T. Rex blood cells?

JOHNV
I don't think there's anything wrong, immoral, indecent, or fattening about entertaining the possibility that life arose from a common ancestor. From a scientific point of view, it is Sciences responsibility to look at evidence, test the validity of it, create a model or theory that fits the evidence, and then test the theory.

Science is not a quest for truth, it it a quest for fact. BIG difference. If science starts looking at the Bible and say "this doesn't fit the bible, so let's toss it", then we would still hold a belief that the sun revolves around the earth, which is preposterous!

If God created the universe through the evolutionary process, then it served Him well. I certainly don't believe in a god who would create the world in seven days, then make it look as though the world were created over millions of years. To God, millions, even billions, of years is nothing!

I'm happy to look at all evidence, whether it fits the evolutionary model or the creationist model. There is overwhelming evidence to support an evolutionary timeline.

Small example: Dinosaur vs human: Evidence says that these two creations did not inhabit the earth at the same time. Why? There are no dinosaur bones. They have all been fossilized. Fossilization takes place naturally over millions of years. You won't find dinosaur fossils younger than about 65 million years, and this is extremely consistent. As far as humans, you find mostly bones. Why? Because we have been here for much less time. Try as you might, there's no way you will ever be able to carbon date a dinosaur at 500,000 years, and a human at 70 million years. You'll never be able to find a dinosaur that is still in a "bony" state.

On the other hand, Religion is not a quest for fact, it it a quest for truth. That is why we call it faith. It is up to our faith to find out "why", while it is up to science to find out "how".


GARPIER
I think you ought to check out Earth, June 1997. In an article titled "The Real Jurassic Park" two researchers named Schweitzer and Staedter reported the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center... Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur...The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized... So far, we think that all of this supports our notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.

While I don't know the outcome of the further study the point is there is at least one dinosaur bone that was not completely fossilized.


JOE G MEERT

From Christiananswersnet of course! http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

or you can go here and download the paper
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?volume=&firstpage=&DOI=&author1=Schweitzer&author2=&titleabstract=&fulltext=&fmonth=Jan&fyear=1996&tmonth=Oct&tyear=1997&tocsectionid=all&hits=10&sen
dit=Search&fdatedef=1+January+1990&tdatedef=23+October+2001


The Barbarian
quote:
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist 'Dinosaur' Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, 'So far, we haven't been able to.'

Gee, I haven't been able to prove that there aren't any orange leprechauns hiding in my attic.
Guess they must be there, after all...

Remarkable paper. I found it interesting that the extract, when injected into rats, produced an immune response to turkey hemoglobin, but not to snake hemoglobin.

Which is precisely what evolutionary theory would predict for T-rex. (dinosaurs being closer relatives to birds than to snakes)

So, the evidence from this one tells us that hemoglobin (although not necessarily RBCs) can survive a long time in deep bone tissues of large animals, even in fossilized states.

It also produces one more bit of evidence for the phylogeny of birds as evolved dinosaurs.


JOHN PAUL
Which is precisely what evolutionary theory would predict for T-rex. (dinosaurs being closer relatives to birds than to snakes)

Predicted by who? Jeanne Dixon? No Pat, this was not a prediction of the ToE, just another accommodation.
But if you insist, we could say it is a prediction of a Common Creator.


So, the evidence from this one tells us that hemoglobin (although not necessarily RBCs) can survive a long time in deep bone tissues of large animals, even in fossilized states.

Or it could be evidence that the 'fossil' isn't very old afterall.


It also produces one more bit of evidence for the phylogeny of birds as evolved dinosaurs.

Seeing that phylogeny was set up ASSUMING the ToE is indicative of reality, that is circular reasoning. It also excludes a Common Creator.


JOE MEERT
Science cannot ever invoke supernatural explanations. Scientists can, and do; however believe in God. we cannot exclude the fact that a little elf on the north pole made T-rex. we cannot exclude the notion that T-rex was transported here by an invisible space ship the day before it was found. We cannot exclude that fairies made those people think they were seeing a t-rex skeleton when it was just an illusion. So, I guess we just give up huh? I think i'll stick with what can be observed, tested, predicted and retrodicted.


JOHN PAUL
I don't recall calling the Common Creator' supernatural'. Could you please point out where I said that?


Scientists can, and do; however believe in God. we cannot exclude the fact that a little elf on the north pole made T-rex. we cannot exclude the notion that T-rex was transported here by an invisible space ship the day before it was found. We cannot exclude that fairies made those people think they were seeing a t-rex skeleton when it was just an illusion. So, I guess we just give up huh? I think i'll stick with what can be observed, tested, predicted and retrodicted.

Actually all those other explanations HAVE BEEN excluded. And by suggesting we just 'give up' shows you know very little of how Creationists think. If you are going to stick with hat is observed, tested, predicted and retrodicted, you are going to have to leave the ToE behind. As a historical science, by its nature, it cannot be observed or tested for. Many of the ToE's predictions are, in reality, accommodations.


JOE MEERT
Are you now saying the common creator is not supernatural? Please clarify.


If you are going to stick with hat is observed, tested, predicted and retrodicted, you are going to have to leave the ToE behind. As a historical science, by its nature, it cannot be observed or tested for. Many of the ToE's predictions are, in reality, accommodations.

Actually it can, has and continues to be tested and observed. Do you know why those other explanations have been excluded? Answer that question thoughtfully and you will also answer your own question about a common creator.


JOHN PAUL
The Common Creator could be supernatural but doesn't have to be. That is what research is for.

How do we test that a single-celled organism can 'evolve' into something other than a single-celled organism? How can we test any of the alleged 'great transformations'? We can't Joe. At least not without assuming the ToE is indicative of reality.


Do you know why those other explanations have been excluded? Answer that question thoughtfully and you will also answer your own question about a common creator.

Answering that will NOT answer anything about a Common Creator. The FACT that life could not have arisen via purely natural means answers that question just fine, thank you. Or do you have some evidence that abiogenesis is indicative of reality? I have read most but may have missed something.


JOHNV
Yes, I do remember reading about this. I think the outcome was that there was no viable dna retrievable. There are some exceptions to the rule, but they are indeed rare. In any event, I do remember the results of study on the fossil found here were that the speciman was dated at gt 65 million years.

There has been a big hunt for any viable dino dna, in an effort to find out more about these most awesome of creations. There is still so much we don't know. While we can now tell for sure than TRex was warm blooded, Robert Bakker insists that he was an agile hunter, while Jack Horner believes he was a roving scavenger. While I tend to side with Bakker, there is evidence to support both viewpoints.