Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
Dave & Tami Chaffee
Creation" ...
http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
In this video we are told that unfossilized dinosaur bones have been
uncovered. They mention a specific expedition to Alaska in 1997 or 1998 led
by a guy named Buddy Davis, now of Answers in Genesis. I've heard that
other finds of unfossilized dinosaur bones have been published in magazines
like "Science" and "Nature". But when I do a Yahoo search on "unfossilized
dinosaur bones", I get a list of sites like answersingenesis.com,
gospelcom.net, christiananswers.net, projectcreation.org, etc.
I found a reference at talk.origins (in the feedback area) where a guy was
volunteering to write an FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov01.html
But if it has been written, I didn't manage to find it. So, are there
unfossilized dinosaur bones, and how does this imply (or not imply) a recent
existence of dinosaurs?
Appreciatively,
Dave
John Harshman
Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
> Recently my YEC friend at work lent me a video called "Fossil Evidence for
> Creation" ...
>
> http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
>
> In this video we are told that unfossilized dinosaur bones have been
> uncovered. They mention a specific expedition to Alaska in 1997 or 1998 led
> by a guy named Buddy Davis, now of Answers in Genesis. I've heard that
> other finds of unfossilized dinosaur bones have been published in magazines
> like "Science" and "Nature". But when I do a Yahoo search on "unfossilized
> dinosaur bones", I get a list of sites like answersingenesis.com,
> gospelcom.net, christiananswers.net, projectcreation.org, etc.
>
> I found a reference at talk.origins (in the feedback area) where a guy was
> volunteering to write an FAQ:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov01.html
I think all this nonsense comes from this:
Davies, K. L. 1987. Duck-bill dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from
the north slope of Alaska. J. Paleont. 61:198-200.
"Unfossilized" is not a scientific term, but this paper reports the
finding of dinosaur bone with very little permineralization, meaning that
what they found was bone -- or at least the mineral portion of the bone --
without, as is usually the case, minerals deposited in the internal spaces
of the bone.
> But if it has been written, I didn't manage to find it. So, are there
> unfossilized dinosaur bones, and how does this imply (or not imply) a recent
> existence of dinosaurs?
Well of course it doesn't.
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Wayne Bagguley
Yet again, the creationists distort the truth in an attempt to
fabricate
evidence of a young earth.
The bones in question were partially fossilised. I believe that a
reaction
with the outer parts of the bone sealed the inside from being
fossilsed
completely, while the outer bones did fossilse.
View this post I made last year (beware of word wrap in the URL) :
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=129d3f9f.0111200904.284c1fdb%40posting.google.com
Here are some references from that post :
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/dna.jsp
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/cooldna.jsp
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/19980319/horner.html
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1994Sep/0134.html
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1994Jun/0173.html
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/bones.jsp
-
Wayne
Aron-Ra
"John Harshman" <harshman....@sjm.infi.net> wrote in message
news:harshman.diespamdi...@user-2ivfj4j.dialup.mindspring.com
....
And what if it did? Lots of things survived the KT event that didn't make
it to the present day. Multituberculate mammals for example. One could
also say that the sphenodons were extinguished as well. But oops, there's
the tuatra, the lone survivor of his order, so all science is automatically
discredited, proving by default that everything was created by magic.
There is no biological mandate that absolutely all non-avian dinosaurs
*must* have died no later than 65 million years ago. And it wouldn't
counter evolutionary Theory in the slightest if someone found a plateosaur
still living in the Amazon, no matter how unlikely that would be. When I
consider the sheer multitudes of dinosaurs that lived until then, and their
profound diversity, I consider it quite likely that some few species might
well have survived well into the Cenozoic era before being killed off in an
ever-changing world eons later. And I fully expect someone to eventually
find the dinosaur version of a tuatara nestled in Eocenic strata. And if
such a survivor is ever found, I can't imagine how that should challenge
evolution or promote Biblical creationism. It can't do either.
Aron-Ra
Dave & Tami Chaffee
Thanks a bunch! I read the article "Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular
bone" in Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June 1997 of the Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
And the entire Google thread. (It's neat to see perfectly preserved newbie
posts.) I'm not a scientist, nor do I want to be one, but it sure is nice
for a nevertheless well-educated layman to be able to have this newsgroup
and people like you who can help me address the questions I frequently run
across.
The article I mentioned above will be quite a hit with my YEC friend, since
he believes scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to keep their jobs. This
paper found 6 independent techniques which indicate heme or
hemoglobin-breakdown products (rather than deny or hide their existence) My
friend's video, which mentions the Buddy Davis expedition to Alaska, fails
to mention that Buddy made his report of "fresh bones" and dino blood but
decided not to let any non-YECs have any samples and, of course, there is
nothing in peer-reviewed science journals. Hmmm, ~which~ group is
perpetrating a conspiracy?
Thanks again,
Dave
Dave & Tami Chaffee
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GCc68.9955$By6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
vigilant in his thinking, so as not to let a few rules of thumb rigorously
define a complex, largely unknown situation. I'll add that to my "things to
think about before speaking or writing", but I'm not makin' any promises. :)
Cheers,
Dave
Aron-Ra
> Wayne,
>
> Thanks a bunch! I read the article "Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular
> bone" in Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June 1997 of the Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
> And the entire Google thread. (It's neat to see perfectly preserved
newbie
> posts.) I'm not a scientist, nor do I want to be one, but it sure is nice
> for a nevertheless well-educated layman to be able to have this newsgroup
> and people like you who can help me address the questions I frequently run
> across.
T.O. has been an invaluable tool for me to better educate myself. Before I
came here, I knew so little about anything that I thought I knew enough
about everything.
Now *that's* how to tell if you're really stupid!
> The article I mentioned above will be quite a hit with my YEC friend,
since
> he believes scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to keep their jobs.
This
> paper found 6 independent techniques which indicate heme or
> hemoglobin-breakdown products (rather than deny or hide their existence)
My
> friend's video, which mentions the Buddy Davis expedition to Alaska, fails
> to mention that Buddy made his report of "fresh bones" and dino blood but
> decided not to let any non-YECs have any samples and, of course, there is
> nothing in peer-reviewed science journals. Hmmm, ~which~ group is
> perpetrating a conspiracy?
Which group stands to lose their jobs if proven wrong?
Aron-Ra
Dave & Tami Chaffee
Sadly proof isn't to be had by either side - but the inexorable growth of
evidence gradually makes one side look more and more ridiculous as its poor
ability to adapt buries it like an ill-adapted species. Evidence for this
is that the typical literalist commands at least a dozen "scientific
arguments" to fortify their position, whereas their views used to be called
common sense!
Perhaps Creationism should be taught in high school psychology classes, near
the discussion of why "pro" wrestling remains so popular in modern American
society.
> Aron-Ra
Wayne Bagguley
You're quite welcome. It's great to know that the effort I put into some of
my posts is worth it, even if it's some time down the line. I'm surprised
that it wasn't nominated for a POTM! ;)
-
Wayne
Floyd
Dave & Tami Chaffee <drch...@home.com> wrote in article
<tk368.17668$vc.29...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>...
Just an addendum that does not fundamentally conflict with the other advice
you've been offered. Technically speaking, the remains or traces of any
organism from a prior geological age are "fossils." Thus "fossils" (such
as the neandertal type specimen) need not be mineralised, and not all
mineralised objects are fossils. Since, by convention, the Pleistocene
ended 10,000 years ago, any trace of life that is older than 10,000 years
is a fossil, whether it's mineralised or not, and anything younger isn't,
again regardless of mineralisation.
