Who is being deceptive in reporting fossil finds?


#1

Recently, AIG was falsely accused of misrepresentation. However, below is an indication of common reporting which is misleading. In addition to that, even while the scientific reports are presumably accurate,

> The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized (Fiorillo et al. 2010; Gangloff and Fiorillo 2010).2 [emphasis mine]
> Permineralization refers to the most common process of fossilization where the spaces in the bones are filled by minerals and the remains are turned to stone. So, when the scientists say that the bones are “typically…unpermineralized,” what they mean is that we are not dealing with fossils, but comparatively ‘fresh’ dinosaur bones (quibbles about the definition of ‘fossil’ notwithstanding). One might think this would be newsworthy information! But quite to the contrary, the AP article reported the findings in this way:

> A paper published on Tuesday concluded that fossilized bones found along Alaska’s Colville river were from a distinct species of hadrosaur (the guardian.com)
…1 [emphasis mine]

*> Not only did the fact that they were unfossilized not make it into the article, but it actually states falsely that the bones were fossilized. You can be sure that almost none of the people who read that online article will take the time to go back and check its accuracy against the original published paper. Paul Price, *http://creation.com/unpermineralized-hadrosaur-bones-alaska

Like the findings of dinosaur tissue and dinosaur dna this is unusual and unexpected. These fossils were found in the 1960s and thought to be mammals, not dinos. What evidence is there that we can expect non-fossilized remains to survive this long without complete deterioration? Certainly these animals were not frozen initially, since they lived and presumably died in a warm environment… the claim is that the environment in which they died was at least about 5-9C, if not warmer. Furthermore, the bones are disconnected, not whole-scale frozen as the mammoths appeared to be.


#2

This is why you shouldn’t get your science from press releases, John.


#3

So joao disembles by saying the obvious, that we should not get our science from press releases. Trouble is that 99% of people do get their science from press releases; they do not read the abstracts much less the total papers that are written on these and other similar topics.

So, the point is that when AIG draws a conclusion, which by the way is actually a legitimate conclusion, whether everyone agrees with the implications or not, why is not the same amount of critique applied to the popular press? Is it because they tend to buy into the general evolutionary paradigm?

The fact that dinosaur bones are discovered unfossilized is an incredible paradigm shift, just as finding still identifiable dna fragments and blood cells and collagen and dinosaur tissue. If you try to visualize or imagine how long 65 million years really is… think of how many Adam and Eve’s in that time, how many times 10,000 years that is. And then think to yourself, yes well, that is no problem for a bit of organic tissue to survive all that time… we would expect that, wouldn’t we. We would expect to find some dinosaur bones that have not been permineralized, and yet still identifiable as to type of bone and even species type. This does not stretch our incredulity whatsoever. We will simply adjust our science and our common sense to the theory. It must fit. It must. It must.


#4

[quote=“johnZ, post:3, topic:3170, full:true”]
So joao disembles by saying the obvious,[/quote]
How can anyone dissemble by stating the obvious, John? Walk me through the logic of that.

If they don’t pretend to understand science better than the scientists doing the work understand it, I have no major problem with it.

It’s the arrogant people who based on hearsay, claim that the scientists don’t understand their own science that are a problem. Sound like anyone you know, John?

And you do? You seem to be implicitly claiming to by using the third-person plural.

How would you know unless you engage with the evidence yourself, John? How do you know for a fact that AiG press releases are based on examination of any evidence at all?


#5

> The fact that dinosaur bones are discovered unfossilized is an incredible paradigm shift, just as finding still identifiable dna fragments and blood cells and collagen and dinosaur tissue. If you try to visualize or imagine how long 65 million years really is… think of how many Adam and Eve’s in that time, how many times 10,000 years that is. And then think to yourself, yes well, that is no problem for a bit of organic tissue to survive all that time… we would expect that, wouldn’t we. We would expect to find some dinosaur bones that have not been permineralized, and yet still identifiable as to type of bone and even species type. This does not stretch our incredulity whatsoever. We will simply adjust our science and our common sense to the theory. It must fit. It must. It must.

This is the real question. This was discovered from the actual published paper, as I understand it.


(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.