|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 5:21:10 GMT -5
I've heard a few things about this* recently & decided to go looking for how it works. But Google actually isn't turning up many results.
*=Organic material such as cells being found in mineralized fossils, up to millions of years old.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 5, 2011 11:05:40 GMT -5
I have the Scientific American with the relevant article lying next to me - you're lucky.
Apparently it's just that the fossils are especially well-preserved - the article closes with a comment that they still don't know just how exactly these molecules manage to stay for 80 mio years.
The author is Mary H. Schweitzer - after I put that name into Google Scholar, I got several papers.
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Nov 5, 2011 11:06:03 GMT -5
God did it during the Flood.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 5, 2011 11:19:41 GMT -5
You see, it's because cave-men freeze dried the dinosaurs for later consumption, since they didn't have refrigeration. They just managed to misplace some of them, which later turned into fossils.
[/totally-not-serious]
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 5, 2011 11:29:37 GMT -5
Lithp is great at asking questions when the answers are not known.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 17:10:16 GMT -5
Funny you should mention Scientific American, that's the first result I found, but it only gives part of the article, then asks you if you want to subscribe/buy the issue.
I'll settle for how long organic molecules normally stay in-tact.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 5, 2011 17:22:10 GMT -5
Funny you should mention Scientific American, that's the first result I found, but it only gives part of the article, then asks you if you want to subscribe/buy the issue. I'll settle for how long organic molecules normally stay in-tact. That is a poor question, actually. Organic molecules are incredibly varied in their properties and stability and doing something as simple as throwing in a double bond or a halogen will dramatically alter how they react. There's also an issue of their environment. You could take a highly reactive molecule and surround it with inert chemicals (such as noble gases) and it will do nothing, but if you take something relatively stable and store it in the presence of something highly reactive (like KMnO 4) and it won't stay in that form for very long.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 5, 2011 17:34:13 GMT -5
Fair enough. There is one other thing I didn't get, though. On the show I watched last night, the way they talked, they didn't think they could get much in-tact DNA. So, my question is this: Why would the tissue be preserved so well, but the DNA molecules not so much?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 5, 2011 17:36:30 GMT -5
Fair enough. There is one other thing I didn't get, though. On the show I watched last night, the way they talked, they didn't think they could get much in-tact DNA. So, my question is this: Why would the tissue be preserved so well, but the DNA molecules not so much? DNA breaks pretty easily and our bodies have to constantly repair the damage it sustains, so I'd imagine that is why.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Nov 6, 2011 0:17:19 GMT -5
DNA degrades very rapidly, it's really quite delicate.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 6, 2011 0:30:57 GMT -5
Would racemization effect the tissues? I know the molecules are just mirror-images, but in my mind, all I can picture is different parts of the tissue flopping around like jackasses & pulling apart.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Nov 6, 2011 1:27:24 GMT -5
The soft tissues in question were collagen fibers, which are among the more resistant organic molecules. It's not too hard to preserve them if they're sealed off from the environment quickly enough. Also, regarding claims that red blood cells were also preserved, I asked Schweitzer about this at a conference in 2007. Apparently, at that point they hadn't been studied enough to draw any conclusions, and if she hasn't studied the matter enough to tell, there's no wasy that Ken Ham etc. have. The author is Mary H. Schweitzer - after I put that name into Google Scholar, I got several papers. I might also note (from personal experience) that she's an excellent dancer.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 6, 2011 1:31:12 GMT -5
Odd, the article I found seemed to be pretty certain there were blood cells.
I don't give a crap what Ken Ham & other "Creation Scientists" think, their whole selective science approach irritates me to no end. I guess they think it works the same way the Bible does.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Nov 6, 2011 1:37:28 GMT -5
The conference was in 2007, so more research could have been done since then. Otherwise, it's not really unusual for magazine articles to jump to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 6, 2011 2:17:12 GMT -5
If Yla & I are thinking of the same article, she wrote it. I don't know when it was written, either, but it seemed like it was just after the discovery. I wish I'd thought to take in more details from it. :/
|
|