IOW, "turned to stone" \= "fossil," and "fossilised" and "mineralised"
don't overlap precisely. Most fossils will be mineralised, but not all,
and not all mineralised organic remains are fossils (since, under the right
conditons, mineralisation is quite rapid). In fact, fossils don't even
necessarily have to be bones. The Laetoli footprints are "fossils" in the
technical sense, for example. HTH, HAND
-Floyd
(who was called on a spelling error today and feels the need to dwell on
one of his own personal pet peeves. ;-)
Dave & Tami Chaffee
what it meant.
Even in the plain old Webster dictionary, it just means "preserved from a
past geologic age". Then I looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, and
it has most of a page talking about fossils. In the majority of fossils,
petrification has happened, of which there are three varieties.
Permineralization, where the nooks and crannies get filled in; replacement
(or mineralization) where the original material is replaced; and
carbonization. Then there are moulds, trace fossils (burrows, fossilized
feces, etc.) It also mentions the encasement of smallish organisms in amber
and virtually unaltered fossils of woolly mammoths and woolly rhinoceros in
the ice of the Arctic.
The more this thread grinds along, the more I realize that my YEC friend and
I are both struggling against a cartoon-like knowledge of science. Of
course, I'm struggling to address the shallowness of an education not
focused on biology/geology/archeology/etc; whereas my friend will feel
obligated to struggle against a deeper understanding of science itself.
I can hear him now: "They are indeed unfossilized dinosaur bones, because
they are not from a past geologic age, as the world is only about 7,000
years old."
Thanks,
Dave
Keith Littleton
> Recently my YEC friend at work lent me a video
>called "Fossil Evidence for
> Creation" ...
>
> http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
Liscomb Bone Bed -Part 2 o f 3 Parts
Start of Part 2 - the Liscomb Bone Bed Continued
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Keith Littleton (litt...@vnet.net)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
In Message-ID: <7oqhal$ir8$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com>
>Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca>
>wrote in message news:7opf9f$r7c$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>>In article <7op3p3$g7s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>>"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
>>|Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>|news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
>>|>PaulDanaher wrote:
>>|>>
>>|>> Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them
>>|>>that somebody brought back fresh (i.e. unfossilised)
>>|>>dinosaur bones from Alaska, proving that dinosaurs
>>|>>were alive more recently than 120 million years ago.
The specific source of these claims is a book by three
creationists, Buddy Davis, Mike Liston, and John Whitmore.
What they did is journey to the "Liscomb Bone Bed" on
the Colville River and collected from outcrops on Bureau
of Land Management property some dinosaur bones. They
claim that the bones refute "uniformitarism," and by
association evolution, because "some are unpetrified or
unfossilized."
The specific dinosaur bones being discussed are from the
Colville River in Alsaka. Dr. Roland A. Ganglo, in his
paper "Paleonotlogical Resources of the NPR-A Planning
Area: An Overview" summarizes the vertebrate fossils
that have been found on the Colville River. This
article can be found at:
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/sympos/html/paper6.html
Concerning the Colville River vertebrate fossils, Dr.
Roland A. Ganglo states:
"A ten mile stretch of the Colville River, from the
Kikiakrorak River to near Big Bend, has produced the
most diverse and voluminous high latitude dinosaur
collections in either hemisphere. Over 6,000 skeletal
elements representing 10 different taxa have been
curated over the last 13 years. Most were contained
in a series of concentrations called bone beds. In
addition, closely associated mammals, fish, and plants
have been collected.
In a bibliography, he has included some papers concerning
the Colville River fossils at:
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/sympos/html/paper6.html
I will try to produce a short list of such references
to be posted later, if my time permits.
..... text deleted ...
> millennia, and longer, is routine without any further
> mineralization necessary. As other people have
> explained, preservation, and the state of preservation,
> is very environment-dependent.
>
>How can such preserved bones be dated, then?
I think that volcanic ash beds, which can be dated, are
present within either the bone-bearing strata or adjacent
strata. In addition, fossils, like palynomorphs, can be
used to correlate the bone-bearing strata to strata that
can be directly dated.
..... text deleted ...
>more than just dinosaur bones. There are some good
>fossil plant and fossil clam and ammonite localities in
>the Cretaceous, for example. If I recall correctly,
>there are even some dinosaur footprint localities.
Some URLs on the dinosaur footprints.
Evidence of dinosaurs found in the Arctic
http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1998/09/092898/akdino.asp
NEW EVIDENCE FROM DINOSAUR FOOTSTEPS SHOW MASSIVE
HERDS ONCE ROAMED NORTHERN ALASKA
http://www.uaf.edu/univrel/media/FY99/013.html
On the trail of dinosaurs
http://www.adn.com/stories/T98092182.html
Tracking Arctic Dinosaurs
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye76.html
Dinosaurs Flourished in Alaska's Far North 90-110 Million Years Ago
http://webserver.cts.uaa.alaska.edu/urel/0898news.htm
Scientists elated to find dinosaur tracks on Alaska's north slope
http://www.pufori.org/news/nws09249811.htm
>Okay, this layman thinks of a fossil as a formerly living
>organism whose tissues have been preserved by the gradual
>replacement of tissue structures over geological time by
>minerals from the environment.
This is not always the case. When soft body parts are
fossilized, which is not the case of dinosaur bones, the
fossilization occurs relatively soon, within weeks or
months, after the animal dies. Usually, this mineralization
occurs as a result of minerals precipitated by the decay
of the organism or the bacteria causing the decay. These
processes have been simulated in the laboratory. On the
other hand, the time that it takes for the replacement of
hard parts to occur can vary from very short periods of
time to extremely long periods of time depending on
environmental factors.
In case of hard parts, fossilization not only occurs because
of replacement of a fossil by other minerals, but also by
the recrystallization of unstable / metastable minerals or
materials composing its hard part. For example, aragonite
shells will recrystallize to calcite over time. (However,
the aragonite is often preferentially dissolved and true
replacement occurs by filling of the resulting molds.) A
fossil can retain its original composition, but still have
been altered by recrystallization.
In case of fossils composed of stable minerals or
materials, the original shell, including microstructure,
can be preserved for long periods of time, i.e. tens of
to hundreds of millions of years. Not all fossils have
been either replaced by other minerals or been altered
by recrystallization. In this case, it is not at all
unusual to have fossils that are *not* petrified.
By definition, fossilization covers a broad range of
processes of which replacement is just one. For example,
Bates and Jackson (1984) define "fossilization" as:
"All processes involving the burial of a plant or
animal in a sediment and the eventual preservation
of all, part, or trace of it."
Bates and Jackson (1984) define a "fossil" as being:
"Any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal
that has been preserved in the Earth's crust since
some past geologic or prehistoric time; loosely,
any evidence of past life. ..."
Bates, R. L., and J. A. Jackson (1984) Dictionary of
Geological Terms. American Geological Institute. 571 pp.
Replacement is just one process by which fossilization
occurs. It is not a requirement for something to become
a fossil. Not all fossils are created by replacement.
Depending upon the type of fossilization being discussed
and the environmental factors, the rates at which it
occurs can vary greatly.
>Am I to understand from the above that dinosaur bones
>in fossiliferous strata may still have their original
>calcium carbonate matrix without other mineral inclusion?
If the bones were truly their original composition, I
would guess that they would be composed of poorly
crystallized, carbonate hydroxyapatite, not calcium
carbonate.
..... text deleted ...
