[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Health See other Health Articles Title: Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers! A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible. Needless to say, this shocking discovery is once again going to have paleontologists scrambling to find a way to prop up the popular myths that they have been promoting. What they have been telling us simply does not fit the facts. The truth is that this latest find is even more evidence that dinosaurs are far, far younger than we have traditionally been taught. Once upon a time, scientists believed that it would be impossible to find anything other than the hardened fossilized remains of extinct dinosaurs. And if those dinosaurs really were millions of years old, those scientists would have been 100% correct. But instead, we are now starting to find dinosaur soft tissue all over the place. The following is an excerpt from a recent Daily Mail article about this new discovery in China… Almost more impressive than the diversity of the biota is the preservation of many of the vertebrate specimens, according to the study published in the Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology. Fossils include complete or nearly-complete skeletons associated with preserved soft tissues such as feathers, fur, skin or even, in some of the salamanders, external gills. One is the feathered dinosaur Epidexipteryx whose soft tissues have been revealed by the use of ultraviolet light scanners. A fossil of the salamander Chunerpeton shows not only the preserved skeleton but also its skin and external gills. Wow. Hopefully scientists in the west will get a chance to closely examine these soft tissue samples. Prior to 1991, you would have been laughed out of the room if you had suggested that we might dig up the soft tissue of dinosaurs someday. But all of that changed when Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, did something that was absolutely unthinkable. The following comes from an article in Smithsonian Magazine… In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million- year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell- looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. Posted below is an excerpt from a 60 Minutes video report about her remarkable discovery… Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
The backwards extrapolation of geologists and paleontologists is as silly as the forward extrapolations of climatologists. Nobody really knows.
I have never believed in Darwinism. Dinosaurs shrunk themselves, sprouted wings and feathers and turned themselves into birds. Yeah, right.
Tigers and housecats are obviously related, even though the size/weight differential runs 100:1 or so. Do you not believe they shared a common ancestor?
The theory is that cows and whales are related, and that whales were once land animals and changed their minds and went back into the sea. I really, really have problems with the current theories of evolution.
A damned shame, but who has time to set up a BBQ pit over an entire f****g volcano?
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||