Posted on 09/16/2009 9:03:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Fresh Fossil Feather Nanostructures
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Bird feathers can contain pigmentation for a wide range of colors, with specific molecules reflecting certain hues when light touches them. They also can display “structural” colors, where the thicknesses of layers of cells and connective tissues are fine-tuned to refract certain colors.
Scientists recently described structural coloration that is still clearly discernible in well-preserved fossil feathers. Why do these fossil feathers have their original cell structures laid out in the original patterns if they are millions of years old?
In 1995, paleontologists Derek Briggs and Paul Davis provided an overview of fossil feathers from the 40 or so places on the globe where they were known to exist.1 Among their findings was that 69 percent of feather fossils are preserved not as impressions, but as carbon traces. This was verified by comparing the proportions of carbon in both the surrounding carbonaceous rock and the fossil within it, to the proportions of organically-derived carbon from the same items. They found that there was more organic carbon in the fossil than in the stone.
At that time, the researchers thought the carbon came from bacteria that had degraded the feather material and then remained placed in the feather’s outline. But 13 years later, Briggs and other colleagues showed clear evidence that these “bacterial cells” were actually melanosomes―the same microscopic, sausage-shaped, dark pigment-containing structures in today’s bird feathers―from the original feather.2
This means that the organic carbon in the melanosomes somehow avoided decay for millions of years, which contradicts “the well-known fact that the majority of organic molecules decay in thousands of years.”3
Briggs and his colleagues recently described fossil feathers from the German Messel Oil Shale deposits, which are famous for their remarkably well-preserved fossils. These not only contained organic carbon from melanosomes (not bacteria), but the melanosomes were still organized in their original spacing and layering. Thus, the “metallic greenish, bluish or coppery” colors that can be seen from different viewing angles, producing an iridescent sheen, may very well be similar to that of the original bird’s plumage.4
Biologists already know that “in order to produce a particular [structural] colour, the keratin thickness must be accurate to within about 0.05 μm (one twenty thousandth of one millimetre!).”5 Although the keratin had decayed from these fossil feathers, its layers of melanosomes remained laid out in similarly precise thicknesses. Thus, not only was the color preserved, but the melanosomes were still organized to within micrometers of their original positions.
Evolutionary geologists maintain that the Messel Shale was formed 47 million years ago. But with these colorful feather fossils—which retain not only the original molecules inside their original melanosomes, but also the architectural layout of these structures—evolutionists must invent some kind of magical preservation process that simply isn’t observed in the laboratory or in nature.
Without the assumption of millions of years, however, the fossil data begin to make much more sense. Fresh-looking fossil features point to a young world.
References
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on September 16, 2009.
LOL...you can insult all you want, but you’re words ring hollow. Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth is on the run. Old Charlie has lost his so-called “tree of life,” the evos have lost their prediction of “junk” DNA, we are finding dinos with blood vessels, blood cells, and connective soft-tissue still intact...and let’s not forget that the gaps in the fossil record have only gotten worse since Darwood’s day, not better! Indeed, Creation Science is (and always will be) far superior to Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth because God designed His creation to resist evolutionary explanations.
==Considering how extremely slow the FOXP2 varies
Are you basing this on empirical science, or are you making an assumption based on the evo notion of conservation?
None of this invalidates evolution, much less validates a young Earth. Any geologist, physicist, and paleontologist will still laugh at you, no matter how much you try to create credibility out of thin air.
I don't need to insult, because all of your Wedge Strategy front groups and Creationist rackets are still the equivalent of the Bigfoot Society and the Raelians. Any real scientist will tell you as much (And no, John D. Morris was not a real scientist, so try again).
I suppose it’s possible that the evos are even more wrong than we thought :op
Boy, you sure do like to project a lot. More evo-atheists believe in bigfoot than just about any other grouping in the country. The evo-atheists are also far more likely to believe in little green men from mars. And speaking of the Raelians, I guess it escaped your attention that they are in fact evo-atheists who believe that life on Earth was designed by space aliens. LOL!
One last question, does believing in evolution make one an atheist?
I know you think that evolution is "on the run", but someone needs to explain to you that the Liberty University campus is not the scientific center of the universe.
No, there are plenty of confused theists who have bought into Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
You know it’s amazing how many out-of-breath evos say Darwood’s evo-atheist creation myth is not on the run :o)
"Creation Science" is made up of a few very small non-profit rackets that crank out pamphlets and collateral that they can sell at churches. That's it.
That's a grain of sand next to the entire fields of physics, paleontology, geology, and astronomy.