Some URLS
++++ Colville River Bones
Dinosaurs from the Land of the Midnight Sun: an Arctic Journal
http://shell.rmi.net/~lmclos/colville1.html
Alaska's 7 Known Dinosaurs
http://www.ak.blm.gov/ak930/ak7dino.html
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE NPR-A PLANNING AREA:
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/sympos/html/paper6.html
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Keith Littleton (litt...@vnet.net)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
PaulDanaher <wa...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>I am very grateful to you for pulling together such
>a coherent presentation. This is Internet information
>at its best.
Thank you. Below are the citations which I promised.
These are about how the dinosaur bones on the Colville
River were dated using volcanic ash:
Conrad, J. E., McKee, E. H., and Turrin, B. D. (1992) Age
of tephra beds at the Ocean Point dinosaur locality,
North Slope, Alaska, based on K-Ar and (super 40) Ar/
(super 39) Ar analyses. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin
NO. 1990-C, PP. C1-C12.
Conrad, J. E., McKee, E. H., and Turrin, B. D. (1990) K-Ar
and (super 40) Ar/ (super 39) Ar ages of tuff beds at
Ocean Point on the Colville River, Alaska. In J. H. Dover
and J. p. Galloway, eds., pp. 72-82, Geologic studies
in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1989. U. S.
Geological Survey Bulletin no. 1946.
"Tephra" is a scientific term for volcanic ash.
Below are some references about the Colville River dinosaurs:
Carter, L. D., Sliter, W. V., Brouwers, E. M., Clemens,
W. A., Spicer, R. A., and Ager, T. A. (1987) Dinosaurs
on the North Slope, Alaska; high latitude, latest
Cretaceous environments. Science. vol. 237, no. 4822,
pp. 1608-1610.
Davies, Kyle L. (1987) Duck-bill dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae,
Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska. Journal of
Paleontology. vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 198-200.
Gangloff, Roland A. (1992) The record of Cretaceous
dinosaurs in Alaska; an overview. In D. K. Thurston
and K. Fujita, eds., pp. 399-404, 1992 proceedings;
International conference on Arctic margins. International
conference on Arctic margins. Anchorage, AK, United
States. Sept. 1992.
Phillips, R. Lawrence (1990) Summary of Late Cretaceous
environments near Ocean Point, North Slope, Alaska. In
J. H. Dover and J. p. Galloway, eds., pp. 101-106,
Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological
Survey, 1989. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin no. 1946.
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
In article <7oqhg8$jba$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|news:ho1s3.3338$bB2....@news2.mia...
|> PaulDanaher wrote in message
<7op3p3$g7s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
|> >Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|> >news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
|> >> PaulDanaher wrote:
|> >> >
|> >> > Now *my* kids have met someone who's told
|> >> > them that somebody brought back fresh (i.e.
|> >> > unfossilised) dinosaur bones from Alaska,
|> >> > proving that dinosaurs were alive more
|> >> > recently than 120 million years ago.
|> >>
|> >> Not surprising, since they only died out 65
|> >> million years ago, and IIRC, the dinosaur bones
..
|> >globe and some travelogues, what sort of environments
|> >could be found there which could preserve bones over
|> >65+ million years?
|>
|> (Humor warning.)
|>
|> Why, conditions that are cunducive to the unaltered
|> preservation of bone, of course. :}
|
|The pharoahs had a curse for that sort of comment,
|I believe!
|
|> Seriously though, any environment that was of the
|> right PH content, not too acid, or alkaline, and
|> protected the bone from oxygen and any .. obviously)
|> to contain dino bones. Other environments that could
|> probably preserve bones unaltered for ten's to hundreds
|> of millions of years would possibly include extremely
|> arid conditions.
|
|Are we talking about the Gobi here?
That probably isn't a bad example. Bury some bones
in a sand dune out there, and it isn't likely they will
be chemically dissolved due to rainwater or scavenged
by the biota. Long-term preservation would also require
some net sediment accmulation (i.e. that they were not
re-eroded out of the dune a few years later).
|And is this "fresh dinosaur bone" story true, perchance?
It is possible that it is unmineralized, yes. I
have specimens of unmineralized dinosaur bone from
Alberta, Canada. It is more common for dinosaur and
other types of bone to be permineralized (i.e. for the
pores to be infilled with other minerals), but the bone
mineral itself is often close to its original state,
excepting the removal of organic material, some slight
and difficult-to-detect changes in crystal structure
(but not bulk composition -- they are often still
calcium phosphate), and some minor staining that will
change its color.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
In article <7oqhal$ir8$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote in message
|news:7opf9f$r7c$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
|> In article <7op3p3$g7s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
|> "PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|> |Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|> |news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
|> |> PaulDanaher wrote:
|> |> >
|> |> > Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them
|> |> > that somebody brought back fresh (i.e.
|> |> > unfossilised) dinosaur bones from Alaska, proving
|> |> > that dinosaurs were alive more recently than 120
|> |> > million years ago.
|>
|> ..[dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous
|> Period, about 65 million years ago]
|
|Sorry, no-brainer on my part.
|
|> |> (b) There are no "rules" that mandate that a bone
|> |> must either disintegrate or fossilize at a certain
|> |> point in time. It's all environment dependent.
|> |
|> |I had no idea bones were so stable.
|>
|> Well, if they are left lying on the surface, no,
|> because rainwater is slightly acidic (carbonic
|> acid), soils are often slightly acidic because of
|> organic acids from the decay of plant material, and
|> there is all sorts of yummy organic material (marrow)
|> inside, which various creatures will try to get access
|> to by boring through the bone, so in *surface*
|> conditions, they are not stable. However, if they get
|> buried sufficiently deep (e.g., buried in the bottom
|> of a river channel as it migrates around), or in an
|> area with non-acidic soils (e.g., areas of carbonate
|> bedrock), the surrounding water will likely form a
|> chemical equilibrium with the bone, and it can survive
|> for as long as the chemical conditions remain
|> relatively stable. The moral is: bury bones in
|> acidic soil or leave them on the surface, and they
|> will last only a few years; bury them a few metres
|> deep in non-acidic mud or soils, and centuries,
|> millennia, and longer, is routine without any
|> further mineralization necessary. As other people
|> have explained, preservation, and the state of
|> preservation, is very environment-dependent.
|
|How can such preserved bones be dated, then?
Do you mean in a relative sense -- a particular
bone is from rocks of the Cretaceous Period -- or in
an "absolute" or "numerical" sense -- a particular
bone is about 120 million years old?
For the former, the stratigraphic position and
associated fossils in the same rocks and
stratigraphically above and below the point the
fossil bone was collected will determine the relative
age. For example, finding ammonites in association
with bones makes it likely those bones are from the
Mesozoic Era, because that is the extent of ammonite
fossils everywhere else. Likewise, if they are Mesozoic,
they will occur stratigraphically below the first
occurrence of, say, grass fossils, and stratigraphically
above the last occurrence of trilobites. The basic
stratigraphic succession of the fossil biota is well-
established world wide, and if you get more detailed
in terms of the species present, it is possible to be
more precise.
If you mean the latter -- determining how many
millions of years (or only thousands of years) old a
bone might be, that isn't normally possible by dating
the bone directly, unless the bone is geologically
quite young. Ordinarily, radiometric dating techniques
are used to determine numerical ages, although there
are other options too. The best-known example of
radiometric dates are C-14 dates, but C-14 decays
quite rapidly (it has a half-life of "only" about 5000
years), and isn't much use for anything older than
about 50000 years, and even that is pushing it depending
upon the sample. If there is independent evidence a
sample might be that young (e.g., it is in surficial
sediments versus deep in the bedrock), then C-14 dating
could be performed on collagen extracted from the bone
(the collagen can be reasonably assured to be left in
the bone from the time the animal was alive), but to do
this in isolation of other constraints on the data would
not be scientifically reliable. For older samples,
bones aren't really the right mineralogy for the
available isotopic systems (e.g., K/Ar or U/Pb), because
they either do not have enough of the element in question,
or they are too chemically active with their surroundings
to preserve isotopic ratios reliably -- if a bone is
being replaced by another mineral, it isn't likely to
preserve isotopic ratios from the time it was alive or
just buried!
