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.
>>I’m still waiting for the answer to: “What came first...the chicken or the egg?”<<
I have no doubt it was the chicken. I sometimes wonder, if you could go back in time and meet Adam two minutes after he was created, how old you would guess him to be.
That’s what I was afraid of. Oh well, nothing either of us say will ever change the other’s mind. I will say this though that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and if push came to shove and the $h!+ hits the fan as I think it will someday sooner than later, you will find that we are on the same side. Peace Brother.
Wonder where we'd be if he used protection????
That’s not necessarily true. I once believed Darwin’s fanciful creation myth, and now I believe in the majesty of God’s creation. I know lot’s of people who say the scientific evidence convinced them to switch to the creationist side of the ledger. Who knows, maybe you’ll be next :o)
My point is that if you promote the idea that time speeds up and slows down to meet some Biblical creation timeline that conflicts with the evil Darwinists timeline, maybe accusing THEM (geologists in this case) of creating a fictional timeline to support their (evolutionists in this case) evolution ideas is not a good idea.
It would look better for creationists if it were those dishonest Darwinists speeding up and slowing down time to meet THEIR timeline. Maybe this could be refined before we throw it at 9th graders in public schools. Maybe creationists could poll this theory like they do creation vs evolution, or is it like the Health reform plan, popular as long as no one knows what in it??
So does all this mean the Moon is further away than evolutionists claim too? How about my commute to work?
Actually, it is the Big Bangers who have a starlight problem because light has not had enough time to travel across the Universe and create a uniform CBR. Indeed, the evo Big Bangers even speculated that light may have traveled faster in the past to try and explain it!
On the other hand, distand starlight is no problem at all for creation cosmology. And it is “fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data, or fantasizing, to solve this problem. The interesting thing about Humphreys’ cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary dimensionless point). The results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the big bang’).”
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf
FYI, they are getting their butts handed to them the last couple of weeks and especially lately. They are looking like foolish lemmings. They defy logic to try to defend ACORN and imply there is nothing there. In one post I called out that they laugh at conservatives for thinking it is an important story, yet “acorn” was the number one search word at Bing at the time - so which side is REALLY out of touch.
They have absolutely no reasonable defense, and their primary weapon, ad-hominem, has been rendered, lately, by a sudden increase in conservatives calling them on it to the point that they rarely can do it without it being called what it is.
The place has changed.
It has been demonstrated that time is not a constant. Nor is the speed of light.
LOL...
yeah GGG, what gives? You know...like the endless wiki, google, pmsnbc, AlwaysBarackChannel, ConstantBarackStation, the Guardian...
get with the program already and start linking some shameless liberal sites dude!
Wow, that list is laughable. Did you happen to notice that most of them died before 1859?
You present no evidence that any of those men who lived during the age of modern science were young earth creationists.
You even listed Col. Irwin on there because he took a Bible to the moon! Yep, must mean he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Ha!
Once again, your cutting and pasting from creationist racket website results in an epic fail. Nice going.
It wasn't an Ad-hominem; it was an honest observation.
Creation scientists truly do sound like Star Trek fans who argue that they're expert engineers because they read the Star Fleet Technical Manual.
If you are traveling in a car at the speed of light, and shine a flashlight out of the window toward the direction you are travelling, how fast is the light moving out of the flashlight?
This is your proof that all modern astronomers are liars?
Try again.
I use the same moniker there so perhaps you may see it soon.
How many months of being ridiculed, insulted, derided and lied about did it take to get you to change your mind?
yup...good way to put it...”arrogant godless turds”.
It appears the ones that have been here for awhile are simply too incompetent to get themselves banned like Coyoteman did! LOL!
And there are thousands of working scientists who believe that biblical creation is the best explanation for the origin of all living things. Indeed, many of them have been recognized for making important contributions to science. The fact that you don't know about them just goes to show how successful the Temple of Darwin was at brainwashing you when you first decided to commit your life to Darwin.
As for Col. Irwin, not only was he a biblical creationist, he led numerous expeditions up Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark. Look it up.
Creation scientists truly do sound like Star Trek fans who argue that they're expert engineers because they read the Star Fleet Technical Manual.
Riiiiight...like the scientists on www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
Liberals are liberals are liberals. They're neon sign liberals on FR. With no shame.
Creation scientists truly do sound like Star Trek fans who argue that they're expert engineers because they read the Star Fleet Technical Manual.
Riiiiight...like the scientists on www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
Liberals are liberals are liberals. They're neon sign liberals on FR. With no shame.
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.