Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
How can they find protein in a fossil?
Let me be Rokke’s wingman anyday in my ‘105 :-)
Perhaps you need to re-check your eyeglasses prescription? Or attend a remedial reading course?
What’s odd is that you are the only person who has this information. Last I checked, dinosaur bones are just as solid as our own bones, and this includes the therapods.
It it the microvascularization found in these bones that leads to the conclusion that they are related to birds, not hollowness.
It is the number of cavities of the skull (not like the empty spaces WITHIN your own) of some therapods, as well as the light structure of the tail, that leads to this same conclusion.
You take an inch, and stretch it into a mile, then scorn those who insist on using the ruler.
You are one of the faithful, not so much certain, as convinced. The facts don’t concern you, just the conclusions.
Also, I don’t know if birds and dinosaurs are related. Though there does seem to be some evidence of this, it is far from certain that birds are their ancestors, or merely a parallel species.
You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, rude and mean-spirited jerk. I’m not at all surprised that you are an anti-Christian Darwinist.
When was the last time you checked?
"In a literal "lucky break" that exposed unusual bone tissue lining the hollow cavity of a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone, paleontologists at North Carolina State University have determined that a 68 million-year-old T. rex fossil from Montana is that of a young female, and that she was producing eggs when she died. ...-- National Science Foundation
... "The 107-centimetre-long femur - small for a T. rex - was intact when found, and its hollow interior had not been filled with minerals. That is unusual for a long-buried bone. ...-- New Scientist
ANATOMY-- EnchantedLearning.com
"Tyrannosaurus rex was a fierce predator that walked on two powerful legs. This meat-eater had a huge head with large, pointed, replaceable teeth and well-developed jaw muscles. It had tiny arms, each with two fingers. Each bird-like foot had three large toes, all equipped with claws (plus a little dewclaw on a tiny, vestigial fourth toe). T. rex had a slim, stiff, pointed tail that provided balance and allowed quick turns while running. T. rex's neck was short and muscular. Its body was solidly built but its bones were hollow.
"But estimating both the size and life span of a T. rex was thought to be impossible: the weight-bearing bones used to estimate size were hollow, like bird bones, and grew in a way that erased much of the growth record. ...-- Boston Globe
View the photos fool.
Kevin Trudeau?....I had to look that one up...recognized the face, just did not know his name...so I read up on this guy...thanks for the prod to check him out...
What problem do you see in this? There has been a great deal written about this in the last two years. I know that some creationists posted claims that the find included raw red meat, but this was based on ignorance.
Protein includes many substances that are stable when dry and not exposed to air circulation. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?
You are obviously a summa cum laude graduate of the 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' academy.
You obviously aren't well-versed in Googling, are you? Go back and check some of the links I posted, especially the one about dinosaurs having bird-like air sacs and hollow bones in areas of their bodiesalso paralleling birds in this manner.
:Jim35 wrote: It is the number of cavities of the skull (not like the empty spaces WITHIN your own) of some therapods, as well as the light structure of the tail, that leads to this same conclusion. You take an inch, and stretch it into a mile, then scorn those who insist on using the ruler."
My what a convincing argument. See my reply above and do some research before spouting off. "Jim35 wrote: You are one of the faithful, not so much certain, as convinced. The facts dont concern you, just the conclusions. *SNIP* You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, rude and mean-spirited jerk. Im not at all surprised that you are an anti-Christian Darwinist"
More erudite devastating critiques that prove your argument. Didn't read my home page like I suggested, did you?
What was the name of the charm school that gave you your degree?
Anyone who knows how this testing works realizes that it is not accurate on specimens of recent date. It is based upon predictable and consistent isotope half-life which requires a long period of time to decay enough to be measured. It is not that the tests are not useful or that they are the work of the “devil”, it just means that the testing criteria require specimens to be of at least a certain age before the tests can measure anything.
No, it only means that the index was erroneously established. I use statistics regularly in my work, and won’t be fooled by slight of hand, because I have used similar tricks myself.
Meanwhile, I checked out your profile page. Very interesting. I noticed that you link to a number of articles claiming to refute Creationism, or the creationist critique of evolution. I also notice that you failed to cite the responses to most of your articles...responses which are done very well. I guess confusing your readers with the other side of the argument is asking too much.
No need to respond...this creationist can pretty well predict what you will say.
Nonsense.
I think you meant "once living."
The bone is also not fossilized; it is just bone.
I agree with you. But, if the scientists are going to extract DNA and genetic material from the protein, it can’t be fossilized.
Nonsense.
Read the frigging articles. The reason this specimen is unusual is because it was protected from air and moisture. Some of the protein survived without being mineralized. Protein is not alive, even if it is a product of living things. If you have research indicating the rate of decomposition in the absence of light, moisture and air, please present your references.
Nuclear irradiation is the only thing that could preserve anything that long, even in a vacuum. The US Army commissioned studies on that subject in the early sixties.
Show me some research backing this up. Are you saying, for example, that a fragment of rope would spontaneously decompose in the absence of air, moisture and light? How long would this take? Show me some research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.