• In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

This headline, like many such headlines, leaves the impression THE solution has been found. You must read the article to discover that 'explanation' really means speculation. The speculation relates to the reason soft tissue did not decay significantly over two years. There is no SCIENTIFIC basis to justify the tissue lasting 100 million times that period. The gyrations necessary to accept this rank as illegitimate. It is the scientific equivalent of, "God of the gaps."
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

OK so you don't like the headline. But to claim the article describes speculation is not accurate either. The scientists use chemistry and testing to back up their claim. They obviously think more study is needed and this is not the final answer as indicated below and elsewhere in the article.
Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier.

..."Once we can get the chemistry behind some of these soft tissues, there's all sorts of questions we can ask of ancient organisms," Schweitzer said.
(Obviously the problem of explaining how soft tissue survives so long is much less significant for those who believe the earth is only 6K - 8K years old.)

I like this technical jargon. :wink:
"I'd like to find a honking big T. rex that's completely articulated that's still in the ground, or something similar," she said.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

It is science because they tested their speculation through an experiment with ostrich blood. But you're right, that it's "explained" doesn't mean the explanation is the right one. But if it's the only explanation we currently have, other scientists should take the findings and run with them, to see if they have merit.

The false pretense seems to be a part of journalism in general though. People won't read the article unless the headline lures them. I hate that this happens. I hate clicking on misleading articles to find the actual contents ambiguous. I can empathize with your point, even if I disagree with some of your comments:
Stahrwe wrote:It is the scientific equivalent of, "God of the gaps."
Can you explain the logic behind this claim? I don't see how they are equivalent, you'll have to make the case.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Extrapolating from 2 years to 200 million years is bogus and everyone involved knows it. That type of headline would make P.T. Barnum proud. "There's one born every minute."
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Extrapolating from 2 years to 200 million years is bogus and everyone involved knows it.
Why? Large extrapolations are done all the time Stahrwe, where science intersects with mathematics. From a couple of years of observation, we extrapolate star positions a billion years into the future. You seem to have an argument from incredulity here, without actually thinking it through. Is there a reason the preservation technique they explored wouldn't preserve the flesh long enough for fossilization to occur? Or did you not realize that was part of the explanation?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Going from 2 years to 200 million year, IN THIS INSTANCE, is desperation, it is not an extrapolation like one could do with celestial mechanics. It should be dismissed from serious consideration.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Going from 2 years to 200 million year, IN THIS INSTANCE, is desperation, it is not an extrapolation like one could do with celestial mechanics. It should be dismissed from serious consideration.
Why call it extrapolation if it isn't extrapolation? :lol:

The preservation of flesh only needs to last until fossilization occurs, as is clearly mentioned in the article. Fossilization can occur in as little as 5 to 10 years. You missed this point in my last post.

Another failed Gotchya!
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

Rachita wrote:Large extrapolations are done all the time Stahrwe, where science intersects with mathematics. From a couple of years of observation, we extrapolate star positions a billion years into the future. You seem to have an argument from incredulity here, without actually thinking it through. Is there a reason the preservation technique they explored wouldn't preserve the flesh long enough for fossilization to occur? Or did you not realize that was part of the explanation
You haven't touched on the actual differences regarding extrapolations of star positions vs fossils of once living tissue.
Just what are they and how important might the differences be?
Last edited by ant on Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

I think this is the usual case of shoddy science reporting. The article doesn't provide much detail. There's probably a good chance the reporter is insinuating more certainty than is warranted.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: T-Rex soft tissue and the science of deceptive headlines

Unread post

ant wrote:You haven't touched on the actual differences regarding extrapolations of star positions vs fossils of once living tissue.
Just what are they and how important might the differences be?
The text you were replying to was actually mine. Rachita simply copy/pasted it without quotes. Extrapolation is taking what you know and extending it forward. There may be a more precise definition within mathematics, but I meant it in more simple terms. If living flesh has been preserved for 2 years in an experiment, and flesh is known to fossilize in as little as 10 years under the best of conditions, then the preservation technique is a possible explanation. Stahrwe's point is still correct, the headlines are misleading. That we have a possible explanation doesn't mean it 'has been explained.'
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”