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.
And then, we see this liberal exclaim something about "real" scientists...
you just can't make this stuff up!
Your question should be...does believing in evolution make one a liberal?
Then simply examine the evidence.
This is what liberals are continually demanding and screeching about...the evidence.
So look for yourself...what does algore believe in?
Chrissy Fit Matthews?
ANY liberal?
In fact, find me a high profile liberal that believes in creationism!
Anyway, the algores and Chrissy Fits say the global warming “debate is over” and that evolution is “settled science”.
The more one learns about science and conservatism, the more UNlikely they are to be drawn to the NEA, no dissent evolution so many closet liberals on FR are defending so shamelessly.
It’s not amazing, because there’s no evidence it is.
“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.
For all the evo-screeching about evidence, they sure have a curious way of completely ignoring it!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
>>Where has it been demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant?<<
It slows down when passing through water and then speeds back up again.
Kinda like a guy losing his grip for a bit on a rope tow.
I was at the Georgia Aquarium last spring and the young girl there told everyone the alligator gar there IS a dinosaur.
RE: speed of light:
http://www.google.com/search?q=speed+of+light+variable&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The more we know, the more we know we don’t know.
I didn’t know you can set up polls on FR! Any idea how to go about doing that???
Not the debunked “not a real scientist” again!
Regardless, the percentage of Americans and conservatives that take something seriously has no bearing on its veracity.
But you can bet the percentage of Americans and conservatives that take something seriously is astronomically higher in terms of veracity when compared to you helpless and hapless liberals...American or otherwise!
To be a “Biblical Creationist” does one need to be “young earth Creationist”? Cause I recognize at least a few on that list that certainly weren’t. You even have Lord Kelvin on the list who advocated panspermia. It’s amazing how loose one gets with the definition of “Biblical Creationist” when trying to generate an impressive list of scientists. :-)
See my ***Tagline***
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Always has been, always will be, assuming that idiot Albert Einstein had any idea what he was talking about.
The speed does vary when light passes through various substances, but since space is pretty close to a vacuum that's not really an issue if you're trying to prove that the light from stars that seems really old actually isn't.
WOW!
If it's on the internet, it must be true. Einstein be damned!
Fascinating argument. You know, Hitler believed that it was wrong to mistreat dogs. Al Gore believes the earth is round. Mao Zedong was strongly opposed to the Japanese militarists who attacked Pearl Harbor. Osama bin Laden is opposed to gay marriage.
You know, there are lots of twisted, wrong-headed, sometimes evil people out there. However, even bad people can be right on occasion. I'm not a Nazi because I refuse to beat my dog.
If they believe space aliens designed life on Earth, then they clearly don't believe in Evolution. Did you miss the part where they DESIGN life? As in intelligent design? You either believe life evolved naturalistically, according to the laws of mutation and selection, or you DON'T. Raelians are just a brand of creationist.
You conveniently left out the part that it all happened via sheer happenstance, with no purpose, no design, no intelligence, and if anyone disagrees with this, then the liberal NEA/ACLU and other enablers with agendas, will most surely sue.
Weird science!
That's irrelevant.
The speed of light in a vacuum, or c, is a constant; it doesn't change. The fact that light slows down when passing through matter does not change the value of c.
If the top speed of your car is 120, then it stays that way. Just because you slow down to 55 around a turn does not change what the top speed is.
What the creationists here are claiming, is that c might have been different in the past, not that light slows down when passing through matter.
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.