Posted on 04/30/2009 6:49:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur Blood Protein, Cells Recovered
(see article link for picture links!)
April 30, 2009 — It’s official: soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, have been recovered from dinosaur bone. Mary Schweitzer’s amazing claim in 2005 (03/24/2005) was subsequently disputed as possible contamination from biofilms (07/30/2008). Now, Schweitzer and her team took exceptional precautions to avoid contamination by excavating hadrosaur bone from sandstone said to be 80 million years old. A short description of her findings, and a picture of the tissue, was announced today by New Scientist. The paper was published in the May 1 issue of Science.[1] Read the press release from Schweitzer’s institution, North Carolina State University, which says that the preservation of soft tissue in this duck-billed dinosaur fossil was even better than the material from the T. rex sample analyzed in 2005.
Robert F. Service commented on the finding in the same issue of Science...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I don’t want you to believe anything.
What I want is for people to weigh the evidence themselves.
Date of discovery has nothing to do with understanding.
We discovered Gravity before most other laws, but still don’t have good grasp on the mechanics behind gravity. (google around about theory of gravity and you will find it’s a tough one). Most people think it’s well understood. Not true.
What’s understood is the action - not the mechanics - so as a result, there may be some affect in gravity we cannot predict if we can’t physically replicate the effect in the lab - because we have no basis to model the underlying physics (not the affect)
Back to the subject at hand, nuclear relationships are elemental, and should last lots longer than long chain proteins. Just a fact. Rocks last longer than bone.
um, this is not the only report from the field of non-mineralized “fossils” found.
I recall another case last year, where DNA was extracted from bone.
I understand that. You do want me to consider the possibilities. But of all the possibilities there are for what could have gone wrong, the only one brought up for consideration is that there is something wrong with their dating.
There was not going to be any consideration of the possibility that any of the other variables involved might be wrong except that one.
Back to the subject at hand, nuclear relationships are elemental, and should last lots longer than long chain proteins. Just a fact. Rocks last longer than bone.
Indeed. They are also more stable and predictable. They don't move around and show up in unexpected places on their own. Organics are another story. Now, what's the simplest explanation?
How common are these "non-mineralized" fossils?
here’s an interesting chain of events to ponder.
1) Earliest recorded history has tales of “dragons”.
Reptillian creatures of immense size with thick hides and scales that were gradually wiped out by heros. Some Dragons could even fly! Can you believe that?
2) Science proves these Reptillian monsters of large size don’t exist. How could something that large fly? After all, we explored the world, and there are no dragons.
3) 1000 years pass. We find bones of large obviously reptillian creatures
We call them “Dinosaurs”. We find out that some weighing up to a ton or two could actually FLY!
4) We are told that absolutely, under no circumstances could man have ever existed during the time of the dinosaurs.
5) We still have legends, tales, drawings, paintings, and in some cases etchings in caves of dinosaur like animals.
But it’s just circumstance that imagination conjured up a mythical beast that really DID EXIST.
Mere Coincidence?
non-mineralized fossils are uncommon, for a good reason.
The normal process of decay destroys the organic tissue.
To be a fossil, and survive a long time, gradually the earth surrouding the fossil replaces the matrix of the bone, yeilding a rock that is different in composition than the surrounding rock, because it “replaced” the bone.
We used to think there would never be any “old” remains that were not 100% mineralized....the discovery in the last 20 years of occasional “apparently old” remains that had not been mineralized was a big surprise to everyone.
The young earther’s never believed even a 6,000 year old blood cell could survive, much less the old earther’s who have 100,000 more of a time frame to account for. - A surprise on both sides.....
nice talking with you, TacticaLogic.
By the way, do you own any tactical gear?
We saw a silly Imax movie about sea monsters last Fall at the Smithsonian. The scientists found several intact 35 foot long reptile specimens with whole fish in their bellies. What was said in the movie was the reptile choked on its dinner and died, rather than the reptile swallowed the fish whole, then both died suddenly before the digestive juices had a chance to work. The evidence of sudden death was all over the place, but those making the film were blind to it.
Occams’ Razor is a probability thing. It’s not a guarantee of certainty.
“If you don’t like what this one says, go get your own.”
Seems to be the way to do it. Note that there is a somewhat measurable criteria and everything else is assumed from that.
Well, there you have it: irrefutable scientific evidence. And did you find it in situ? And, if so, were the surrounding sediments also 3000 years old? How was this determined? Oh, never mind. Your estimate ought to be more than enough to settle the case.
Who is saying the argument is settled, by irrefutable evidence, case closed? I think that type of reasoning is owned by the Darwinians. If you can’t win any arguments, then try bullying, it works most of the time.
Are you making the assumption that we were the first people to ever find any of them?
Did people ever make up stories to explain things they found they had never seen before?
For that stuff to be even one million years old it would have to have never rained in Montana or the Dakotas for the last million years.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
So the guy quoted in the article, from whence comes your 'more evidence for YEC' recognizes that fossils more than a few HUNDRED thousand years old exist.
How does this support young earth creationism?
I saw a great show on this actually, to me it seals the deal, yet the old earthers cling to their myth’s, funny how the table has turned and they hold onto thier antiquated ways despite the science, gotta love it.
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.