Usually other minerals from the sediments
immediately above or below the bone occurrence, or
sometimes at the same level (if the bone is buried
in the right stuff), are used. The most appropriate
ones are usually volcanic rocks, because those rocks
often form crystals of appropriate mineralogy at high
temperatures, and quickly cooled. Volcanic ashes that
are deposited in the same areas as fossiliferous
sediments are a very commonly-dated rock type, because
they can be easily related to the fossil distribution
through the stratigraphy. As it turns out, there are
quite a few datable volcanic ashes in some of the
Cretaceous rocks of northern Alaska, so there might
even be some local numbers available, but I'm not
sure in the case of these "fresh dinosaur bone"
occurrences.
If local measurements are not available, then
it is still possible to determine a numerical date by
correlation -- i.e. if its relative geological age can
be determined on the basis of fossils (e.g., from the
Mesozoic Era or the Cretaceous Period), and correlated
to other parts of the world where there are plenty the
same fossils and radiometrically-datable rocks. Although
there is a slightly greater level of imprecision involved
in such a correlation versus finding local datable
rocks, the current state of global correlation and the
numerical calibration of the geoogical time scale is
refined to such a degree that dates can often be stated
with a few million years precision in a hundred million
or so. It depends upon exactly what time period is being
discussed (some intervals have more/better calibration
points than others). For example, if the fossil dinosaur
bone is determined to be Early Cretaceous in age, then
current timescales would estimate its age at about 142
to 98.9 million years ago, plus or minus a few million
years. If it is possible to be more precise about the
relative age (e.g., down to stage resolution, such as
the Barremian, rather than geological period), it might
be possible to say it was 121 to 127 million years old,
plus or minus 1 or 2 at either end. Such a determination
would only be as good as the correlation, and then on
the data that went into the calibration of the
geological time scale, but in practice, both are quite
reliable, and problems almost always have to do with
low quality samples (e.g., if it is a bit of
unidentifiable fossil bone of some kind in the midst
of a thick pile of mostly unfossiliferous and highly
structurally-deformed rocks, correlations will be
rather poor, and age estimates correspondingly so).
In summary, you don't need to numerically date a
fossil in order to interpret its numerical age, you look
for datable rocks that *constrain* its age, often
stratigraphically immediately above and below it. Even
without that, if you know the relative age precisely,
then you can look at the numerical calibration of
relative age subdivisions in the geological timescale,
and estimate from that.
|> |> > Incidentally, is this just one of these
|> |> > stories that goes around, or is it a deliberate
|> |> > hoax like that human-footprints-and-dinosaur-
|> |> > footprints scam?
|> |>
|> |> They have found dinosaur bones in Alaska, and that
|> |> they may or may not have become mineralized is not
|> |> a problem. Sounds like someone's building what is
|> |> known as a "straw man" argument, in which the
|> |> conclusion is based upon a false premise, such as
|> |> there is a "magical point in time" in which a bone
|> |> must fossilize. It all depends upon the
|> |> environment.
|> |
|> |Since you're obviously not restricting the environment
|> |to customized artificial ones and I know nothing of
|> |Alaska beyond its position on
[a bit about the geological setting in Alaska]
|> more than just dinosaur bones. There are some good
|> fossil plant and fossil clam and ammonite localities
|> in the Cretaceous, for example. If I recall correctly,
|> there are even some dinosaur footprint localities.
|
|Okay, this layman thinks of a fossil as a formerly
|living organism whose tissues have been preserved by
|the gradual replacement of tissue structures over
|geological time by minerals from the environment.
Yes, that is a common expectation, but it is
wrong, because fossils do not have to be mineralized
(or mineralized further), especially if the original
organism already had mineralized parts. Also, there
are exceptional situations where even soft-bodied
tissues are preserved largely unaltered (e.g., if
they are frozen or mummified), or where the mode of
preservation does not depend upon a degree of
mineralization, because the fossil is an impression
(e.g., a footprint). The sediment could even remain
soft, as long as there was some kind of mineralogical
contrast (e.g., alternating mud and sand) that could
show the biological structure.
|Am I to understand
|from the above that dinosaur bones in fossiliferous
|strata may still have their original calcium
|carbonate matrix without other mineral inclusion?
Calcium phosphate, actually. Yes. It *is* more
common for other minerals to be in there in fossil
bone (if they infill the pores, this is known as
permineralization), but sometimes the pores and channels
in the bone are still there, largely or completely
unfilled. It just depends upon what the bone has
experienced after burial in terms of mineralizing
solutions. If the depth of burial is low, there
might be little happening that is noticeable without
careful microscopic study.
Calcium carbonate is the typical mineral in shells
of clams, snails, echinoderms, and the like, although some
of them have shells of two different calcium carbonate
mineral phases (i.e. different crystal structure, but
similar chemistry) -- calcite and aragonite. Aragonite
is relatively unstable upon burial, and therefore often
chemically alters to calcite, without any great change
in bulk composition. Both are still calcium carbonate.
Such a process is often called "recrystallization" to
emphasize the change in crystal structure, but not in the
chemistry. This is contrasted with replacement, where
there is wholesale substitution of one mineral for a
different one (e.g., calcium carbonate shells being
replaced with the amorphous form of quartz -- silica).
This can happen to bones too. If there is both
permineralization (infilling of pores with minerals)
*and* replacement, it is called petrification. Note
that the technical usage for "petrification" or
"petrified" is quite a bit more restrictive than the
popular concept, which is basically equivalent to any
kind of mineralization.
That is half the problem -- many people do not
understand the real diversity of fossil preservation
modes (there are a bunch more I have not discussed,
such as carbonization, which is common for plants and
graptolites), and they do not understand how long it
*can* take (often only a few years, or even shorter
for the process to start) versus how old a fossil is
thought to be on the basis of more reliable evidence
than rate of mineralizaion. Rate of mineralization
has virtually nothing to do with it, although there is
a *crude* trend of greater mineralization with time.
This "fresh" dinosaur bone claim is a good example of
a situation where some critics of conventional science
have taken a misconception about the fossilization
process (everything has to be mineralized or it is
"fresh"), and turned it into a supposed refutation
of conventional interpretations, even though "rate
of mineralization" is a demonstrably highly unreliable
means of dating fossils. It is too variable because
it is too post-burial environment-dependent.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
++++++ end of Part 2 0f 3 Parts ++++++++++
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed bones dinosaur
fresh ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur bones fresh ligaments tendons Alaska
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska river river Liscomb bone bed
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed bones dinosaur
Keith Littleton
"Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
> Recently my YEC friend at work lent me a video
>called "Fossil Evidence for
> Creation" ...
>
> http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
>
> In this video we are told that unfossilized dinosaur
> bones have been uncovered. They mention a specific
> expedition to Alaska in 1997 or 1998 led by a guy
> named Buddy Davis, now of Answers in Genesis. I've
> heard that other finds of unfossilized dinosaur bones
> have been published in magazines like "Science" and
> "Nature". But when I do a Yahoo search on
> "unfossilized dinosaur bones", I get a list of
> sites like answersingenesis.com, gospelcom.net,
> christiananswers.net, projectcreation.org, etc.
