Replies

“They extracted bone cells and blood vessels!!!!!!”

No they didn’t. They extracted proteins. They did not extract blood vessels. They extracted “stuff” that was chemically demineralized and then said that “stuff” was once a protein associated with blood vessels.

They did not extract actual blood vessels, which was your claim. You made that claim to make it seem nonsensical that blood vessels could be preserved 80M years. They were fossilized remains, which were chemically treated to remove minerals, then isolated and run through a mass spectrometer from which certain protein signatures were derived.

You and your “creation science” brethren try to make it seem like actual blood vessels were found (much like a steak from the supermarket) - then you try to say “how can you preserve blood vessels for 80M years - impossible, therefore Genesis must be true”

These folks demonstrated that proteins associated with tissue that was fossilized can apparently be preserved under certain conditions. Very interesting stuff to be sure - but there is nothing here that supports “creation science”.

Also of note is that no cells were actually extracted either - as no nucleated cells and no DNA were actually found or otherwise detected. They found protein signatures in a mass spectrograph associated with them, but not actually cells.

The researcher said what he said in the context of a mass-spectrometer test. I’m sure that it will be repeated at some point, and reported - but it is not tantamount to putting a steak on ice for 80M years. It was a fossil.

I know, it’s tough stuff to understand for “creation science” types - especially when you are operating from the conclusion that the sample was less than 6,000 years old - which is not supported by the research.

So, to close the loop, since you are fixated on this article, are you agreeing that this sample is actually and in fact 80 million years old, and that the “Young-Earth Creationist” and “creation science” ideas are simply proven wrong?