This is not the case. However, if anyone has a reference which shows that Latimera chalumnae is found in the fossil record (Not just any coelacanth, but the specific species, L. chalumnae, I'd like to see it.

Another point, even *if* a living dinosaur, pterosaurs, Mososaurs, or any other organism or species currently thought to be extinct, is discovered, that's not really a problem for evolution. It would merely reflect that there's more to the world than we currently have knowledge of.

Let's say that a hypothetical "Lost World" is discovered with living representatives of dinosaurs. How, exactly, is that a problem for the ToE? Aside from the "Oooh Aaah!" factor, the only real question would be "How did they survive?", unless the representative species were *exactly the same species that lived over 65 million years ago* That would be a *challenge* for the ToE, but would not damage it, as such.

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:55 pm
by Dark Knight
Boikat wrote:
If a coelacanth can still be around after all those years, then why not a Dinosaur?
There are no fossils of Latimera chalumnae . The article gives the impression that that same species is several hundred million years old. This is not the case. However, if anyone has a reference which shows that Latimera chalumnae is found in the fossil record (Not just any coelacanth, but the specific species, L. chalumnae, I'd like to see it.
Is it still a coelacanth? Yes… Has it evolved in to anything else? No… I call this adaptive change…
Another point, even *if* a living dinosaur, pterosaurs, Mososaurs, or any other organism or species currently thought to be extinct, is discovered, that's not really a problem for evolution. It would merely reflect that there's more to the world than we currently have knowledge of.

Let's say that a hypothetical "Lost World" is discovered with living representatives of dinosaurs. How, exactly, is that a problem for the ToE? Aside from the "Oooh Aaah!" factor, the only real question would be "How did they survive?",
Well over that period, that 65 million years, a whole lot of other animals are meant to have evolved. This then challenges those claims, in that we don’t see them the dinosaurs as evolving into anything else…
unless the representative species were *exactly the same species that lived over 65 million years ago* That would be a *challenge* for the ToE, but would not damage it, as such.
If they turn out to be exactly the same species, then this would show that over that whole period they did not change, and the random mutations, that are meant to be reasonable for evolution had no effect…

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:47 pm
by Dark Knight
Trilobite Tree Is Upside Down 07/28/2007

Darwin predicted that life would become more diverse over time, like the branches on a tree. The pattern of trilobites in the fossil record is just the opposite: more diversity appears in the lower layers, and less diversity in the upper layers. Surprisingly, evolutionary paleontologists are turning this into evidence for Darwin’s theory.
Science Daily titled their article, “Fossils Older Than Dinosaurs Reveal Pattern Of Early Animal Evolution On Earth.” Acknowledging that trilobites appeared in “an unprecedented explosion of life on Earth” in the Cambrian strata, the article doesn’t hint that this causes any problem for evolution. It quotes Mark Webster (U of Chicago) explaining the evidence in support of evolution: “From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on.”
The idea is that trilobites started out in a more plastic state – more variable – and became channelized into specific body patterns later. Maybe this was because ecological niches forced the later trilobites into particular habitats that inhibited variation. Or maybe developmental processes within the early trilobites caused fewer constraints on the appearance of the organism. Or maybe neither. Webster said, “We need to tease apart what’s controlling this pattern of high within-species variation. There’s a lot more work to do.”
Regardless, evolutionary theory itself was not pictured in any danger. The article did not explain how the complex body types arose almost instantly by an evolutionary mechanism. Instead, it just claimed they “emerged” rapidly: “during the Cambrian Period, more complex creatures with skeletons, eyes and limbs emerged with amazing suddenness.” Webster gave his explanation a warm, fuzzy feeling. The article paraphrased him saying that it appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion.”
Trilobites had bilateral symmetry, specialized body segments, articulated limbs for mobility, and some of the most complex eyes known in marine invertebrates (09/18/2003, No precursors to trilobites in earlier strata have been identified. The first trilobites were already fully formed with all their complex organs and structures.