You need to search using the terms "Liscomb", "Bone",
and "Bed." Using these terms, you will find more
articles.
> I found a reference at talk.origins (in the feedback
> area) where a guy was volunteering to write an FAQ:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov01.html
Below are some articles posted to the USENET about
the Liscomb fossil beds. I though that people might
be interested in them.
Start of Part 1 - the Liscomb Bone Bed
+++++++++++ Start of reposted material ++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/09
In article <7ok4a9$65m$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them
|that somebody brought back fresh (i.e. unfossilised)
|dinosaur bones from Alaska, proving that dinosaurs
|were alive more recently than 120 million years ago.
|As a nonscientist, I'm afraid the price of maintaining
|my credibility in denying the possibility of this
|is bothering the people who know. So - it can't be
|true because (a) dinosaurs have been extinct for around
|120 million years and
Sixty-five million ago (end of the Cretaceous
Period) is the current estimate for the extinction
of the dinosaurs. One hundred and twenty million
is sometime in the Early Cretaceous, and might
correspond to the age of the bones in this instance
(i.e. a few tens of millions of years earlier than
the extinction of the dinosaurs -- there are rocks of
this age in Alaska).
|(b) in any imaginable environment bones would have
|steadily lost material and disintegrated completely
|in less than 120 million years, right?
No, and this is the flaw in the entire argument.
Fossil bones can preserve indefinitely in a variety
of conditions, provided that the chemistry is
appropriate (typically, that the groundwater/pore
fluid in the rock is not overly acidic). If buried
in appropriate sediments, the minerals that already
make up the bone will not be prone to chemical
dissolution. Bones are basically calcium phosphate,
crystallized in a particular arrangement and with
water incorporated into their structure. Even if
altered to different mineral phases of calcium
phosphate, the minerals are not so unstable that
they must alter upon burial. Furthermore, nothing
necessarily requires that the bone mineral be
replaced with another mineral in order to preserve.
It is quite common for the original bone mineral to
be only slightly altered from its original condition,
and for microscopic pores and channels in the bone to
still be present. Only in appropriate conditions will
those channels get infilled with minerals
(permineralization) or the bone replaced by other
minerals (replacement), and whether it happens at
all is not determined merely by age. It depends
entirely upon the chemical environment in the sediment
after burial.
|Incidentally, is this just one of these stories
|that goes around, or is it a deliberate hoax
|like that human-footprints-and-dinosaur-footprints
|scam?
No, it is probably correct in the sense that
it could be unreplaced, unpermineralized (i.e. pores
not infilled with minerals) fossil dinosaur bone.
I have some specimens with that sort of preservation
from the Cretaceous of Alberta. The fallacy is not
in the occurrence, it is in the incorrect expectations
of how fossil bone typically preserves, and the
expectation that after several million years, it
*must* be replaced or permineralized in order to
still be present. If conventional paleontologists
expected all fossil bones to be greatly mineralized
after 100 million years, then maybe these "fresh
dinosaur bone" claims would have some merit, but
paleontologists do not make such a claim. Fossil
bone mineralization is highly variable.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/10
In article <7op3p3$g7s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
|> PaulDanaher wrote:
|> >
|> > Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them
|> > that somebody brought back fresh (i.e.
|> > unfossilised) dinosaur bones from Alaska, proving
|> > that dinosaurs were alive more recently than 120
|> > million years ago.
...[dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the
Cretaceous Period, about 65 million years ago]
|> (b) There are no "rules" that mandate that a bone
|> must either disintegrate or fossilize at a certain
|> point in time. It's all environment dependent.
|
|I had no idea bones were so stable.
Well, if they are left lying on the surface, no,
because rainwater is slightly acidic (carbonic acid),
soils are often slightly acidic because of organic
acids from the decay of plant material, and there is
all sorts of yummy organic material (marrow) inside,
which various creatures will try to get access to
by boring through the bone, so in *surface*
conditions, they are not stable. However, if they
get buried sufficiently deep (e.g., buried in the
bottom of a river channel as it migrates around),
or in an area with non-acidic soils (e.g., areas of
carbonate bedrock), the surrounding water will likely
form a chemical equilibrium with the bone, and it can
survive for as long as the chemical conditions remain
relatively stable. The moral is: bury bones in acidic
soil or leave them on the surface, and they will last
only a few years; bury them a few metres deep in
non-acidic mud or soils, and centuries, millenia,
and longer, is routine without any further
mineralization necessary. As other people have
explained, preservation, and the state of preservation,
is very environment-dependent.
|> > Incidentally, is this just one of these stories
|> > that goes around, or is it a deliberate hoax
|> > like that human-footprints-and-dinosaur-footprints
|> > scam?
|>
|> They have found dinosaur bones in Alaska, and that
|> they may or may not have become mineralized is not
|> a problem. Sounds like someone's building what is
|> known as a "straw man" argument, in which the
|> conclusion is based upon a false premise, such as
|> there is a "magical point in time" in which a bone
|> must fossilize. It all depends upon the
|> environment.
|
|Since you're obviously not restricting the environment
|to customized artificial ones and I know nothing of
|Alaska beyond its position on the globe and some
|travelogues, what sort of environments could be found
|there which could preserve bones over 65+ million years?
Cretaceous (the age that corresponds to 120 or 65
million years ago) sedimentary rocks in northern Alaska
are primarily from river deltas or their offshore,
marine equivalents (prodelta). Think about environments
around the modern Mississippi Delta, although it was
probably a little cooler at the time than on the modern
Gulf Coast. A delta system is an ideal place to bury
just about anything (bones, trees, leaves, shells,
etc.) because it is an area of active sedimentation and
subsidence (sinking land). The rocks of northern
Alaska are fossiliferous for much more than just dinosaur
bones. There are some good fossil plant and fossil
clam and ammonite localities in the Cretaceous, for
example. If I recall correctly, there are even some
dinosaur footprint localities.
These are rather technical, have few pictures, and
deal with only selected aspects of the geology of the
area, but if you really want to know more, the data on
some of the environments and fossils can be found in:
Ahlbrandt, T.S. (ed.), 1979. Preliminary geologic,
petrologic, and paleontologic results of the study
of Nanushuk Group rocks, North Slope, Alaska. United
States Geological Survey, Circular 794.
Gryc, G. (ed.), 1988. Geology and exploration of
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 1974 to
1982. United States Geological Survey, Professional
Paper 1399.
They do not discuss the "fresh" dinosaur bone
occurrences, but at least you can better understand
the geological context in which they occur.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/10
In article <7opilm$m5$2...@news.umbc.edu>
jac...@umbc.edu (acker james) writes:
|PaulDanaher (wa...@earthlink.com) wrote:
|
|: Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|: news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
|: > PaulDanaher wrote:
|: I had no idea bones were so stable.
|
| **** Teeth are even more stable than bones
|(just as an aside that I had to state). In fact, I
|wonder if fossil teeth are ever altered at all, and
|I'll have to appeal to the paleontologists and
|geologists (Andrew? Kevin?) for a ruling.
Sure they can be. Sometimes chemical alteration
of fossils can be quite extensive, and teeth are no
exception; however, you are right that they are more
chemically stable and more stable in other ways than other
types of bone. They are less porous at a microscopic
scale, and they have very little of interest to a
scavenger, which makes them mechanically more
durable and less prone to bacterial or other biological
degradation.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/sympos/html/paper6.html
http://wwwndo.ak.blm.gov/npra/sympos/html/paper6.html
..... text deleted ...
