Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ink found in Jurassic-era squid (150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals")
BBC ^ | August 19,2009

Posted on 08/19/2009 9:40:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-289 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

“thought to be 150 million years old”

Think again.


61 posted on 08/19/2009 11:19:41 AM PDT by RoadTest (The Truth shall make you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DontTreadOnMe2009
Uh, that was similar to a Dilbert joke.

Guess we had the same printer.

I completely believe this story, knowing the stupidity of the avg human being.

(I trust you're referring to the possibility that the ink from a 150 MYO could be/made viable?)

62 posted on 08/19/2009 11:20:46 AM PDT by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

natural (stone) pigments
http://www.stonepigment.com/


63 posted on 08/19/2009 11:21:06 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: brytlea; RFEngineer

Good point! All they did was rehydrate the contents of the ink sack with ammonia and voila, ink! So clearly, the ink sack was not completely fossilized.


64 posted on 08/19/2009 11:22:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

OK, let me try again. In the fossilization process organic material is replaced with minerals. So, if it was fossilized, it would not be the ink but simply a pigment made out of the minerals that replaced the organic material. On the other hand, perhaps the ink is not an organic material to begin with, and simply dried out, so it then COULD be reconstituted.
I’m clearly not explaining this very well.


65 posted on 08/19/2009 11:24:12 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

==That micrograph is suspiciously familiar. It’s archaebacteria.

Survey says XXX. The electron micrograph came from a so-called “Jurassic” squid.


66 posted on 08/19/2009 11:25:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If you hydrate any solid you can write with it - ochre anyone?


67 posted on 08/19/2009 11:25:25 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

Precisely!


68 posted on 08/19/2009 11:26:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I doesn’t matter what they sampled - that is the result. Wishing it’s something else doesn’t change it.


69 posted on 08/19/2009 11:26:36 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: This_far
(I trust you're referring to the possibility that the ink from a 150 MYO could be/made viable?)

I don't know about that, but I have a dot-matrix printer that is 150 MYO. At least that is what the repair shop said.

70 posted on 08/19/2009 11:27:43 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Scientists are so stupid. They are supposed to keep these discoveries secret so they can maintain the Old Earth conspiracy.


71 posted on 08/19/2009 11:28:39 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
! All they did was rehydrate the contents of the ink sack with ammonia and voila, ink! So clearly, the ink sack was not completely fossilized.

Didn't Mary Schweitzer rehydrate the marrow portion of a partially fossilized bone (thought to be from a T-rex) to find 'soft-tissue'???

72 posted on 08/19/2009 11:30:20 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
If all you have to do is add ammonia to rehydrate the contents of the ink sack to make ink, the ink sack is not completely fossilized. Wishing it otherwise does not change the empirical data.
73 posted on 08/19/2009 11:30:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

She demineralized the contents of the dino bone, and found soft tissue still intact.


74 posted on 08/19/2009 11:31:44 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

“God’s revelation to us through his wonderful creation shows us that the universe is about 14.5 billion years old and the earth about 4 billion years old.” Why or how do you attribute this ‘revelation’ to God? Are you talking about the God of Jesus, or the Intelligent Designer? And what is the ‘revelation’ of which you speak?

“I’m sticking with God’s revelation instead of a man-made age for the earth”
The Bible has painstakingly named geneological ‘begats’, including the ages of each, as an historical record (archaeological finds verify some of them, such as King David). I contend that billion years assertion is man-made. The Bible manuscripts found at Dead Sea show that the Bible has stayed virtually the same for 2000 years.


75 posted on 08/19/2009 11:32:28 AM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Sir, Are you questioning the truth of the Bible?


76 posted on 08/19/2009 11:33:23 AM PDT by steven33442
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Compare for yourself see figure 1-27.

Really, triple G, you can’t possibly be so foolish as to think that you can’t reconstitute any solid - even the solid mineralized contents of a fossil.


77 posted on 08/19/2009 11:33:40 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Well seing how the Evos are one of the most superstitious and alarmist segments of our population, I would not be surprised that you believe in a grand conspiracy in the slightest.


78 posted on 08/19/2009 11:33:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
I don’t get it, doc, if it was stone how was it used to draw a picture?

They powdered the fossilized rock and mixed it with an ammonia solution:

"They cracked open what appeared to be an ordinary looking rock only to find the one-inch-long black ink sac inside.

After realising what they had stumbled across, they took out a small sample of the black substance and ground it up with an ammonia solution.

Remarkably, the ink they created was good enough to allow them to draw the squid-like animal and write its Latin name."


79 posted on 08/19/2009 11:34:07 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
She demineralized the contents of the dino bone, and found soft tissue still intact.

I read that she found dessicated 'tissue' and rehydrated it.

80 posted on 08/19/2009 11:35:04 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-289 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson