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.
Ummm, what makes you think the link and your smarter than 5th graders question are related?
I passed the 5th grade tootles...I suggest you pursue peers and leave the adults to adult pursuits.
They're not, only you said they were post #248. I asked if you knew the answer yet, and you said "You haven’t read the link."
You must be in the opening stages of dementia; you can't even remember your own nonsense.
“Reading remains fundamental. You should try it sometime.”
There is something missing in this post. You didn’t call me a “liberal”. Please review, and repost.
“I’m not sure if this is what I read before, but this certainly seems to convey what I refered to earlier. Read the following carefully...I’d be curious to know whether you read it the same way I do.”
—It looks pretty clear that he is backing panspermia, but it’s also clear that he rejects abiogenesis - and so although life on earth may have come through seed bearing meteorites, the ultimate origin of life was God. And so, as I said, he wasn’t proposing panspermia as an alternative to God – although he was proposing it as an alternative to God creating life *on earth* (which may have been what you meant).
“PS But I will agree with you on one point. Lord Kelvin does seem to have been an old earth creationist of sorts. Indeed, he almost strikes me as a proto-IDer, except for the fact that he actually identifies the design as the God of the Bible.”
—He’s also an old-earth (theistic) evolutionist panspermiast of sorts. :-) Although I have little doubt that he’d claim to be a Bible-believing Christian, I’d be surprised if someone went on the forum with identical beliefs if you called that person a “Bible believing Christian”.
Another interesting fella on the list is Charles Babbage. He was a close friend and loyal follower of Charles Lyell. They did have one point of contention though - Babbage felt that Lyell was not uniformitarian enough. heh He liked to study things that Lyell previously studied and reinterpret the geology in even more uniformitarian ways than Lyell did. One good example is the famous Temple of Serapis (the pillars on the frontispiece of each edition of ‘Principles’). Babbage’s report is here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/observationsonte00babbiala#page/n3/mode/2up
Babbage felt that Lyell’s interpretation of the rising and falling of land there was too catastrophic. Lyell even revised latter editions of ‘Principles’ based on Babbage’s work.
He, Lyell, and Darwin would often hang out together. He was fascinated by Darwin’s theory of atoll formation and surmised that perhaps the craters on the moon were actually atolls that formed similarly.
Babbage’s “Ninth Brigewater Treatise” is also interesting:
http://www.archive.org/stream/observationsonte00babbiala#page/n3/mode/2up
“In truth, the mass of evidence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself, is so irresistible, and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of observing the facts, and of appreciating the reasoning, can for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have been the result of only six thousand years of existence.”
“I suggest you pursue peers and leave the adults to adult pursuits.”
Like “creation science”?
Actually, if you go back and read it again, it’s pretty clear that Lord Kelvin is saying that it’s possible that some moss-carrying meteor contributed to the life that already existed on Earth. And it also apppears that he is saying that the closest we can get to a naturalistic explanation for at least some life forms on Earth is his mossy meteor hypothesis. But of course, that only pushes the origin of (at least that) life into outer space, which, as you said, he firmly believed would still have to have been created by God.
“Look TP, I don't really care what other Freepers think, so I'm not “laboring” under any delusions. But what I do know is that even your creationist compatriots know you're a total ignoramus when it comes to all of the issues discussed here today.”
And what sort of rubbish is this? If you “don't really care what other Freepers think”?
“You just keep embarrassing yourself; I think your creationist friends would agree. That's why I rarely see them makes comments to you, much less come to your defense. They don't want you on their team because it makes them look bad.”
If making someone look or feel bad by association is your goal, forget it! Personal responsibility is a concept held in high regard by many here. It doesn't allow you to speak to what what others want or form up a “team” for them.
But bang on if you must, however if you're doing what attribute to another then you're just as embarrassing to yourself, aren't you?
TONS of info here and some of it free. Take a walk on the wild side. If you are secure in your views, don't be afraid to consider other views. If science is what you rely on, consider that there are MANY scientists on the side of creation/thousands of years.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
I should have been more precise. The catalyst was not new information about Pluto. Our understanding of Pluto has certainly deepened over the decades, but it was the discovery of other orbiting bodies that led scientists to reevaluate the definition of "planet."
When you're a toddler, your parents are tall. Certainly a whole lot taller than you are. Then, as you grow and meet more adults, you may come to realize that your parents aren't so tall after all. Your parents haven't changed, and you haven't learned anything new about their height. You're just evaluating their height in a broader context.
>>“Academics aren’t unanimous on the definition of terms. Film at 11”.
Well that’s one lesson I was referring to...although, I’m not so certain “academics” played 100% into the decision making process.
I'm reasonably certain George Soros had nothing to do with it.
>>>“There are no keys. Science isn’t locked”.
Exactly, so when do you think liberals will begin to grasp such an astute observation...what with the global warming “debate is over” and “settled evolutionary science” we hear from algore and Chrissy Fit Matthews and the closet FR liberals ad nauseum?????
