Posted on 08/06/2010 4:19:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
You must really think Dr. Schweitzer is an incompetent.
If someone gave me a T-Rex femur that was “100% bone” I would have its collagen isolated and sequenced within a year; heck that would be POUNDS of collagen.
Yet all Dr. Schweitzer can seem to do is get an antibody against ostrich collagen to react to trace amounts of collagen in the fossil.
LOL! You are so PWNED! What idiocy to insist that with POUNDS of dinosaur collagen on hand, all she can get is an immune reaction! What a complete and total ignorance it would take to think that such is even feasible.
But completely what I would expect from someone confused enough to think the Sun orbits the Earth!
SCOFF!
How amusing! How delightful to find a foil of such ludicrous beliefs and absolute incompetence! How funny to read the desperate lengths of mistruth you will go to.
Please explain to me how Dr. Schweitzer hasn't gotten any actual collagen sequence from this amazing “100% bone” specimen? Why is it that she is limited to speculating that it might be sort of like ostrich collagen, when, according to you, she has POUNDS of the stuff on hand?
It was exposed to the sun for a long time - anybody’s guess how long.
We don’t know what they have done that they aren’t telling yet.
LOL!
The interior of an entire T-rex femur was “exposed to the sun”?
Wow.
Still no citation for this supposedly “100% bone”. Did you make that up also, along with your evaporating collagen?
Cooks!
How many years? 1000, 2000?
Read the article F-head.
“by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors.”
Fossils. Rock hard, like a rock. Not bone hard. Like your head.
Nothing to support your lie of it being 100% bone.
And exposure of the exterior of a T-rex BONE would not melt or evaporate the collagen inside. The thing is 30% collagen, 60% dry weight. Collagen is one of the most stable and resistant proteins around, thus its use as structural support in muscle and skeleton. It isn't going anywhere, except via a fossilization process. That even enough fragments to bind to an antibody raised against ostrich collagen survived the fossilization is AMAZING, a discovery that shocked the paleontology world.
The discovery of an actual BONE T-rex skeleton would be the amazing find of the century, and nobody would be surprised if you got a collagen antibody reaction to it; bone is 30% collagen. The intent would be to isolate the collagen and sequence it.
But OF COURSE you misrepresent reality.
You think the Sun goes around the Earth!
You didn’t read the article.
I read it, and I quoted from it. Did you read it? Or is your ignorance so impenetrable that you can read “fossil” and your ignorance reads “bone”?
“by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors.”
I read bone, and Medular bone, which were the words used in their discussion.
The word “flexible” was also used WRT the specimen.
.
Liars like you are really amazing!
.
Flexible after they demineralized it.
The passage I quoted CLEARLY called it a “rock hard fossil”.
Do you just ignore that, like you ignore all contrary data?
Yes, you do. Any data that doesn't fit your idiotic ideas is discarded and ignored. And then you lie about it.
Pitiful display, but please, by all means, keep it up.
I couldn't do more to discredit creationism than to let you speak on and tell your lies.
If your IQ were at least 70 you could figure out that a few thousand years of sunlight shinning on a bone sticking out of a cliff would cook it pretty thouroughly.
But never mind, its way beyond your cognition level.
You can bake a bone in sunlight all you want. Its major constituent will still be...... collagen.
What do you think happens to the collagen? If the sunlight “melted” it (which would take absurdly high temperatures), it would still be a bunch of amino acids. It is not.
If it is not made of collagen, it is not bone. Dry bone is made of collagen.
It is a fossil. The article you cited calls it a fossil.
And I repeat to you, because obviously you need to be reminded.....
Finding collagen in a fossil = groundbreaking discovery.
Finding collagen in a bone = yeah so?
Still no citation for your “100% bone” lie. That is because you made it up, just like your outlandish model of sunlight ‘fossilization’.
Melting collagen is 100% your nonsense, so OWN IT F-head!
.
Seeings as how an actual bone is held together by the collagen matrix, I fail to see how you could describe something that is not mostly made out of collagen, but only has enough to raise a limited antibody response, as bone.
But that is because you lie.
I cannot help but notice that you have yet to support your “100% bone” lie. That is because you made it up, along with your ‘fossilization’ through sunlight cooking collagen idiocy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.