> millenia, and longer, is routine without any further
..... text deleted ...
..... text deleted ...
Some URLS
++++ Colville River Bones
"Lest you believe that an open mind is a good
thing, let me suggest that it's not. A totally
open mind is like a refuse container in that it
will accept anything you put into it! What one
really needs is an open portal to the brain
flanked by two little armed guards named
Skepticism and Analysis. These little fellows
work together to make sure that "it all gets
in there", then gets scrutinized very closely!"
---Inform America web site
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PaulDanaher <wa...@earthlink.com> wrote:
in Alaska; an overview. In D. K. Thurston And K. Fujita,
eds., pp. 399-404, 1992 proceedings; International conference
on Arctic margins. International conference on Arctic margins.
Anchorage, AK, United States. Sept. 1992.
Phillips, R. Lawrence (1990) Summary of Late Cretaceous
environments near Ocean Point, North Slope, Alaska. In
J. H. Dover and J. P. Galloway, eds., pp. 101-106, Geologic
studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1989.
U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin no. 1946.
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"Lest you believe that an open mind is a good
thing, let me suggest that it's not. A totally
open mind is like a refuse container in that it
will accept anything you put into it! What one
really needs is an open portal to the brain
flanked by two little armed guards named
Skepticism and Analysis. These little fellows
work together to make sure that "it all gets
in there", then gets scrutinized very closely!"
---Inform America web site
++++ end of Part 1 ++++++++
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Liscomb dinosaur bone bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed bones dinosaur
fresh ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur bones fresh ligaments tendons Alaska
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska river river river
Keith Littleton
In article <tk368.17668$vc.29...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>,
"Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
> Recently my YEC friend at work lent me a video
>called "Fossil Evidence for
> Creation" ...
>
> http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
Liscomb Bone Bed -Part 3 o f 3 Parts
Start of Part 3 of 3 Parts - the Liscomb Bone Bed Continued
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Andrew MacRae (mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.originsDate: 1999/08/11
In article <3d8s3.37$Zd4....@ralph.vnet.net>
Keith Littleton <litt...@vnet.net> writes:
|In Message-ID: <7oqhal$ir8$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
|"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com>
|>Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote in message
|>news:7opf9f$r7c$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
|>>In article <7op3p3$g7s$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
|>>"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> writes:
|>>|Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
|>>|news:37ADC48A...@bellsouth.net...
|>>|>PaulDanaher wrote:
|>>|>>
|>>|>> Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them
|>>|>>that somebody brought back fresh (i.e. unfossilised)
|>>|>>dinosaur bones from Alaska, proving that dinosaurs
|>>|>>were alive more recently than 120 million years ago.
|
|The specific source of these claims is a book by three
|creationists, Buddy Davis, Mike Liston, and John Whitmore.
|What they did is journey to the "Liscomb Bone Bed" on
|the Colville River and collected from outcrops on Bureau
...[more details]
Great. This is much more useful, specific
information. But you forgot one important part:
what is the name of the book where this claim
originated?
|> millenia, and longer, is routine without any further
|> mineralization necessary. As other people have
|> explained, preservation, and the state of preservation,
|> is very environment-dependent.
|>
|>How can such preserved bones be dated, then?
|
|I think that volcanic ash beds, which can be dated, are
|present within either the bone-bearing strata or adjacent
|strata.
Yes. There are extensive, sanidine-bearing ash
beds in the Colville Group that have been radiometrically
dated. I'm not sure if a detailed paper has been
published on them yet, but I know they are described
briefly in an abstract. Time to check GEOREF.
|In addition, fossils, like palynomorphs, can be
|used to correlate the bone-bearing strata to strata that
|can be directly dated.
Yes. The palynomorphs (fossil organic-walled
microfossils, such as pollen, spores, dinoflagellates,
etc.) from the Colville Group are superb, are quite
useful for biostratigraphic correlation, and they are
highly similar to ones from coeval rocks (the Kanguk
Formation) in the Canadian Arctic, which also has
datable ash beds in it.
|>more than just dinosaur bones. There are some good
|>fossil plant and fossil clam and ammonite localities in
|>the Cretaceous, for example. If I recall correctly,
|>there are even some dinosaur footprint localities.
|
|Some URLs on the dinosaur footprints.
|
|Evidence of dinosaurs found in the Arctic
|http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1998/09/092898/akdino.asp
[more URLs]
I just checked - one of the references I
mentioned even has a picture (p.21, fig.8F of Ahlbrandt
et al. IN Ahlbrandt 1979), although that one is in the
Nanushuk Group, which is stratigraphically beneath the
Colville Group, and it is therefore a bit older (Albian o
r Cenomanian).
|>Okay, this layman thinks of a fossil as a formerly living
|>organism whose tissues have been preserved by the gradual
|>replacement of tissue structures over geological time by
|>minerals from the environment.
|
|This is not always the case. When soft body parts are
|fossilized, which is not the case of dinosaur bones, the
|fossilization occurs relatively soon, within weeks or
|months, after the animal dies. Usually, this mineralization
|occurs as a result of minerals precipitated by the decay
|of the organism or the bacteria causing the decay.
Yes. The activity of the bacteria locally alters
the chemistry and causes the precipitation of minerals
around them. These minerals can preserve the macroscopic
shape of the decaying soft tissues, and often preserve
the shape of the bacteria at microscopic scale too.
This type of preservation requires fairly rare
chemical/biological conditions to occur.
...[more details of fossilization]
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: rjt...@my-deja.com (rjt...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
In article <7ok4a9$65m$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> Now *my* kids have met someone who's told them that
> somebody brought back fresh (i.e. unfossilised) dinosaur
> bones from Alaska, proving that dinosaurs were alive
> more recently than 120 million years ago.
> As a nonscientist, I'm afraid the price of maintaining
> my credibility in denying the possibility of this is
> bothering the people who know. So - it can't be true
> because (a) dinosaurs have been extinct for around 120
> million years and (b) in any imaginable environment
> bones would have steadily lost material and
> disintegrated completely in less than 120 million
> years, right?
> Incidentally, is this just one of these stories that
> goes around, or is it a deliberate hoax like that
> human-footprints-and-dinosaur-footprints scam?
****
This reply is related to a previous thread initiated by
a creationist, but it bears repeating because a lot of
the type of disinformation you mention originates from
them.
On my webpage entitled "Do Creationists Misuse the
Work of Mainstream Scientists?"
<http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/DOCREATIONISTSMISUSE.htm>
you can see Carl Weiland from the Creationist group
Answers-in-Genesis make essentially the same claim - that
fossils that appear fresh are proof positive they are
of recent origin. He misuses the work of Prof. Philip
Currie to give the impression that even REAL scientists
concede that some dinosaur bones are recent, because
of their pristine condition. An excerpt:
"There are actually instances, mentioned in the same
book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were
encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried.
We are told:
'The nodules prevented water from invading the
bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot
be distinguished from modern bone.'4
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are
convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65
million years old. Those who take Genesis as real
history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than
a few thousand years old, so the existence of such
totally unmineralised dinosaur bones that have not
disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our
expectations."
And yet, Prof. Currie makes it abundantly clear even
from the out-of-context quotes used by Weiland that the
condition of any given fossil is a dependent upon the
local environment it was buried in, and that scientists
do not use the fossil's condition to determine its age.
Prof. Currie issued a disclaimer, denouncing Weiland's
misuse of his work as misleading. The disclaimer can be
seen on the URL listed above.
I mention all this in order to suggest that when you
hear "reports" such as the Alaska dinosaur story,
always consider the source first.
