Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6468 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 6 of 138 (194319)
03-25-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by simple
03-25-2005 1:04 AM


Read the article more closely...
From the BBC article you linked to in the OP :
Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.
"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.
"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.
It's early days yet, but I don't think this is going to shatter the foundations of evolutionary biology. It's just a rare and fascinating glimpse into a creature that lived millions of years ago.
I'm not a paleontologist (or any other kind of scientist), I just read the article you provided, so I could be wrong - but at least I did read the article

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by simple, posted 03-25-2005 1:04 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Sylas, posted 03-25-2005 2:34 AM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 12 by simple, posted 03-25-2005 4:10 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6468 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 31 of 138 (194552)
03-25-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
03-25-2005 3:52 PM


Re: easter eggs with a golden yoke!
I think the original idea simple was putting forward was that these soft tissue samples came from a T.rex that was dated to ~70 million years ago, and it isn't possible for soft tissue to last that long. The conclusion from this is that radiometric dating is wrong.
The issue simple is raising isn't whether dinos could have survived the K-T extinction 65MYA, it's whether the fossils are really the age current science says they are (or less than 6000 years old presumably).
Personally my money is on science

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 3:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 03-25-2005 10:47 PM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 34 by simple, posted 03-26-2005 2:31 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024