When the media, museums and universities are able to propound these magical fairy tales without any critical scrutiny, creationism doesn’t stand a chance being heard above the din. Anything goes in ev-illusion (07/27/2007 commentary), including cartoons like Popeye (05/31/2005 commentary).
How can this multiply-discredited theory ever get falsified? The evidence can be 180° opposite Darwin’s prediction, and yet they turn it into a great victory. Nobody asks any hard questions. Nobody calls foul. Nobody sees the intellectual crime being committed. They get away with it, time and time again. Doesn’t anyone in the scientific and media establishments have any sense any more?
For a detailed look at the Cambrian explosion and a prominent evolutionist’s attempts to explain it, read our entry “Cambrian Explosion Damage Control” from 04/23/2006.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm

“Cambrian Explosion Damage Control” link:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200604.htm#20060423a

No precursors? sounds like creation...
The idea is that trilobites started out in a more plastic state – more variable – and became channelized into specific body patterns later. Maybe this was because ecological niches forced the later trilobites into particular habitats that inhibited variation.
adaptive change? anyone?

Sounds downward, as then change, losing diversity....

Also trilobites may still be alive today....

Are there Living trilobites? that woke you up didn't it...?

Yes people do make the claim...

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:52 pm
by Dark Knight
Evolution: Onward and Downward 11/13/2007
A story in New Scientist explores a growing realization about evolutionary trees: over time, things have gotten simpler, not more complex. Better cut down the tree in your textbook and start over.

If you want to know how all living things are related, don’t bother looking in any textbook that’s more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.
While nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity – humans are indisputably more complicated than amoebas – recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so, then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. “The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong,” says Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.


The article goes on to describe a new storytelling strategy.

The entire tree of life has been built on the assumption that evolution entails increasing complexity. So, for example, if two groups of animals were considered close because both had a particular prominent feature, then someone discovered a third, intermediate line that lacked that feature but shared many other aspects of the two groups, traditional phylogenists would conclude that the feature had arisen independently in the two outlying groups, by a process known as convergent evolution. They often did not even consider the alternative explanation: that the feature in question had evolved just once in an ancestor of all three groups, and had subsequently been lost in the intermediate one. Now a handful of molecular biologists are considering that possibility.

How the earlier, more primitive creature evolved the innovation in the first place was left unstated. These innovations are not simple functions likely to arise from genetic mutations. They include multi-part systems, such as a central nervous system.

The Darwin Party’s motto is, “Everything we know is wrong.” If you like trying out the avenues with signs that say Wrong Way, follow the Darwin Partymobile onto the highway of life.
From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200711.htm

Lets see if this matches what Creationists believe…. You go from a animal that is made, that is at it’s best, that has all the information, it does not need to evolve, it is fully developed , and over-time there is a loss of information….

Yes you see Creationists where right, there is not increased complexity, there is actually a loss of complexity, over time….

They often did not even consider the alternative explanation: that the feature in question had evolved just once in an ancestor of all three groups,

No not evolve, but in the unique first two animals of that kind all along, from the beginning..

AND here you thought that this topic had died... well no... it was just sleeping....
Dark Knight wrote:
LightBrigade wrote:So, Dark Knight, is your own personal belief about the very interesting matter you have mentioned here, that dinosaurs could have been in Noah's Ark, that some died in that flood and some died earlier and others later?

Which I would find a fairly logical assumption and for those who adopt the Bible, a well established belief.
Yes It is my own personal belief.... and it fits with the bible
To read how much dinosaurs where in the bible, go to my blog, it is very interesting and I just find out recently, how much they are mention in there... you would not believe... :shock: :D

You acutally find out that the Egyptians had domesticated them, that is well after the flood.... :shock:

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:37 pm
by Dark Knight
Who Knows the Age of Grand Canyon? 11/30/2007
“In spite of over a century of work on the Grand Canyon, there are still fundamental questions about the age of the canyon and the processes that have formed it.” Thus begins a paper in the November GSA Bulletin of the Geological Society of America.1 To re-evaluate the date of Grand Canyon, a team dated lavas comparing argon-40 and argon-39, examined fault lines, and modeled rates of downcutting by the river. Their result? The canyon is half as old as previously thought: from 1.2 million years maximum, to probably less than 723,000 years – maybe even as little as 102,000 years.
This represents another step in a long trend of falling ages for the world’s most famous canyon. John Wesley Powell thought the canyon was 70 million years old – a date that stuck for nearly a century (source: RAE.org). In more recent decades, 5 million years was the consensus figure. Now it’s getting down into the hundreds of thousands (07/22/2002), with no end in sight. Textbooks can’t keep up with the scientists, though. This website for Utah fifth graders, for instance, nonchalantly tells the kids the canyon is 10 million years old.
Meanwhile, creationists have long argued that the canyon is very young. Their most popular model has a large lake upstream breaching its dam and carving the entire canyon within days or weeks. Remarkably, some secular geologists are warming up to that idea, supplying their own variations on the dam-breach theme but putting the event farther back in time (09/30/2000, 05/31/2002, 07/22/2002, 09/16/2005). Who knows; maybe tradition makes it hard to give up those millions of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Karlstrom et al, “40Ar/39Ar and field studies of Quaternary basalts in Grand Canyon and model for carving Grand Canyon: Quantifying the interaction of river incision and normal faulting across the western edge of the Colorado Plateau,” GSA Bulletin, Volume 119, Issue 11 (November 2007), pp. 1283-1312.