Al Gore and Chris Matthews aren't scientists. They don't make any new discoveries or publish in any peer-reviewed journals. Their contributions to science are on a par with, well, frankly, yours. Or mine, for that matter.
You were obviously sleeping through 5th grade science class, but English/reading comprehension, well you absolutely missed the bus.
You just keep embarrassing yourself; I think your creationist friends would agree. That's why I rarely see them makes comments to you, much less come to your defense. They don't want you on their team because it makes them look bad.
Like #254? LOL!
Ok, ok, ok....I'll give you slot #19. Maybe in the top 20 was a little too low on the sir-project-alot contest.
And oh well, so much for your not caring about what other FReepers think eh? Not only do you care, you're obsessed! LOL!
It's kinda hard for you to keep all your stories straight eh?, perhaps you should be more concerned about all the FReepers that recognize you should quit missing the bus!!!
Fact is that, barring serious pre- or postnatal care conditions, all human beings are pretty much the same intelligence, just as they are all pretty much the same size. That's why everyone, other than a few pro basketball players, can buy their cars off the shelf.
One may be the smartest ant on the anthill, but he is still just an ant. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Nope...hand-holding time is over for just now...gotta run.
Yes. And yes. Not entirely why there's so much scientific disagreement to this day, but that's accurate.
When you're a toddler, your parents are tall. Certainly a whole lot taller than you are. Then, as you grow and meet more adults, you may come to realize that your parents aren't so tall after all. Your parents haven't changed, and you haven't learned anything new about their height. You're just evaluating their height in a broader context.
And if you're really keen you understand their height HAS changed...and you have learned something new about their height after all; in fact both my parents have shrunk. I've even come to understand why, with 3 science in nursing degrees.
Not so sure about George Soros. Liberals like George Soros think they're God...so I wouldn't be too fast to exclaim he didn't have something to do with hanging Pluto in the sky himself...per George Soros.
Al Gore and Chris Matthews aren't scientists.
Wow! Now if only ALL liberals could come to understand this! (Not just algore and the hissy fit, not that THAT'S about to stop either of them...
They don't make any new discoveries or publish in any peer-reviewed journals.
Uh-huh...but that's hardly relevant to their destructive force on science.
Their contributions to science are on a par with, well, frankly, yours. Or mine, for that matter.
Actually, I'm going in now since it's stopped raining, to apply my scientific skills to a hospice patient, so speak for yourself.
Meanwhile algore will no doubt continue on his carbon quest that separates people from their bank accounts so that he can buy more jet fuel to lecture liberals about science and how settled it is and so forth...
Liberals hijack science just like they hijack everything else they touch.
Why people think evolution is some kind of exception is rather curious to me.
Well, not only had you not read the link, it’ obvious you just don’t read ANYTHING.
Sorry, but #19 is the best you’ll get right now...the competition is stiff!
========================================
No, I mean the abusive pricks that pile on with daily ridicule, calling theory fact.
“Actually, if you go back and read it again, it’s pretty clear that Lord Kelvin is saying that it’s possible that some moss-carrying meteor contributed to the life that already existed on Earth.”
—That’s different than how I’m reading, but I could be misreading it (wouldn’t be the first time). It looks to me that he’s saying the earth was devoid of life and then the earth was seeded from space from which all current life evolved. He even explains that he rejects the idea of Divine Creation on earth since there’s a perfectly probable alternative natural explanation (meteors). So it would be odd to then back BOTH Divine Creation AND the meteor explanation for how life got on earth.
Could you point out where you see him saying that life was already here?
The link was irrelevant.
Don't feel bad. Physics isn't for everybody. I'll give you an incomplete for now.
Oooh, you got one! Congrats.
Hey, if one posts the amount of incoherent crap you do, you're bound to strike gold a few times a year!
It's kinda hard for you to keep all your stories straight eh?, perhaps you should be more concerned about all the FReepers that recognize you should quit missing the bus!!!
Better get back to MSNBC, I think your show is on. You're all done here; out of ideas and using the same lame attempts at insult twice in one post.
Nice that you included some psychologists and pediatricians on there. Haha! They're such experts on the age of the Earth.
I'm familiar with Answers in Genesis. Did they ever settle their legal disputes?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
The difference is that I know TP wants to be respected by his fellow creationists for his grasp of the issue, but its quite obvious they don't, since he has no real applicable knowledge of the subject.
Have your read any of his posts? Only he could pull Chris Matthews out of thin air in an evolution debate and think it was a valid point. He routinely calls anyone who disagrees with him a "liberal" and thinks that evolution is a conspiracy created by the NEA and the ACLU.
I think the other creationists are embarrassed by him, and I have every intention of trying to make him the poster child creationist on this forum by taunting him into making some other asinine statement.
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.