Regards,
Ron Tolle
www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/index.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Keith Littleton (litt...@vnet.net)
Subject: Re: Fresh dinosaur bones
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/08/11
Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_nospam_.ns.ca> wrote:
.....text deleted ...
>|The specific source of these claims is a book by three
>|creationists, Buddy Davis, Mike Liston, and John Whitmore.
>|What they did is journey to the "Liscomb Bone Bed" on
>|the Colville River and collected from outcrops on Bureau
>..[more details]
>Great. This is much more useful, specific
>information. But you forgot one important part:
>what is the name of the book where this claim
>originated?
Ooops, sorry there.
After a short search, I found:
"Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure" by Buddy Davis,
Mike Liston and John Whitmore and published
by Master Books, Inc. Published in 1998.
Yours:
Keith
++++++ end of reposted material - Part 3 of 3 Parts ++++++
Some more references about the geology of the
strata containing the Libscomb bone bed:
Conrad, J. E., E. H. McKee, and B. D. Turrin (1990)
K-Ar and (super 40) Ar/ (super 39) Ar ages of tuff beds
at Ocean Point on the Colville River, Alaska. Bulletin
1946, U. S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.
Conrad, J. E., E. H. McKee, and B. D. Turrin (1992) Age
of tephra beds at the Ocean Point dinosaur locality,
North Slope, Alaska, based on K-Ar and (super 40) Ar/
(super 39) Ar analyses. Bulletin 1990-C, U. S.
Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.
Parrish, J. T., and Spicer, R. A. (1988) Late
Cretaceous terrestrial vegetation; a near-polar
temperature curve. Geology. Vol. 16, no. 1,
pp. 22-25
Rawlinson, S. E. (1990) Surficial geology and morphology
of the Alaskan central Arctic Coastal Plain. Public-Data
File no. 90-27. Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys. Fairbanks, Alaska. (326 pp.)
(794 University Avenue, Suite 200 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709)
http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/
Robinson, M. S., and M. D. Myers (1990) Colville River
geologic transect; vitrinite reflectance, palynology,
TAI, and fission track data, central North Slope, Alaska.
Public-Data File no. 90-12. Alaska Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys. Fairbanks, Alaska. (5 pp.)
Spicer, R. A., and J. T. Parrish (1990) Latest
Cretaceous woods of the central North Slope, Alaska.
Palaeontology. vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 225-242.
Recent references about dinosaurs from the Liscomb
bone bed and associated strata:
Fiorillo, A. R., and R. A. Gangloff (1999) Taphonomy
of the Liscomb Bonebed (Prince Creek Formation:
Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska and the significance
of juvenile dinosaurs from the North Slope. Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs. vol. 31,
no. 6, p. 54.
Fiorillo, A. R., and R. A. Gangloff (2000) Theropod
teeth from the Prince Creek Formation (Cretaceous)
of northern Alaska, with speculation on Arctic dinosaur
paleoecology. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 675-682.
Fiorillo, A. R., and R. A. Gangloff (2000) Theropod
teeth from the Prince Creek Formation (Cretaceous)
of northern Alaska, with speculation on Arctic
dinosaur paleoecology. American Association for
the Advancement of Science., 51st Arctic
Science Conference Proceddings, 21-24 Sept.
Whitehorse, Yukon:87.
Fiorillo, A. R., and R. A. Gangloff (2000) Theropod
teeth from the Prince Creek Formation (Cretaceous)
of northern Alaska, with speculation on Arctic
dinosaur paleoecology. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology Supplement, vol. 20, p. 41A.
Fiorillo, A. R., and R. A. Gangloff (2001) Theropod
teeth from the Prince Creek Formation (Cretaceous)
of Northern Alaska, with speculations on Arctic
dinosaur paleoecology. Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology. vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 675-682.
Gangoff, R. A. (1994) The record of Cretaceous
dinosaurs in Alaska an overview. In Proceedings of
the 1992 International Conference on Artic Margins,
pp. 399-404, Alaska Geological Society, PO Box 101288
Anchorage, Alaska, 99510.
Gangoff, R.A. (1998) Arctic dinosaurs with emphasis
on the Cretaceous record of Alaska and the Eurasian-
North American connection. In Lower and Middle
Cretaceous Terrestrial Ecosystems, edited by S. G.
Lucas, J. i. Kirkland, and J. W. Ester, pp. 211-220,
Bulletin 14, New Mexico Museum of Natural History
and Science. (1801 Mountain Road, NW; Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87104).
http://www.nmmnh-abq.mus.nm.us/nmmnh/nmmnh.html
May, K. C., and R. A. Gangloff (1999) New dinosaur
bone bed from the Prince Creek Formation, Colville
River, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Journal
of Vertebrate Paleontology Supplement, vol. 19,
no. 3, p. 62A.
Rich, T.H., R. A. Gangoff, and W. R. Hammer, (1997).
Polar Dinosaurs. In Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, edited
by E. J. Currie and K. Padian, pp.562-573 Academic
Press, San Diego, California.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Age Control on Campanian and Maastrichtian Strata
Along the Colville River North of Umiat, North
Slope, Alaska
Norman O. Frederiksen, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA 20192, phone: 703-648-5277, fax: 703-648-6953,
nfre...@usgs.gov and David J. McIntyre, Consultant,
Calgary, AB, Canada.
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/de2001/techprogram/paper_7644.htm
Diagenetic alteration of dinosaur bone
http://www.llnl.gov/ees/cams/microprobe/dinopixe.html
Dinosaurs from the Land of the Midnight Sun:an Arctic Journal
http://www.fieldadventures.org/alaska/colville1.html
DinoiData
http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Form/Prince%20Creek%20Formation.htm
http://www.dinodata.net/Refs/F/FIORILLO.htm
http://www.dinodata.net/Refs/M/MAY.htm
http://www.dinodata.net/Refs/G/GANGLOFF.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
Keith Littleton
"Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
> Recently my YEC friend at work lent me a video
>called "Fossil Evidence for
> Creation" ...
>
> http://www.creationsensation.com/MuseumStore/videofootsteps.htm
>
> In this video we are told that unfossilized dinosaur
> bones have been uncovered. They mention a specific
> expedition to Alaska in 1997 or 1998 led by a guy
> named Buddy Davis, now of Answers in Genesis. I've
> heard that other finds of unfossilized dinosaur bones
> have been published in magazines like "Science" and
> "Nature". But when I do a Yahoo search on
> "unfossilized dinosaur bones", I get a list of
> sites like answersingenesis.com, gospelcom.net,
> christiananswers.net, projectcreation.org, etc.
You need to search using the terms "Liscomb", "Bone",
and "Bed." Using these terms, you will find more
articles.
While the BLM computers were attached to the INTERNET,
a person could find the following information about the
dinosaur bones which the YE creationists video talks
about in "DINOSAURS on Alaska's North Slope" at:
http://www.ak.blm.gov/ak930/akdino.html
"NORTH SLOPE DINOSAUR FOSSILS
While we might presume that remains more than 65 million
years old would have turned to "solid rock" long ago,
that's not true for all dinosaur bones found in
northern Alaska. So far, all recovered bones are highly
mineralized and discolored by iron oxide, but they still
have differences. Some are relatively light and porous
while others are heavy and dense. The differences relate
to the amounts of minerals, notably silica, which have
replaced what was once living cell matter while
additionally filling in bone pores. In some specimens,
bone cells and pores have been mostly replaced or filled
in by minerals. In others, just cell walls and little
else have been mineralized leaving many open pores. Thus,
bones with less mineral replacement are light and more
porous than bones with lots of mineral replacement."
