Skip to comments.Big Chicken with Sharp Teeth
Posted on 07/21/2007 4:05:25 PM PDT by rickdylan
I looked for an existing FR thread on this one and didn't find one. There were a couple of threads from a year or so ago describing the original find but nothing on the more recent news. Researchers in 2005 broke a tyrannosaur bone in half to get it on a small helicopter which was all they had available and found soft tissue inside the bone including what looked like raw meet, blood vessels, and blood. More recently, collagen and proteins from this bone have been sequenced and turnout to be altogether similar to those of chickens. The tyrannosaur apparently was basically just a big chicken with sharp teeth. It would almost certainly taste like chicken.
Do the tyrannosaurs have large talons?
Wonder if it tastes like chicken, too.
There was a thread, but it didn’t thrive as it should have. The orioles, wrens, and robins in my garden wish they were bigger and with teeth. Hitchcock was right, they are just waiting for the right time.
“supposedly”. Now that’s a good word to use when talking about evolution. It’s right in there with “theory”.
It would almost certainly taste like chicken
It's a misspelling........... for all you English majors.....should have been "chikin"......
Hear ya. 65 million year old bone containing soft tissue! Yea, right.
Aside from everything else, this one almost has to be the end of evolution.
“Do the tyrannosaurs have large talons?”
Do they have what?
I don’t understand a word you just said.
What? And give up their religion. Aint gona happen.
Stories from the Onion ~~or~~ “Strong like Bull, Smart like Fence Post”
My insane lovebird isn’t waiting, she goes for the fingers to draw blood, and does this chattery laugh when she finally succeeds.
Strong like Bull, Smart like Fence Post
at our house it was always “Strong like Bull, smart like policedog”.
Where is Frank Perdue when you need him?
Yeah, right. This is old news ~ the fact that ancient proteins were found. Under the right conditions there’s no reason they should dry up and blow away.
But, 65 million years! And soft tissue to boot. Stretches credulity to its extreme, IMHO
Your opinion is uninformed.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/science/12cnd-dino.html?ex=1185163200&en=82cb6ea2c09a6749&ei=5070
Gee, now that article changes my opinion. /s
Stop telling those tall tells, I just read on another thread that nothing was over five thousand years old.
Hear ya! (USN 68-78). LOL!
Has this argument switched sides or something?
Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you elucidate? Clarification can often be the essence of thought.
I have several cans of potted beef on my shelves. If civilization stopped today, and everybody was gone, it could still be there millions of years from now, or at least hidden in the rubble of what had been my home.
You do realize these are very special fossils. They don't find them every day.
But, for 65 million years
I dont know if the argument has changed, I just find that to believe that there could be viable (soft) tissue after 65 (or longer) million years just beyond credibility. IMHO.
As you might have surmised, Im a believer in the creation account per the Bible. Six days and all that. So, for the most part all other arguments are thrown my way in vain.
And, I guess, I will spend eternity in Heaven with my Lord, commiserating with the angles about my lack of faith in evolution.
Good discussion though.
I seriously doubt it's going to get up and walk down to the nearest singles bar looking for a date or anything.
The DNA thing is recent ~ initially the researchers didn't think they'd find any.
Now, a question for you, how could you doubt God's capacity for marvelous leaps across time and space.
Here we've gone and joked about dinosaurs that "taste like chicken" for decades, and now we find out they probably do.
That's definitely a conversation with our Creator. It's kind of like Handel's Hallelujah Chorus ~ he took a piece of the Bible translated to English and made incredible music for it. No doubt God heard that music and in the ancient distant past made sure the inspired Word would ring true to the Chorus thousands of years in the future.
Sometimes I think Creationists don't think these things out far enough ~
Just have another boiled egg while I count out these pennies.
It would have to have never rained in Montana and the Dakotas for millions of years for that bone not to be totally petrified.
Plus, as Macroevolution is a religious-based model for the origins of life, Macroevolutionists will continue to believe in their 'creation myth' even if there are setbacks, as there have already been plenty.
This one almost has to be the final coffin nail. Creationists had been talking about soft tissue in dino bones for years and now you have the story in mainstream journals. They’re just stalling for time until they can devise some new anti-Christine belief system before they pull the plug.
False. You have posting this story (incorrectly) since it hit the news a couple of years ago. You have been corrected on many threads. You still haven't gotten things right. (Where's your "hamburger) picture?)
Creationists had been talking about soft tissue in dino bones for years and now you have the story in mainstream journals.
Citations? Any published literature about creationists and "soft tissue?"
Creationists have been talking about a lot of things; you can find the goofiest ideas on their websites. But they have been doing no scientific research. They are just trying to justify their beliefs with pseudo-scientific trappings.
Theyre just stalling for time until they can devise some new anti-Christine belief system before they pull the plug.
BS. You have been wrong about this story since it came out.
Come on Ted, do some research before you define petrified.
>>Alligators, supposedly the descendants of ‘saurs, do taste like chicken.<<
I’m pretty sure that alligators are not, in fact, decedents of dinosaurs. Crocodylia are old enough and distinct enough to have their own order (of which alligatoridae are a family).
So alligators would be reptiles from a different branch than dinosaurs - most closely related to iguanas.
>> Stop telling those tall tells, I just read on another thread that nothing was over five thousand years old.
One of the keys to understanding is Psalm 90:4. By including all the bible instead of cherry picking a much more reasonable estimate is obtained. 15,340,500,000 years is the more reasonable bible based number.
The people who originally supported the 5,00 year estimate - were understandable. They lacked science, they lacked advanced math and knowledge of the dozen different disciplines that all independently date the earth to billions of years.
But these days when we can look down into the Grand Canyon and measure 2 billion years of history it is clear that those low numbers were horrifically inaccurate.
Then when it didn't fit in the chopper they smacked it over a nearby boulder to make the pieces shorter?
Kinda like me taking some scrap lumber to the landfill ...
Did that part seem unlikely to anyone else?
Ancient T. rex and mastodon protein fragments discovered, sequenced
National Science Foundation | 12-Apr-2007 | Cheryl Dybas
Posted on 04/12/2007 3:43:57 PM EDT by AdmSmith
(YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)
Smithsonian Magazine | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields
Posted on 05/01/2006 11:29:14 AM EDT by SirLinksalot
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
>>Did that part seem unlikely to anyone else?<<
I think it is unlikely - that’s why it took so long for it to happen.
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.