fig rocks Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Makes you wonder..... just how old is it, really? My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 about four years old, if you meant the "news". about 65-68 million years old, if you meant the fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fig rocks Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 about four years old, if you meant the "news". about 70 million years old, if you meant the fossil. The fossil, to be able to find soft material on it? How do you get soft material on on a 70 myo fossil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davehunt Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Really good Tupperware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 well, if nothing breaks down or destroys the collagen, then it stays, forever (or longer). i guess being deeply buried in the badlands ends up not being a piece of cake for even bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 There has been a lot of discussion that the actual fossil is fossilized bacteria, not collagen. It wasn't really flexible until it had been treated and acid etched. Young earthers would have you believe the bone split open and blood spilled out. It was really all rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Despite the fact that much of this research has been conducted at my own university, I'm not convinced one way or another; while it is definitely clear that there is a major resemblance of these features to organic tissues, the opposition brings up some very good points. Yes, and this is 4 year old news. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 ok, ok, i found and read an article about the bacterial biofilm issue. i did note that they mentioned that a weensy bit of dino bio stuff was found too in the sample tested in the currently referenced testing. it woulda been more fun if it was all dino stuff, but still. what i'm taking away from it is that original biological material almost always gets contaminated by bacterial biological material, which complicates everything. it's interesting how bacteria seems to really help precipitate/fix iron into everything. science stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fig rocks Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 There has been a lot of discussion that the actual fossil is fossilized bacteria, not collagen. It wasn't really flexible until it had been treated and acid etched. Young earthers would have you believe the bone split open and blood spilled out. It was really all rock. I'm watching a show on Discovery right now called Dinosaurs: Return to Life and they're showing actual bone building cells and blood vessels that they found inside fossil bones and it wasn't bacteria! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 works for me, but it's still cretaceous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fig rocks Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 works for me, but it's still cretaceous. Who said that wasn't the layer it came from??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now