Talk:Soft tissue preservation
Possible section on 14C & left-handed amino acids?[edit]
(Hello RW. My first contribution.) Now that so many different types of dino tissue, sequenced proteins, decomposing DNA (with a reported 521-year half life), organelles, osteocyctes, etc., have been reported in so many leading journals, from a half-dozen different dinosaurs (in addition to many other organisms from the same strata, and even down to pre-Cambrian), it seems that extant dinosaur soft tissue is becoming somewhat routine. (For example, the creationist Real Science Radio program has predicted that endogenous soft tissue will be found in the newly discovered Dreadnoughtus bones.) Perhaps the next phase of investigation will focus on the likelihood both of significant left-handedness, and 14c, in the very same soft tissue specimens. Might this expected development be relevant on this page? Thoughts? --Bob Enyart (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if those science-loving creationists have predicted it then it must happen.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, RW could use a short snappy article on stereochemistry. Chirality is mentioned in CMI's rebuttal for answer #6 to the second unanswerable question: "...they are too dilute, contaminated, cross-reactive, and racemic (instead of being ‘one-handed’), to build anything." (That rebuttal remains unanswered there.)
- The RW article on amino acids could be a place to spell out how stereochemistry factors into creationist arguments. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Can Iron really preserve soft tissue?[edit]
Hello, I've read this article and it states "Further, it is not plausible that iron could be as good a preservative as formaldehyde, which directly forms covalent cross-links between protein chains, something iron can’t do." - http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue Is that true or is it just more creationist dribble? 20:44, 28 October 2014 — Unsigned, by: 81.153.227.145 20:44 / talk / contribs 28 October 2014
Ancient DNA[edit]
This should become a section:
Ancient DNA (also aDNA) is DNA from very old organisms -- on the order of thoudsands or millions of years. Related is soft tissue preservation of very old organisms.
Scientific[edit]
Neutral[edit]
- 'Jurassic Park' May Be Impossible, But Dino DNA Lasts Longer Than Thought, Live Science
- DNA has a 521-year half-life, Nature (journal)
- 75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments, The Guardian
- How is Ancient DNA Preserved?, Museum Victoria
- Extracting Dinosaur DNA from Amber Fossils Impossible, Scientists Say, Sci-News
- Dinosaur blood cells extracted from 75-million-year-old fossil, NewScientist
- Life in the old fossil yet, The Economist
- Scrappy Fossils Yield Possible Dinosaur Blood Cells, National Geographic
Evolutionist[edit]
- Dinosaur Soft Tissue, Letters to Creationists
- Young Earth Creationism and Ancient DNA
- Dino-blood and the Young Earth, TalkOrigins
- Dinosaur Shocker, Smithsonian Magazine
- Creation Science Rebuttals - Evolutionary Dinosaur DNA Nonsense, OldEarth.org
- JUNK DNA AND CREATIONIST LIES, SkepticBlog
- “Soft Tissue” in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?, BioLogos
Creationist[edit]
- DNA in Dinosaur Bones?, ICR
- Squid Fossils, Ancient DNA, and a Young Earth, ICR
- DNA dating—positive evidence that the fossils are young, CMI
- DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, CMI
- DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?, UncommonDescent
- Fossil finding shakes evolutionary theories, World News Group
- FOSSIL DNA STUNS GEOLOGISTS, Creation Revolution
- Scientist dismissed after soft tissue found on dinosaur fossil, Ancient-Origins.net
- Ancient Fossils with Preserved Soft Tissues and DNA, DetectingDesign.org