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.
WRONG. Selection is the opposite of sheer happenstance. Yes, mutations are random. But harmful mutations get selected against very quickly -- the organism will die. A panther that is bright red will be easily spotted by its potential prey, and will starve to death. Helpful mutations spread very quickly. A panther that has a slightly more camouflaged pattern will be more likely to survive than its siblings, and pass on its genes.
There's nothing random at all about "survival of the fittest."
Oh really, well why don't you do something about it?
You on the other hand, are not part of the problem; you're nothing. In fact, I think it's much better for everyone else that you live in your own little world where the ICR is a major scientific force and evolution is "on the run" (haha).
Keep posting. I'll keep dropping by to laugh at your new piece of creationist multi-level marketing silliness. It's good for a laugh.
I'm hardly an expert on Raelian theology.
But what's the difference between saying "Goddidit" and saying "Spacealiendidit?"
Intelligent design is intelligent design -- the name on the door of the intelligent designer is pretty much irrelevant, if that's what you honestly believe.
Scientists may be trying to create artificial life, but that's not the same thing as believing someone created life 3.5 billion years ago
No one on FreeRepublic, other than you, makes the assertion that one must believe the Earth is 6,000 years old to be a conservative. You've tried many times to make this a repeatable truism here, but no one bites, not even other hard core creationists. Doesn't stop you from trying though (haha)! Cheers to your stubbornness.
Solid research reveals American beliefs
Look TP, you can teach your kids whatever you want. If you want them to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that rain is God's tears, or that viruses are caused by sin, be my guest.
The world needs ditch diggers too.
But this doesn't stop liberals from calling anyone that believes the Bible a neanderthal.
And then, we see this liberal exclaim something about "real" scientists...
you just can't make this stuff up!
It's a standard grade school question about special relativity. I wouldn't expect you to know the answer.
In fact, I'll bet you thought I was postulating that we could really build cars that could drive the speed of light. Ha!
You're always a hoot at your own expense.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, you're not a Neanderthal in my book. A troglodyte and simpleton yes, Neanderthal no.
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.
The flaw in evolutionist logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life came from somewhere else...
The environmentalists believe in a "world without end" or an "eternal earth" that can be sustained by pitiful human efforts. This is also a transcendent belief about eternal life and is analogous to the political evolutionist movement. If life had a beginning, then surely it must also have an end. Don't tell me evolutionists believe in eternal life!
How would evolutionists feel if we taught in the public schools that life came from outer space? We already teach the Big Bang theory, which was the brainchild of a Jesuit astronomer. Is the Big Bang theory, like evolution, just another immaculate conception? (pun intended)
To limit free inquiry in the educational setting concerning intelligent design or creationist thought is like professors acting as witch doctors, proclaiming totems and taboos while students dance around fires chanting in loincloth.
Many of the evolutionists in education are on welfare.
Since the Christians pay most of the taxes, who are they to dictate what is taught?
Huh? That makes no sense. Evolution explains that organisms -- strictly speaking, allele frequencies -- change over time, and explains why and how that occurs. Nothing about the theory requires an infinitely-old Earth. I'm not sure where you get that from.
The environmentalists believe in a "world without end" or an "eternal earth" that can be sustained by pitiful human efforts.
I'm no environmentalist, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know anybody who believes the Earth or human life will exist forever. At the very least, the Sun will completely consume the Earth in a few billion years.
Where do you make up this stuff?
Same place you got it from... I never mentioned an infinitely old earth...
I simply said life had a beginning and it will have an end, unless you think there is eternal life...
I'm a huge fan and admirer of Monsignor Lemaitre. I've brought him up numerous times in the past:
What is interesting is that the creationists here, including the original poster of this thread, continuously make fun of the Big Bang and those who postulate it (i.e. check out the pejorative Big Bangers in post 127).
To limit free inquiry in the educational setting concerning intelligent design or creationist thought is like professors acting as witch doctors, proclaiming totems and taboos while students dance around fires chanting in loincloth.
You are free to teach your kids whatever you want. But if we're going to have public schools, then we have to teach science in science class. ID and creationism aren't science; they belong in theology class.
I can't see how anybody could possibly disagree with that statement. You implied that some people disagree -- I find that hard to believe.
No, you and your evo-cultists over at the Temple of Darwin think YOU can teach OUR children whatever YOU want. You are in league with the evo-socialists who use the power of the state to shake down the American taxpayer to pay for the teaching of your evo-religion, and then you protect your evo-religion by eliminating the competition via the communist ACLU and their fellow travelers on the bench.
BTW, I just checked your profile page. It says you have strong libertarian leanings. What a laugh!
That’s some mighty wild swinging to hit nothing there GR. (Not only this post, but all your desperate spin!)
I know how hard it must be for you to foucs through the fog of cultism but I’m on record several times...
1. I don’t care how old the earth is...
2. I don’t know how old the earth is...
3. I don’t have an opinion about how old the earth is...
so your weak strawmen are as ineffectual as ever.
It’s just not conservative to demand all children learn science is a tool to bash Christians over the head with, and demanding there’s no place for God in His own creation, specifically science class, but education in general.
No matter how many times you try to spin your way out of it, or completely ignore the fact that virtually 100% of liberals support evolution, conservatives understand and recognize liberalism when they see it.
It’s also not conservative to back the NEA indoctrination centers and call that education.
It’s not conservative to parrot peer review fraud and call it science.
The link I posted which strapped and affixed the dunce cap to your head while you were trying so desperately to marignalize Christian conservatives, remains there for all to see...so understand it’s quite laughable to assert NO ONE on FR recognizes you sore thumb liberals for exactly what you are!
That’s the most fun I had with your chatter, I must admit!
But do keep swinging GR...I think you’re one of the liberals I do enjoy a bit more than most...it’s almost as if you think you’re home at DU reading your drivel!
Surely you must know you’re easily in the top 20 in the sir-project-alot contest? (I would really be happy to put you up the list, but there is some really REALLY stiff liberal competition out there!)
Anyway, I bet you’ve even convinced yourself by this point, huh?
LOL!!!!!!
Says who?
Who pays the taxes?
I personally think whoever pays for it should have some say... otherwise it is fascism...
Could you explain that, in terms that you understand - and would expect, say, an average college graduate to understand?
Like I said, you can teach your kids whatever you want. I'm not demanding anything, except that you work on your reading comprehension.
It’s not conservative to parrot peer review fraud and call it science.
It's already been established here that you don't know what peer review is, so I'll let this laughable statement stand on its own.
I know you think calling me a "liberal" makes me one. But you're the one demanding that we teach religion in science class, so that makes you the statist, not me.
By the way, if you home school your kids, what do teach them about the age of the Earth? It's obvious that you don't know (geologists do), but do you hand them an Answers In Genesis pamphlet or just punt?
Surely you must know you’re easily in the top 20 in the sir-project-alot contest?
I can take a good ribbing, but this isn't even creative. Sir Project Alot?
Lame.
Are you listening to yourself? Says common sense. If you don't teach science, its not science class, capice?
I personally think whoever pays for it should have some say... otherwise it is fascism...
If you want to teach creationism as fact, then you can't call it science class.
Scientific fact isn't up for a vote.
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.