Our commentary is based on analysis of this paper by a field geologist with over 28 years’ experience in the oil, gas and mining industries, who has also given presentations about the Colorado Plateau.
The authors of this paper cherry-picked their data. They only used 26 of 63 radiometric dating tests – that is tossing out 60% of the data. How can we trust their results? Even then, the spread in resulting ages is huge, but they never questioned the validity of their dating method.
In addition, there is a large discrepancy between the dates of lavas on the Uinkaret Plateau (3.4 to 3.7 million years) and those of intracanyon flows (100,000 to 700,000 years), but they assumed that their results are immune from the flaws of earlier attempts. Regardless, they had to admit that radioactive dating of basalt is very difficult, particularly in Grand Canyon. They also acknowledged large discrepancies between radioactive dates and those determined by stratigraphic position: in one case, they were off by more than two standard deviations. The way out was to use a method of “recalculating errors to better reflect scatter of the dates beyond analytical error.” Some stratigraphic dates agreed with the radiometric dates, but the above discrepancy stuck out like a sore thumb. What did they do? Ignore it!
The incision rates (downcutting of the river) they modeled would require 10 to 12 million years to carve the canyon – much older than the date they got from radiometric methods. They tried to correlate incision rate with faulting rate, but those are two processes that have nothing to do with each other; to get disparate pieces of the puzzle together, they allowed incision rates to vary by nearly 1000%. When needed, they added some ad hoc forces to keep things in sync: raising the whole Colorado Plateau by a “buoyant low-velocity mantle upwelling.”
In short, our geologist concluded, “RA [radioactive] dating can give any date you would like, depending on where you sample and what method you use. Because the evolutionists’ assumptions are wrong they are asking the wrong questions, using the wrong methods, and generating wrong interpretations. What a waste of time and effort.” (See 09/19/2007).
Scouring through the jargon and numbers in this technical paper, it is apparent that these geologists were trying to piece together a lot of uncooperative data into some kind of patchwork that gave them a human sense of accomplishment. Undoubtedly the team felt gratified for getting a paper published by their peers in the Geological Society of America. Whether their claims have any necessary correlation with what actually happened at Grand Canyon is an entirely different question. Here, it is publish and perish – perish the thought that their assumptions might be totally off kilter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity: Want to see evidence for a young canyon with your own eyes? Join us for the Memorial Day 2008 3-day rafting trip in Grand Canyon! (see sample picture). Click here for details on this fun-filled, educational vacation package. Don’t hesitate – the trip is expected to fill by January 2008 or before.
go to http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200712.htm and scroll down and you will find the place to click if you what to go on the 3-day rafting trip. I am not going I am stick in NZ, never been rafting, not my thing really, oh right that is off-topic...

getting back to the topic, the point is that they don't know, which means they should not go around reporting the age with so much certainty, when they really have no idea what so ever

Another point is about updating, surely if the new date is so right people should hop to it and change the old date for the new on websites, maybe they are waiting for it to go older again...

