Posted on 04/12/2007 12:43:57 PM PDT by AdmSmith
He’s no doubt thinking of DNA sequencing, which this is not.
I recall a rather extended exchange with someone over the phrase “recessive genes” as applied to bacteria. It appears that terminology is not strict enough to avoid misunderstandings, when misunderstanding is the goal.
Son, when you learn some science and have practiced it for a couple of decades, then you can lecture us on it.
You seem to think that you can do a quick scan of AnswersInGenesis and become an expert on science. It doesn't work that way.
You know where you can take your false pedantry.
This isn’t science, it’s pure propaganda, sonny boy.
Your problem is that you don’t understand well enough to realize that you’re defending the ridiculous.
Uhh...Cause our ancestors would have been eaten if they existed at the same time as them.
Cruelly enough, “nipple-teeth” were indeed mammals...
“Mastodons or Mastodonts (meaning ‘nipple-teeth’) are members of the extinct genus Mammut of the order Proboscidea and form the family Mammutidae; they resembled, but were distinct from, the woolly mammoth which belongs to the family Elephantidae... Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Proboscidea Family: Mammutidae Genus: Mammut”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon
“Proboscidea is an order containing only one family of living animals, Elephantidae, the elephants, with three living species (African Bush Elephant, African Forest Elephant, and Asian Elephant)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscidea
“The elephants (Elephantidae) are a family of pachyderm, and the only remaining family in the order Proboscidea in the class Mammalia. Elephantidae has three living species: the African Bush Elephant, the African Forest Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). Other species have become extinct since the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago, the Mammoth being the most famous of these. Elephants are mammals...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantidae
“The protein fragments in the T. rex fossil appear to most closely match amino acid sequences found in collagen of present-day chickens, lending support to the idea that birds and dinosaurs are evolutionarily related.”
“T. rex Francese.” Has an appetizing ring to it. But the left-overs would defintely be a problem.
First off, Race's comment was beyond the pale and my response has nothing to do with his posts.
This bone has measurable/detectable amounts of C-14 in it. We are told that the C-14 is there from water contamination and not because it was there when the dino was alive. Therefore, if ground water contamination is the source for C-14, the fossils themselves cannot therefore be considered hermetically sealed.
I think he just had the wrong article. They have two, one with antibody affinity studies and the other with the protein sequencing data. He picked up the antibody affinity one and said, “Hah! There’s no sequencing here!”
Trace amounts of C14 can be created by radioactivity in rocks.
Does is come with biscuits?
Oh good grief. Pointing out that a community college junior? sophomore? who’s apparently not even majoring in the sciences can’t claim to be thoroughly educated in them is “elitist”? Truly you are a child of the 80’s self-esteem craze.
By the way, yesterday I found myself reading “bicep” as “biccup”. Thanks.
“Not surprisingly, since the mastodon was a mammal.”
LOL! Exactly what I thought, but reading your comment was funnier.
How does this C-14 get transferred into the fossil? I.e. would the reaction not have to take place in the fossil itself?
Also, are the scientists studying this fossil specifically stating racioactive rocks as the source of C-14?
We can probably expect many studies similar to this one on other samples in a few months. 2007 will be an interesting year.
So far I haven’t seen anyone mention C-14 but you. We’re willing to stipulate that trace amounts of C-14 might be present if searched for. The scientists studying this fossil are unlikely to do that because they know what they’d find—little if any detectable C-14.
Regarding the source of the C-14, it could be produced by radioactive decay in the surrounding rocks. Radiation could be absorbed by a nitrogen atom in the fossil. The energized nitrogen atom could then be converted to C-14 by either positron emission or K electron capture. I’m not sure which would be more energetically favorable in this case, but either one would get the job done. The fossil has plenty of nitrogen in it to work with, and mundane rock can contain levels of radiation high enough to make a pretty alarming series of clicks on a Geiger counter.
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.
