Dino blood

The short answer: "no". What was found were hemoglobin residues.

quote:

---

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. (From Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone)

---

In what context were the creationists attempting to use this information? The only time I heard the creationists use this argument, it was an attempt to push a "young earth". I.e., since hemoglobin breaks down fairly quickly, dino "hemoglobin" is evidence that they didn't live very long ago, or some such nonsense.

Sorry about that TC. Just another example why it's difficult to take YECs seriously - no offense and present company excepted. NONE of the main YEC organizations have any credibility whatsoever because they are ALWAYS coming up with this kind of (deliberate?) misunderstanding of actual science.OTOH, it's probably pretty good tactics if you're just trying to impress people without much of a science background. After all, how many people do you know that could read and/or understand the PNAS article I referenced - Horner's original, as Dr. T pointed out - enough to pick up on what was really found? Let alone the importance of the discovery for everything from cladistics and paleontology to protein evolution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Actually Duane Gish should know about the difference between "red blood cells" and what was actually found by Horners group; Gish's training was (it depresses me to admit) in biochemistry.

---

So's Behe - wonder what it is about biochemists? (Sorry Dr. T, couldn't resist. )