Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lasereye
Nice tactic.

"You are simply wrong.....liar.....you're full of shi'ite.....or whoever you listen to is."

Guess you forgot to read AND COMPREHEND what YOU FREAKIN' POSTED.

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”

Thanks for making my task easier. They destroyed the samples by soaking it in a weak acid TO DEMINERALIZE the fossilized samples.

MAYBE you should rely on the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of the lyin Brian Thomas MS*.

Cortical and endosteal bone tissues were demineralized, and after 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation.

Hint: DE-MINERALIZED...in 0.5M EDTA, pH 8.0....EDTA is a chelating agent, something that can deal with mineral ions...you know...the stuff that makes up the "mineral" fossilized bones that need to be DE-mineralized.....soaked in EDTA for 7 days.

SOMEONE is lying and that would be Mr. Brian Thomas MS*......DO TELL, dear lyin' Brian MS*.....do tell all about those "soft, squishy tissues" that have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones as your lie claims.

Hell, even the image attached to the article is a lie I'll attribute to the ICR.....as in...THAT is not what was found, ICR.

At no time did they find a bone full of marrow and intact red blood cells.....but whatever....the ICR has their BS to peddle.

37 posted on 10/20/2009 6:08:47 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Little Pig; ElectricStrawberry; RFEngineer
Guess you forgot to read AND COMPREHEND what YOU FREAKIN' POSTED.

They destroyed the samples by soaking it in a weak acid TO DEMINERALIZE the fossilized samples.

First of all, there nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. The article does not say the blood cells were fossilized and then somehow de-fossilized. That's YOUR contention.

MAYBE you should rely on the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of the lyin Brian Thomas MS*.

Cortical and endosteal bone tissues were demineralized, and after 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation.

Hint: DE-MINERALIZED...in 0.5M EDTA, pH 8.0....EDTA is a chelating agent, something that can deal with mineral ions...you know...the stuff that makes up the "mineral" fossilized bones that need to be DE-mineralized.....soaked in EDTA for 7 days.

It sounds like they're just saying the tissues were extracted by removing the surrounding minerals. I don't know how else to interpret that in light of what's in the article, unless you're suggesting that demineralizing actually restores blood cells after they were fossilized, obviously ridiculous. If anyone here is believing that they'd have to be as stupid as your type claims creationists are.

Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1

51 posted on 10/21/2009 8:12:11 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson