Dinosaur blood?

Too anal retentive. Sorry. Adios.

hit and run - delete the links to his articles. No point rewarding rudeness and all that.

Surely someone must want to condemn my "bashing" of such a fine member of the evolution side of the debate?Bring it to the "Change in Moderation?" topic, link in my "signature".Adminnemooseusps: Seriously Dr.GH, the articles you linked to are fine works. But posting links without any discussion of their content is still a forum guideline violation. Creationist side members get dumped on all the time for doing such. Why should members of the evo side be allowed to get away with it?Just a sentence or two of content from the cited pages would probably have satisfied the forum guidelines.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-09-2004 02:47 AM

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Hi Dr.GH,
Nice articles. I have met Schweitzer a couple of times at ancient DNA meetings (she dabbles in nucleic acids as well). It is a complete mis-representation (as you point out) by creationists to go from extremely preliminary evidence for modified, blood derived, immuno-reactive compounds which may or may not originate from the fossil in question to their claim that actual blood was retrieved from a T. rex. Just goes to show how deeply dishonest many creationists are.

What I find even sadder is that they might not be being dishonest. They might not even understand the problem or issue. That is both sad and scary.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That could well be the case in some instances. However, the creationists who write books on the subject including dino blood, are dishonest if they claim to have read the articles on which they base their books and then continue without revising or noting their error to repeat a completely false set of statements not in the original papers. This goes beyond simple ignorance.I think the sad thing is that the media does not do much better at portraying scientific findings or maintaining accurate accounts of scientific studies than many a creationist.

This thread is 15 years old but according to PZ Myers in 2017 no one has yet been able to replicate Sweitzer's finding

quote:

---

That’s something I wish the creationists who bring up her work could understand: we want her to be right. I want to be able to go to a databank and download protein sequences from T. rex. I want to see a molecular phylogenetics comparison of Stegosaurus and Hadrosaurus osteocyte proteins. I think it would be awesome to compare sequences from different ceratopsians and assemble a family tree.

​

What I want and what we’ve got are two different things, though, and if only Schweitzer has the magic hands to extract this information, I’m not going to trust it. I don’t reject it out of hand, but damn, it really needs more replication. At this point I don’t want to see another paper from her ” I want to see it coming from another, unaffiliated lab. That would be better confirmation.

---

Mary Schweitzer and the mysterious dinosaur soft tissueAnyone got any gen on this?