Besides a website should tell kids all the ages, that way kids will know that these people really don't know, or the full possible range of dates, like 102,000 years - 723,000 years or maybe they would like to use 102,000 years - 5 million years or 10 million...

but then we can't have people doubt the ages that these people come up with can we, I mean where would that lead?

no, no, no we can't have that.....

remember these people are right all the time, every new age is right even if it is different from the one before, that was right....every new date is right, and it is right until a new one comes out, which of course is correct...until you guess it the next one comes out.... why question a wining formula like that.. :wink:

Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:49 pm
by Dark Knight
Dinosaur Fossil Shows Exquisite Skin Detail 01/09/2008
More imaginary feathers on a dinosaur have been discovered. A BBC News article shows a cartoon of a dinosaur with feathers on its arms. This is strange, because the paper it refers to makes no claim about feathers – only that certain structures had been interpreted as feathers by some.
The original paper by Theagarten Lingham-Soliar (U of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa) described a Psittocosaur from China that is remarkable in one respect: it exhibits dinosaur skin in cross section with the finest detail ever found. Published in the Proceedings B of the Royal Society,1 the paper says that “Also, for the first time in a dinosaur two fibre layers parallel to the skin surface are preserved deep within the dermis at the base of the cross section.” Collagen at least 25 layers deep – maybe 40 layers deep – suggests that the skin of this species was tough and rigid, providing protection for internal organs. Tooth marks from a possible predator attack were also found. For these reasons, the author said this specimen “gives a remarkable, unprecedented understanding of the dinosaur skin.” It should, therefore, provide an ideal case for a feather hunt.
The BBC report made overt claims about feathers in addition to its cartoon: “The plant-eating Psittacosaurus had a thick layer of shark-like skin hidden under scales or feathers.” The caption said, “Some scientists believe a number of dinosaurs had feathers.” Another quote hedged a little: “Soft tissues such as skin are rarely preserved in the fossil record, leading to heated debate over what dinosaurs looked like, and whether they were covered in primitive feathers or scales.”
What did the original paper say about feathers? Not much. The only relevant statement was, “To date, all integumental structures described in dinosaurs, whether interpreted as ‘protofeathers’ or structural fibres, occur on the surface of the animal or on adjacent substrate.” A look at the references for such interpretations showed two for and two against. The most recent paper in the references was by Feduccia and Wang denying that so-called feathers are anything more than degraded collagen fibers. The only other comment about feathers in the paper was about the uniqueness of bird skin: “A generalization of the primary functional role of the dermis in the protection and/or support for the enclosed body mass may be extended to most vertebrates with the possible exception of birds, wherein the dermis plays a unique role with respect to feather attachments.” Nothing in the paper, therefore, supported the claim that the well-preserved skin of this Psittocosaur had feathers, despite the BBC’s depiction.
Update 01/10/2008: The author of the paper denies that these are feathers. Roger Highfield, reporting for the UK Telegraph, found out that the point of Theagarten Lingham-Soliar’s paper was to refute the notion that the collagen dermis layers contain proto-feathers. Here is what he told the Daily Telegraph:

Scientists must really now choose – belief in the nebulous idea of protofeathers or the reality of collagen, the dominant protein in vertebrates.
I am convinced from the nonsense spouted by many of the people who denounce collagen in favour of protofeathers that they have never actually seen collagen in its natural or decomposing state.”


Lingham-Soliar also denies that Sinosauropteryx, a turkey-size dinosaur unearthed in 1994, had feathers. He thinks, instead, that the impressions were remains of collagen that supported a dorsal frill running down the head and back.
Highfield ended his article, “Although the new work will not challenge the link between birds and dinosaurs it will lead to a fundamental rethink of why feathers evolved in the first place.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, “A unique cross section through the skin of the dinosaur Psittacosaurus from China showing a complex fibre architecture,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, ISSN: 0962-8452 (Paper) 1471-2954 (Online), Issue: FirstCite Early Online Publishing; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1342.

The evolutionary flights of fancy in the news media are irresponsible and detrimental to scientific objectivity. Here was another media flap by the BBC, trying to pull imaginary feathers out of leathery skin, because they so wish for dinosaurs to be the ancestors of birds (compare 06/13/2007). The Telegraph article was more fair, but still clung to the link between dinosaurs and birds as if that belief is too sacrosanct for evidence.
The reporters and scientists should have been questioning the 70 million years during which this specimen supposedly lay there, its skin exquisitely preserved down to the collagen fibers for all that time. The carcass of a cow, deer or bird will decay to the bone in months. The conditions under which such “extraordinary preservation” occurred, and a reappraisal of the dating, should be the first item of business.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm

“extraordinary preservation”, maybe during the flood....?

Collagen fibers not feathers..

If only this feather myth would die....

