"Sorry CG, but I am not in the least bit embarrassed."
You should be, you're making a fool of yourself.
"As I said, I didn't write the articles or make the claims."
Are you saying that you didn't make this post? :
Didn't they find dinosaur DNA? Wouldn't it have to be millions of years old?
34 posted on 04/12/2006 4:41:12 PM EDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
and:
They have found dinosaur DNA. I read it right here on FR recently.
35 posted on 04/12/2006 4:41:50 PM EDT by mlc9852
??
Did you not, when asked for a citation, post this link?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
THIS is the *recent find* YOU claimed said that DNA was found from a dino. Except... the article said NO SUCH THING. YOU made claims that you couldn't back up, then got tricked with an April fools column that anybody with even a High School science background should have seen through.
Again, you are making a fool of yourself. That this does not shame you says a lot about you. It's hilarious too to think how much evolution backers get pummeled for their alleged moral inadequeices, yet here you are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
I have never claimed to personally have found any dinosaur DNA so I really am at a loss to figure out why you think I have. I did not write the articles posted nor did I say they were true. The fact that you seem so obsessed with this is quite strange. If I had said I believe dinosaur DNA had been found because I had first-hand knowledge of it, that would be a mistake. To post articles written by scientists is what is done all the time on FR.
You may think it is embarrassing to me but it isn't. I am off to lunch now but will return to continue the arguments if you so desire.
That isn't an April Fool's joke. It's from a Science article from March 2005. Dr. Schweitzer demineralized fragments of fossil and recovered a flexible network that appears to be derived from connective tissue and blood vessels. No word on the actual composition of the material. There was some indication of antigenicity, but it's doubtful that anything but degraded fragments of proteins remain.
The problem is that the YECs leaped on this immediately and started harking it as the discovery of "raw flesh," completely missing the fact that the minerals had to be removed first, the fragments recovered are on the order of 1/8 inch, and there is no evidence that the original biomolecules survived intact.
Oh yes, and no DNA.