.........text deleted....
"DNA STUDIES AND NORTH SLOPE DINOSAUR BONES
So far, no DNA has been found in dinosaur bones of the
North Slope. When they were first discovered in the
1980s, and before they were studied, the relatively light
weight of several bones caused speculation that they
might contain a lot of the original bone tissue from the
once-living dinosaur. Since then, the result of studies
have not supported this idea. Instead, they have shown
that the bones are highly mineralized with none yet
proven to contain recoverable dinosaur DNA or
anything else from the living dinosaur. So is that the
end of the story? Not quite ...."
Also in "Diagenetic alteration of dinosaur bone"
http://www.llnl.gov/ees/cams/microprobe/dinopixe.html
Refering to fossil bones from the Liscomb Bone Bed, it
states:
"Concentrations of many of these elements are at
least an order of magnitude higher than those in
modern reptilian and mammalian bones. Such data
indicate that significant diagentic alteration
may have occurred in the dinosaur bones."
Also, look at:
http://www.alaskamuseum.org/webed/dinosaurs/edmontosaurus.html
http://www.fieldadventures.org/alaska/colville1.html
Also, go to " Re: Colville River, North Slope Alaska,
Dinosaur Fossils Questions"
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Aug/msg00337.html
There "Andy Farke" <andyfarke@XXXXX> stated:
>It seems that the latter is correct. I don't know of
>any full studies that have been published on them
>(anyone is free to correct me if I'm wrong), but Mark
>Goodwin gave the following paper at NAPC in Berkeley.
>This is related to one of the links
>(http://www.llnl.gov/ees/cams/microprobe/dinopixe.html)
>that you posted. The abstract follows:
************************************************
>From PaleoBios vol. 21, supplement to number 2, p. 57.
>(available on-line at
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/napc/abs9.html)
>EVIDENCE FOR POSTMORTEM ENRICHMENT IN LATE CRETACEOUS
>DINOSAUR BONE USING MICROBEAM PIXE
>GOODWIN, Mark B., Museum of Paleontology, University
>of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; and Graham Bench
>and Patrick Grant, Center for Accelerator Mass
>Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
>Livermore, CA, USA
....text deletd...
>Nuclear microscopy using Proton Induced X-ray Emission
>(or microbeam PIXE) provides accurate quantitative
>values, multi-element detection, sub-micron spatial
>resolution to ppm or mg/g sensitivity, and elemental
>maps of micron regions of bone. A thin section from
>an exceptionally well preserved Late Cretaceous
>hadrosaur femur (UCMP 179501) from Alaska's North Slope
>was subject to PIXE analysis. This fossil does not show
>typical signs of alteration at a macro and micron scale,
>but is highly altered nonetheless. PIXE analysis reveals
>enrichment of Fe (180,000 ppm) and Mn (13,000 ppm) in
>the lamellae surrounding Haversian canals and neighboring
>tissue of several magnitudes higher than levels known in
>modern bone. A corresponding depletion of Ca and P also
>occurs. This enrichment is most likely due to diagenesis
>from the burial environment since Fe and Mn are present
>in modern bone in only minute amounts. PIXE analysis of
>a modern Caiman and Rhea confirm this.
The key phrase in this abstract is " This fossil does not
show typical signs of alteration at a macro and micron
scale, but is highly altered nonetheless." Although the
bones from the Liscomb bone bed look and feel "fresh"
when handling them, they have been substantially altered
which refutes the claim by Young earth creationists that
they are truly unaltered. Also, the lack of any DNA in
these bones further shows that they have been altered
enough to be considered fossils.
As the Bureau of Land Management stated:
"So far, all recovered bones are highly mineralized
and discolored by iron oxide, but they still have
differences. Some are relatively light and porous
while others are heavy and dense."
These bones are clearly fossilized contrary to what the
Young Earth video claimed. It is just that the Young
Earth creationists mistook the "relative lightness" of
some of these bones for lack of fossilization. The claim
that these bones were mistaken by the geologist who
discovered them for modern bison bone is an outright
falsehood, possibly even a lie, invented by some
anonymous YE creationist as the geologist who found them,
Robert Liscomb, mistook them for partially fossilized
mammoth bones, not unfossilized modern bones. The reason
these bones were forgotten for a couple of decades was
that Robert Liscomb, who intended to revisit the location
and study the bones further died in a rockslide in 1962
before he could revisit the site.
Finally, Buddy Davis's claims to have found unfossilized
tendons and ligaments in the Liscomb Bone Bed might
just be the storytelling that a person finds in fish
stories about the ten foot trout that got away. None of
the several researchers to dig at the site Davis visited
has found any unfossilized ligaments or tendons at the
place where Buddy found them. Also, Buddy and his
colleagues have ignored inquiries from various people
asking about when they will publish a paper on this
remarkable find and how their research is going on
this unique discovery. The general consensus is that
they refuse to reply to any inquiries or publish
anything about the unfossilized ligaments and tendons
because the ligaments only exist in the fertile
imaginations of Young Earth creationists. However, Mr.
Davis is free to change Their opinion by publishing
pictures and descriptions of these ligaments and
tendons. Conventional scientists would be very happy
to learn details about this remarkable discovery.
Also, go to:
http://www.dmnhnet.org/in_the_field/alaska/Index.htm
http://www.dallasdino.org/in_the_field/alaska/story_of_alaskan_dinosaurs.htm
http://www.ns.msu.edu/NatSciF94c.pdf.
Have Fun
Keith
New Orleans, LA
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Buddy Davis, Mike Liston & John Whitmore
Liscomb dinosaur bone bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed bones dinosaur
fresh ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur bones fresh ligaments tendons Alaska
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska river river river Colville Colville
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed bones dinosaur
fresh ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur ligaments tendons Alaska Liscomb bone bed
dinosaur bones fresh ligaments tendons Alaska
Liscomb bone bed dinosaur bones fresh ligaments
tendons Alaska river river Liscomb bone bed
Colville Colville Colville Colville Colville
Chris Thompson
>
(snip)
>
> While the BLM computers were attached to the INTERNET,
> a person could find the following information about the
> dinosaur bones which the YE creationists video talks
> about in "DINOSAURS on Alaska's North Slope" at:
> http://www.ak.blm.gov/ak930/akdino.html
>
> "NORTH SLOPE DINOSAUR FOSSILS
>
> While we might presume that remains more than 65 million
> years old would have turned to "solid rock" long ago,
> that's not true for all dinosaur bones found in
> northern Alaska. So far, all recovered bones are highly
> mineralized and discolored by iron oxide, but they still
> have differences. Some are relatively light and porous
> while others are heavy and dense. The differences relate
> to the amounts of minerals, notably silica, which have
> replaced what was once living cell matter while
> additionally filling in bone pores. In some specimens,
> bone cells and pores have been mostly replaced or filled
> in by minerals. In others, just cell walls and little
> else have been mineralized leaving many open pores. Thus,
> bones with less mineral replacement are light and more
> porous than bones with lots of mineral replacement."
>
> .........text deleted....
(big snip)
Is this from AIG (or some other creationist lie mill) or is this from
the BLM (who, as a result of their land-use policies, I regard with the
same esteem, say, as a week-old roadkill).
In any case, this is the first time I have heard that dinosaurs had cell
walls. Shall we now rearrange those ridiculous phylogenies that place
them in Kingdom Animalia? But the important question remains- Do we
create Fungosauria? Disney always depicted them as greenish, so I
suspect we will have Chlorosauria.
I await further developments with bated breath.
Chris
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************************************