digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Oldest Muscle In Existance Found in 380-Million-Year-Old Fish Fossil

news.nationalgeographic.com — Australian scientists say they have found morsels of fossilized muscle —the oldest vertebrate tissue ever known—in the remains of two fish that lived 380 to 384 million years ago.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rplobue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10it must be pretty strong.
  • bobotheking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23At first I thought, "That's not how you spell mussel!"

    Then I thought, "Wait, fish aren't mussels!"

    Then I thought, "*****, I'm an idiot."
    • skst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Naw, you just focused on the wrong misspelled word: "existence"
  • Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Yes, it will blend. I just saved you 15 seconds.
  • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I'm just waiting for a religious nut to post that the world is only 6000 years old, and the devil made that muscle look old to trick us.
    • Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15carbon dating = witchcraft
    • Erowid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Buried as inaccurate. Everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old.
    • Triffid, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Strange, I was waiting for the anti-religious nut to post a preemptive comment similar to yours ;) Don't worry, we get it... religion is not cool
    • MikeDawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@Erowid:

      You beat me to it.

      I just wish everyone else could understand that ;-)
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Carbon dating is not useful for this. There are other forms of radio active dating that are.

      Let's not befuddle the poor souls and make them think it's us who have somehow got our sums wrong.
    • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5People with different beliefs are nutjobs? Or just those that act on them? How about we limit the nutjobs to those who actively believe and do dangerous, stupid and harmful actions?
    • jpt62089, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5erm... the earth is only 6000 years old!

      LOL!

      And yes I do believe that, but I also believe that God did not create a "new" earth. Just as Adam and Eve were not babies when He created them. I believe God created the Earth as a x million year old object and stuff.
    • asauterChicago, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@JPT62089

      You fool, we all know the it was Him, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, OR FSM that has effected the scientist carbon dating tests. We know that carbon dating is a pretty affective test, however some tests may come back with results older than 6000 years old (even humans! ridiculous!). We know this to be Him, effecting the tests with his noodley appendage.

      See here: http://www.venganza.org/

      Please join the fight to get this taught in the proper place... public school systems.
    • JimSartor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@Triffid . . . it's not so much that "religion isn't cool", it's more that religion is hateful, devisive, destructive and naive in it's ability to control the masses in such violent and anti-social ways. So, "anti-religious left wing nut jobs" such as myself, point and laugh from time to time because we don't have a god to send our enemies souls into eternal hellfire and like to relax and have a bit of fun at the expensive of your imaginary friend without the need for gratuitous violence or fear of damnation.

      BTW, Kent Hovind is my favorite stand-up comedian of all time. Brilliant!

      -Jim
    • Triffid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@jimsartor...

      "my imaginary friend"?... Well, just for the record, I'm very much agnostic... I just don't like bad mouthing others who have different beliefs than me... but hey, way to be presumptuous buddy ;)
    • EzarKun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Do elephants suck on thier own dick?
    • night141, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6You tools just had to drag religion into this somehow didn't you? And judging by the amount of diggs the parent has it just confirms my suspicions that the majority of diggers are in fact blind followers of whatever "groupthink" is popular for the month.
    • jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why do you need a devil to make it look old when people will believe it's 380 million years old without evidence?
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh comeon, why the - diggs? Why would someone possibly be upset by the plain and simple fact that radio carbon dating is not the only method of radiometric dating that is used when dating ancient samples such as these?

      For more information see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

      Radio carbon dating has it's uses - but unlike many creationists assume, it is by no means the only method at our disposal for dating fossils and other very old archaeological samples
    • jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Where are the "many creationists" that "assume", it is "the only method at our disposal for dating fossils and other very old archaeological samples"?