It's common in pseudoscience, whether you're a Truther or a creationist. You spew endless links to falsehoods and garbage and pretend to be mainstream, when in reality you're the equivalent of the crazy naked guy on the corner with the "Repent Now" sign around his neck.
Do you have a source for that (remebering that "evo-atheists" are supposed to be that handful of high-level academics who are in a position to influence things like awarding of research grants and awards - and a lot of them don't even live in this country)?
Thanks for answering my questions to the best of your ability. I was also going to ask you if you thought that God hates fags but I’d rather just walk away and maybe go take a shower now.
LOL...I see you are now so out of breath that you decided to remedy the situation by burying your head in the sand.
Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Ever hear of these guys?
HE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
From Y1K to Y2K
Table of Contents
“O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.” – Psalm 104:24
“The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” – Psalm 111:2
* THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF MODERN SCIENCE The Medieval Philosophers: Hugh, Ockham, Oresme
* Robert Grosseteste – Nature is knowable
* Roger Bacon – Experiment is the key
* Leonardo da Vinci – Master of all trades
* Sir Francis Bacon – Pathfinder to truth relies on God’s word
* Johannes Kepler – Thinking God’s thoughts after Him
* Galileo Galilei – Enemy not of Biblical truth, but of human tradition
* William Harvey – Surgeon to King James reveals secrets of the circulatory system
* SCIENCE TAKES OFF IN ALL DIRECTIONS Blaise Pascal – The short-lived genius, passionate for Christ Jesus
* Robert Boyle – Leading experimenter leaves a legacy to fight skepticism
* Sir Isaac Newton – Left the universe a different place, in answer to prayer
* Antony van Leeuwenhoek – The shop merchant in awe of God’s tiny creatures
* Carolus Linnaeus – Organizer of the Genesis kinds
* William Herschel – An undevout astronomer must be mad
* John Herschel – All scientific findings confirm Scripture
* Samuel F. B. Morse – What hath God wrought!
* “NATURAL PHILOSOPHY” REACHES ITS ZENITH Michael Faraday – World’s greatest experimental physicist, a humble, Bible-believing Christian
* Charles Babbage – Father of the computer defends the Scripture
* James Prescott Joule – Father of thermodynamics does science to ponder God’s wisdom
* Lord Kelvin – Eminent physicist/professor takes on Darwin and his bulldog
* James Clerk Maxwell – Christian creation scientist par excellence
Bonus! Maxwell poetry set to a new, original melody: “A Student’s Evening Hymn”
* Great Christian Mathematicians: John Napier, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann
* Honorable Mentions in Physical Science: Copernicus, Brahe, Flamsteed, Davy, Dalton, Henry, Fleming
* SHINING THROUGH MATERIALISTIC DARKNESS Gregor Mendel – The monk whose gene laws Darwinists had to obey
* Louis Pasteur – World’s greatest biologist opposes evolutionism
* Joseph Lister – Compassionate Quaker saves millions of lives
* The Anti-Evolutionists: Not just Bible-believers opposed Darwin’s ideas
* Honorable Mentions in Life Sciences: Ray, Hooke, Bell, Simpson, Fabre
* Henrietta Swan Leavitt – The gentle Christian lady PhD who measured the universe
* George Washington Carver – Obedience to the Genesis mandate saves the South
* Wernher von Braun – World’s greatest rocket scientist defends Genesis
* James Irwin – The Apollo astronaut who took the Bible to the moon
Is that anything like Shark Week on the Discovery Channel??
Romans 1:26-32
>>Yes, and dont forget that ‘young’ star-light that was created to ‘look’ like ‘old’ star-light, billions of years old.<<
I did not see starlight discussed in this article. I believe they were trying to consider what the raw evidence would suggest.
“Look Who’s Irrational Now”
Incredible. Thanks for the link GGG.
My pleasure :o)
>>Creation “scientists” love to play pretend. They remind me of a Lord of the Rings fan claiming to be a real historian because he’s studied all the ages of Middle Earth, or a Star Trek nerd claiming to be a linguistics expert because he speaks Klingon.<<
You know, when I argue with liberals at harmony-central.com I see a lot of posts like this. In fact, if there was energy in Ad-hominem, that place could power a small town. It is literally the argument style of choice, though more conservatives are joining the site, forcing them to change their tactics or appear to be utter fools.
“==Considering how extremely slow the FOXP2 varies
Are you basing this on empirical science, or are you making an assumption based on the evo notion of conservation?”
—Fine, change it to “considering how extremely little the FOXP2 varies...”. With only 2 amino acid differences between humans and chimps, and 3 differences between humans and mice, it doesn’t say much that the gene is identical between humans and Neandertals.
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.