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:07 pm
by Dark Knight
'Hobbits' not a different species, say scientists
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 7:01pm GMT 03/01/2008

The long-running debate about the existence of so-called hobbits of Indonesia has taken a new turn with a study that suggests these ancient people were not an unusual species of human but modern humans with a growth disorder.

The work, if confirmed, suggests that there could be up to around 100 documented such "hobbits" in the world today, the people who have the mutation that leads to them being normally proportioned but half-sized.

Four years ago, Prof Mike Morwood, of the University of New England, in Armidale, Australia, and colleagues made headlines worldwide when they announced the discovery of 18,000-year-old remains of Homo floresiensis in the Liang Bua Cave on the Indonesian island of Flores.

The human evolutionary cousin, nicknamed the hobbit after the diminutive people in JRR Tolkein's Lord Of The Rings, stood only three foot tall and was thought to be an entirely new species of human, with a brain about the size of a chimpanzee's.

Ever since there has been debate whether or not the bones were actually from pygmies - even today there are pygmies on the island - and not a new species of human that lived between 120,000 and 10,000 years ago. One idea is that they suffered from microcephaly, a disorder that limits brain growth.

Today support for this idea comes from the discovery of a gene for a rare growth condition, MOPD II, that causes small brain and body size but near-normal intelligence, reported in the journal Science by a large international team including Dr Anita Rauch of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg in Erlangen, Germany, and colleagues.

Adults with this rare inherited condition reach an average height of a metre and although their brain is comparable in size to that of a three-month-old baby, they have near unaffected intelligence. The research study was triggered by two unrelated tiny girls living in northern Bavaria.

The culprit gene is PCNT, which encodes a protein that plays an important role in anchoring the structure that pulls chromosomes apart during cell division. The precise mechanisms by which these effects at the cellular level lead to the overall effect on body size, remains to be determined, but it is intriguing that other inherited forms of microcephaly (disorders characterized by small brain size) have likewise been linked to genes involved in this aspect of cell division. "Knowing that a child has MOPD II and not any other type of short stature helps to provide the best medical management to avoid complications," says Dr Rauch.

In the conclusion of their article, Dr Rauch and her team speculate that the "hobbit" fossils from Flores, Indonesia may represent people with mutations in this gene.

An earlier paper pointed out that the wrist bones of the hobbit are are primitive and shaped differently compared to both the wrist bones of both humans and of Neanderthals, leading to them to conclude they do represent a different kind of human.

But Dr Rauch points out that people who carry this mutation do have subtle bony anomalies of the hand and wrist, "By the way, as is visible by the pictures we show of patients, the posture of the shoulder is also abnormal in MOPD II patients, like it was suggested for the hobbits," she added.

One MOPD II patient, is Paddy Ryan, 30, who lives in County Tipperary, Republic of Ireland, who "manages his life extremely well in a supportive rural Irish community," said Dr Robert Semple Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge.

Yesterday, Mr Ryan, who only found out he had the mutation responsib le for condition last October, said that his parents realised the day he was born that he was unusually small. But, despite his height, near 3ft 6 inches, "I am not like a dwarf. Everything is in proportion. I am just a small person."

He has diabetes and it is unclear if this is linked with the MOPD II, he says, adding that he has been told that, since it is so rare, a treatment is unlikely to be developed.

As for everyday life, "I just get on with it. I do what I have to do," says Mr Ryan, who drives a Honda Civic that has been specially adapted and does quality control testing of electronics. "Noone with MOPD II has married or had children," he adds.

Many of the MOPD II people die early due to stroke - before they even think of having their own children, " says Dr Rauch. "On the other hand it is difficult for them in our culture to find somebody to marry because of their stature. Anyhow, that does not undermine the hobbit link, because the increase of such genetic disorder comes from mating of healthy carrier people that have affected children. Once the incidence of the disorders is high in a certain population, they might also marry each other. But that's not a prerequisite to increase the disorder in the population, as it is transmitted in a recessive manner over healthy carriers."
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... bit103.xml

human after all, another surppose link shot down....

As I have already point out Neanderthals according to a number of scientists are also human... stop already with this continued useage..... :!:

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:50 pm
by The Master
In the conclusion of their article, Dr Rauch and her team speculate that the "hobbit" fossils from Flores, Indonesia may represent people with mutations in this gene.
Speculation is not proof DK. This is just another guess.