      For more information see here: http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating
  • ButWillItBlend, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1But will it Blend??????
    • childprey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yes. It's still working on the linux bit though.
  • wa77ss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Fish taste good.
  • FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"The rock and pool, is nice and cool, so juicy sweet. Our only wish, to catch a fish, so juicy sweet!" - Gollum , "The Lord of The Ring - The Two Towers"
  • marinist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Soft tissue has also been found in a T-Rex thigh bone:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
    • sonaboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yep - and strangely enough, it appears to be amazingly similar in structure to soft tissue structures in ostrich muscle.
      So now we KNOW the scientists are lying their asses off. As if Adam & Eve rode ostriches to church.
      Ridiculous!!!
    • kendals, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed it has, and it raises the question: how could blood cells survive for 65 million years?

      As for dating methods for ages of objects:

      * Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the change of 14C in the sample is due entirely to radioactive decay. It is also assumed that carbon has been in equilibrium on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.
      Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial 14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as great age.
      * Thermoluminescence (TL) dates are obtained from individual grains of common minerals such as quartz. When such grains are heated, they emit light, and this is related to the radiation ‘stored’ in the crystal structure. It is assumed that the radiation was slowly absorbed from the environment, building up from zero at a certain time in the past (perhaps when the grain was last exposed to sunlight). A date is calculated by measuring the light emitted from the mineral grain when it is heated, and measuring the radiation in the environment where the grain was found.
      Unfortunately, there are many unknowns and many assumptions need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water, heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the environment, and many other causes.
      * Optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates are based on exactly the same principle as TL. But instead of heating the grain, it is exposed to light to make it emit its ‘stored’ radiation. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL.
      * Electron-spin resonance (ESR) dates are based on the same principles as TL and OSL. However, the ‘stored’ radiation in the sample is measured by exposing it to gamma radiation and measuring the radiation emitted. The measuring technique does not destroy the ‘stored’ radiation (as does TL and OSL), so the measurement can be repeated on the same sample. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL and OSL.
      * Thorium-uranium (Th/U) dates are based on measuring the isotopes of uranium and thorium in a sample. It is known that uranium-238 decays radioactively to form thorium-230 (through a number of steps, including through uranium-234). The dating calculation assumes that the thorium and uranium in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Furthermore, before a date can be calculated, the initial ratios of 230Th/238U and 234U/238U need to be assumed, and it is also assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or thorium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. However, the bone and soil must have been ‘open’ to allow these elements to enter and accumulate.
      * Protactinium-uranium (Pa/U) dates are based on similar principles as Th/U dating, but use uranium-235 and protactinium-231 instead. The isotope 235U decays radioactively to form 231Pa. Again, it is assumed that the isotopes in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Also, the initial ratio of 231Pa/235U has to be assumed, and it is assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or protactinium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. Again, any bone sample containing uranium must have been ‘open’ to allow it to accumulate in the first place.
  • Ammo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7xcvbndjfghjdfhdh
  • gert2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Of course, the article doesn't say HOW they know it's that old, leaving all of the faith-haters to believe it's 380 MYO by blind faith.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2....
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh comeon, why would someone possibly be upset by the plain and simple fact that radio carbon dating is not the only method of radiometric dating that is used when dating ancient samples such as these?

      For more information see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

      Radio carbon dating has it's uses - but unlike many creationists assume, it is by no means the only method at our disposal for dating fossils and other very old archaeological samples.
    • jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2gert2 didn't even mention radio carbon dating. Where are the many creationists that assume?

      For more information see here: http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wrong place.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having said which the site you pointed to is nothing short of a collection of ramblings by a bunch of ranting, screaming loons.

      Sorry it has to be said.
    • jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ad hom much?
  • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1This discovery pretty much disproves the Bible.
  • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So how many million tax dollars will they need to study this further?
  • braininbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2still think it takes thousands of years to make a fossil?
  • PFinn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Evolution 1 God 0
    • loveydoveycakes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What makes you think that god and evolution are mutually exclusive?
  • Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well if this isn't some of the strongest evidence yet that evolution and these large time scales are completely false, I don't know what is. How could anyone believe muscle could survive for 380 million years? Come on people. Evolution has taken another blow to its already weak theory.
  • tyywebb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mmmmm let's cook it
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.