Slow build up of high sediment layers still not credible ...

Video commented on:

Potholer54debunks : Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

ajbdeane

Basically, when you look at the evidence that is coming to light recently - the dinosaurs just aren't millions of years old. They are thousands of years old. There really is evidence for soft tissue is the bones and blood vessels. Osteoclasts are even mentioned in that Smithsonian article! You can not deny it any longer. There are two options - either go against the observational data about how stable cells are (i.e. not that stable!) or redate the fossils. Hence, this supports the global flood.

Richard Dawkins

"By Helen Fields

Smithsonian magazine MAGZINE , May 2006, Subscribe"

(no peer review markers)

talkorigins . org/faqs/dinosaur/blood . html*

(peer review markers)

ajbdeane

Thank you for your reply Richard Dawkins. The interesting thing about the talkorigins article, is that it is a decade old - 2004 - therefore doesn't include the more recent research.

And I'm sure you are aware that the BBC documentary followed the story and it was clear that they had found red blood cells and even showed where the DNA was in the cells.

You can see the photos on the website - you can see that they are red blood cells! This is interesting, evolutionists denying what is observable!

Angelmou

Nope, no one denies the analysis of dinosaur proteins in bones anymore.They are base for further genetic decoding. And to no ones surprise it supports bird evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

T Rex or other?

What bird are they closest to?

Not meaning I support bird evolution as such of course ...

Angelmou

T-Rex of course. The ornithischia branch died out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And ... what bird are they closest to?

Angelmou

I think you don't understand how evolution works, is this possible?

Every new branch of the tree of life grows bigger and allows new underbranches to spread and to develop own characteristics. So after the first forms of Bilateria appears the new branch made the superphylum Ecdysozoa, the superphylum Lophotrochozoa and Deuterostomia possible - the new superphylum branches Deuterostomia made the chordata and the vertebrate possible to spread. Humans for example are STILL Deuterostomia and we are still chordata,vertebrate,mammals.So our body is first build by the code to form a Deuterostomia(the first mouth is becoming the anus) you can see this within the Gastrulation of Embryogenesis and so on.

When you ask for"which bird"you don't know what you are talking about. Birds are part of the clade "saurischia".They are still dinosaurs,like they are still vertebrate.So we show if that is true by analyzing T-Rex blood.So we see T-Rex is saurischia like birds but not mammal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, T Rex is more like birds than mammals.

I was not in doubt of that.

I was asking which kind of bird comes closest to T Rex according to that analysis.

Instead of answering, you gave a lecture about evolution.

Answering my actual question would be welcome as well.

Angelmou

If you look at the en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org / wiki /Category:Cretaceous_birds (Without spaces)

You can see that the genetic bottleneck kills almost all old branches of birds/small dinosaurs during the big dinosaur extinction event.So instead of forms of Hesperornis we had till 1852 the Great Auk or still living Albatrosses in that niche and instead of Iberomesornis we have the House Sparrow etc.

So I think you may ask for a modern bird that did transform farthermost from original theropod forms?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not asking about that aspect of evolutionary theory.

I was asking very directly: what bird was it closest to, according the the chemical and genetic tests?

And you have still not answered question.

Angelmou (general comment)

The video is not uptodate. We know today that DNA can exist for millions of years and analyses of proteinstructures were able to show us that they were similar to birds. That is one modern reason why birds are actually dinosaurs. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you very much.

It proves DNA exists for millions of years only if you assume that is how old the proteinstructures are.

But thank you for noting the video is not up to date.

I assume what has been found so intact supports pretty rapid burial and that part of the video is still up to date?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (own general comment)

9:10

"created in just a few hundred years easily burying trees..."

Buried quickly is a very good point.

If too high levels of mud start covering base of a tree, its roots will not survive for another hundred years.

And if roots do not survive for another hundred years, what sticks up above the mud layers will not survive either. And when a tree is dead, it will not keep intact (except what is already buried) for another hundred years while more mud layers form.

I think those rocks will very arguably be admitted to have formed much quicker than "just a few hundred years".

And I think if this much quicker does not automatically identify with a global flood, it is compatible with it.

Especially since repeated all over the globe.

*Dawkins' link itself linked to: Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone

by Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall†, Keith Carron‡, D. Scott Bohle‡, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold‡, Darlene Barnard†, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶

Abstract

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. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

Question:

If what was found was not actual hæmoglobin but a breakdown product, and that Carl Wieland thus got it wrong, what about testing if the serum takes care of breakdown products? Surely one can speed up the breaking down of hæmoglobin!

*Dawkins' link actually contained:

I quote:

There are many problems with their position, but ultimately it reduces to nothing other than they just don't think that organic molecules can last a long while. The "Creation Science" approach is to deny the independent results of geology, chemistry and astronomy because these molecules exist.

Now, that is a "dinosaur" if you like alive and well. A very big Strawmannus Maximus. The Creation Science approach is not to say "we admit geology, chemistry and astronomy independently of each other as well as of evolutionism prove the earth is billions of years old, but here we have one find which indicates the opposite, lets concentrate on that and ignore the rest."

It is rather to say "they purport to prove earth billions of years old by geology but look at all the rapid burials, they purport to prove the earth billions of years old by chemists analysing radioactivity and its breakdown products, but look at their assumptions about initial states we cannot check, they purport to prove universe is billions of years old by distant starlight ..." - here I insert that I reject the distance measures as a Geocentric, and their acrobatics about astronomy I leave to them - "but here is one thing that really does prove the dino was buried very much more recently than they supposed ...".

Dawkins (I suppose the profile is his or that of one collaborator with his site) called his link peer reviewed, but they were not peer reviewing for logic or for fairness to Creationists!