Isn’t it true that Hemoglobin breaks down rather quickly and could not last for millions upon millions of years?
So, just how does traces of the blood protein hemogloben recovered by scientists at Montana State University from a T-Rex’s trabecular tissue exist for over 80+MY’s without being fossilized or completely disintegrating?
Doesn't the evidence indicate that this T-Rex died not to long ago?
Hemo compounds and dinosaurs= problems.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
Though I'm certainly not axeplayer, I do enjoy my Fender Strat plus as well as my Martin CE series acoustic guitar.perfessor wrote:Welcome to the forum, Axeplayer. What kind of axe? Mine's an acoustic 6-string.
Well, I just went over to Evowiki and found this little tid-bit in no time:perfessor wrote:Here's a question for you: has anyone attempted to duplicate the results of the volcano experiment? Do you have a link to it?
Lava flows often contain xenoliths, stray rocks from elsewhere, and dating one of those will make a lava flow seem much older than it really is. Which is because that rock had solidified long before that lava flow.
The site offers a variety of explanations as to why dating results of freshly solidifed lava may return seemingly skewed output, including methodological error.
Regards,
mrmufin
Post #32
The mammoths were ...frozen...the T-rex...wasn't.jwu wrote:Interesting...it seems that other fossils which many creationists claim to have lived at the same time as the dinosaurs contain it, just not dinosaurs. E.g. they have found intact mammoth DNA, which is even more fragile than heme.Because it doesn't even last that long.....now to expect it to lasr 80+MY's is completely ridiculous
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/2/6/8840/98171
If intact DNA can be retrieved from mammoths, then we surely should be able to find more heme (and DNA!) in dinosaurs, who after all lived at the same time according to the creation model.
jwu
Post #33
Point taken, due to the lack of information how being frozen affects the preservation this example probably won't get us any further.
However, there are plenty other examples.
E.g. this one:
http://expressindia.com/fe/daily/19970712/19355423.html
DNA could be extracted from a homo neanderthalensis, found in Neander Valley, Germany (which is not a permafrost region).
jwu
However, there are plenty other examples.
E.g. this one:
http://expressindia.com/fe/daily/19970712/19355423.html
DNA could be extracted from a homo neanderthalensis, found in Neander Valley, Germany (which is not a permafrost region).
jwu
Post #35
You are totally missing my point.
DNA is more, a lot more fragile than heme.
Having difficulties finding 30,000 years old DNA does not allow any extrapolations regarding how difficult it should be to find 80,000,000 years old heme, only that you should probably not be able to find other intact DNA of that age.
That'd be like saying "a glass bottle breaks if you drop it from a feet over the ground on marble, therefore a plastic bottle should break too if you drop it from 10 feet over the ground". Without information about how their stability in the case of being dropped from certain heights relate to each other no conclusions can be drawn at all.
However, it does allow an extrapolation in the opposite direction. If we are able to localize such fragile DNA in a fossil which is between 6,000 and 4,000 years old according to the YEC model, then we surely should be able to find the a lot more resistant heme in other such fossils which are claimed to belong to the same age range, shouldn't we?
Using the same analogy as above, this would be like saying "ok, we saw a glass bottle withstanding a fall from that height, therefore plastic bottles surely should withstand it too". This is a valid line of reasoning. Even though we don't know how much more resistant the plastic bottle is, knowing the mere fact that it is *at least* as resistant as the glass bottle is sufficient.
jwu
DNA is more, a lot more fragile than heme.
Having difficulties finding 30,000 years old DNA does not allow any extrapolations regarding how difficult it should be to find 80,000,000 years old heme, only that you should probably not be able to find other intact DNA of that age.
That'd be like saying "a glass bottle breaks if you drop it from a feet over the ground on marble, therefore a plastic bottle should break too if you drop it from 10 feet over the ground". Without information about how their stability in the case of being dropped from certain heights relate to each other no conclusions can be drawn at all.
However, it does allow an extrapolation in the opposite direction. If we are able to localize such fragile DNA in a fossil which is between 6,000 and 4,000 years old according to the YEC model, then we surely should be able to find the a lot more resistant heme in other such fossils which are claimed to belong to the same age range, shouldn't we?
Using the same analogy as above, this would be like saying "ok, we saw a glass bottle withstanding a fall from that height, therefore plastic bottles surely should withstand it too". This is a valid line of reasoning. Even though we don't know how much more resistant the plastic bottle is, knowing the mere fact that it is *at least* as resistant as the glass bottle is sufficient.
jwu
Post #37
Sorry to drag a dead horse up from the grave (not really, it's just that I feel sometimes people should apologize personally when they add a reply to a thread that was dead more then three months ago, if anyone of you feel I should, well there, I did).
But there's an article on TO that fields precisely this question.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
Here's the more interesting bits.
But there's an article on TO that fields precisely this question.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
Here's the more interesting bits.
A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic molecules in ancient bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and that geological and radiometric data should be ignored. The ancient surviving materials they commonly refer to are fragments of hemoglobin and osteocalcin (a bone protein) extracted from dinosaur bone. There are many problems with their position, but ultimately it reduces to nothing other than they just don't think that organic molecules can last a long while.
In the case of the dinosaur "red blood cell" argument aggressively promoted by Dr Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis Ministry, Australia there is an active denial of fact that is astounding. Wieland has particularly focused on popular magazine stories, and short news items concerning the graduate school research by Mary H. Schweitzer on the organic residues from a single Tyrannosaurus rex bone.
And my favorite part (drumroll please).Permineralization is the infilling of the open structure (e.g. the marrow) of a bone with minerals, and "diagenetic effects" are postmortem changes to bone such as dissolving/remineralizing, cracking or crushing and may include biological alteration by scavengers, or microbes. That the fossil was not permineralized could at best have been misread by Wieland as "unfossilized". But there is no evidence that Wieland ever bothered to read the scientific literature concerning this research and instead relied on his poor comprehension of a single popular magazine article.
All the analysis published in the science literature by Mary H. Schweitzer and her colleagues through 1997 demonstrate that they have found a very well preserved bone that had little or no water penetration into the core area from where they drew their biomolecule samples. Schweitzer has told me that she was very surprised that the creationists would latch on to her work like this, as hers is not the oldest reported biomolecule data. In fact, there were prior publications of DNA extracted from samples twice as old as her T. rex sample (for example Polinar et al. 1994).
Perhaps it should not be surprising that creationists even "quote mine" themselves! Perhaps the fact that Wieland is the CEO of Answers in Genesis, Australia is answer enough. In 1997, Wieland, in the space of two pages, distorted both Schweitzer, and himself, changing "not completely fossilized" (pg. 42) to "unfossilized" (pg. 43) but by 1999 he has outdone even himself. In just two years, traces of blood, and traces of hemoglobin (a misrepresentation of the results given common usage) in (falsely identified as) unfossilized bone became "unfossilised dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin [Wieland 1997]." He concluded with -
The Bible's account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.
One must consider if Wieland's reading of the Bible is as poor as his reading of not only the scientific literature he distorts, but even the words from his own hand.
