Dinosaur Bones and the Age of the Earth

DINOSAUR BONES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH (REMARKS ON
EARLIER DINOSAUR BONE DISCOVERIES)
by Edward T. Babinski

A dinosaur bone was recently discovered that contains
soft tissue inside. As of March 28, 2005, the
University of Monanta scientists have not completed
their chemical analyses of the soft tissues, so they
admit they don't know what they have yet:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/03/20050328_a_main.asp

Until the chemical analysis is complete concerning the
latest discovery, I can only recount a few earlier
dinosaur bone discoveries and the ways creationists
have attempted to cite them as evidence of a young
earth, and the rebuttals that further scientific
analysis provided.

EARLIER DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES
INSIDE DINOSAUR BONES

A previous discovery in the news suggested prematurely
that "dinosaur blood cells" might have been found, but
the subsequent chemical analysis did not demonstrate
that red blood cells had been found, neither were they
able to discover the presence of hemoglobin molecules.
What they found was "heme," which is not a complete
hemoglobin molecule, but a part of a broken down
hemoglobin molecule, the part that the iron atom
attaches to. There are four heme sites in each
hemoglobin molecule where the iron attaches to the
molecule. Heme is "an iron-porphyrin compound that
occurs as a prosthetic group in hemoproteins."

Look at this diagram"heme":
http://www.clunet.edu/BioDev/omm/catalase/frames/hemetx.htm

And compare "heme" with what a full "hemoglobin
molecule" looks like:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hemoglob.html
http://www-class.unl.edu/chem886a/hemoglobin/hemoglobin.htm

Here is a picture of just one of the four separate
chains of the above "hemoglobin molecule," showing
more specificially where "heme" is located inside one
chain:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/hgb.html

A single "red blood cell" consists of a vast number of
"hemoglobin molecules" as well as still vaster numbers
of other kinds of molecules. No dinosaur "red blood
cells" was found, no dinosaur "hemoglobin" was found,
only remnants of "heme." The DNA was also broken down.

Dino-blood and the Young Earth. Answers in Genesis
claims that paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found
"obvious, fresh-looking blood cells" and traces of
blood protein hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurus rex bone.
It further claims that this demonstrates that the
dinosaur could not have lived millions of years ago.
AiG's claims are not the result of rigorous analysis,
but the result of selective quoting and
misrepresentation of popular science articles.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

--------------

DO DINOSAUR BONES EXIST THAT ARE "TOO LITTLE
MINERALIZED" TO BE "SO OLD?"

CREATIONIST: Dinosaur fossils found in Alaska in 1961
were so LITTLE mineralized that they could not
possibly be at least 65 million years old.

ED'S REPLY: On fossilization rates, see the United
States Department of the Interior's website:
http://www.ak.blm.gov/ak930/akdino.html

NORTH SLOPE DINOSAUR FOSSILS
While we might presume that remains more than 65
million years old would have turned to "solid rock"
long ago, that's not true for all dinosaur bones found
in northern Alaska. So far, all recovered bones are
highly mineralized and discolored by iron oxide, but
they still have differences. Some are relatively light
and porous while others are heavy and dense. The
differences relate to the amounts of minerals, notably
silica, which have replaced what was once living cell
matter while additionally filling in bone pores. In
some specimens, bone cells and pores have been mostly
replaced or filled in by minerals. In others, just
cell walls and little else have been mineralized
leaving many open pores. Thus, bones with less mineral
replacement are light and more porous than bones with
lots of mineral replacement.

DNA STUDIES AND NORTH SLOPE DINOSAUR BONES
So far, no DNA has been found in dinosaur bones of the
North Slope. When they were first discovered in the
1980s, and before they were studied, the relatively
light weight of several bones caused speculation that
they might contain a lot of the original bone tissue
from the once-living dinosaur. Since then, the result
of studies have not supported this idea. Instead, they
have shown that the bones are highly mineralized with
none yet proven to contain recoverable dinosaur DNA or
anything else from the living dinosaur. So is that the
end of the story? Not quite .... Though not yet
well-studied and certainly unproven so far, among the
best candidates for containing recoverable
biomolecular material (maybe even DNA), are dinosaur
bones with lots of silica mineralization. In those,
there is a possibility that silica could have
encapsulated and thus helped protect some original
cell matter. But whether such ancient material, if it
exists, could be viable or extractable is also
unknown. Thus, future DNA hunters may indeed wish to
continue studying North Slope dinosaur bones. And
their findings could surprise us all!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Diagenetic alteration of dinosaur bone"
http://www.llnl.gov/ees/cams/microprobe/dinopixe.html
Refering to fossil bones from the Liscomb Bone Bed, it
states: "Concentrations of many of these elements are
at least an order of magnitude higher than those in
modern reptilian and mammalian bones. Such data
indicate that significant diagentic alteration may
have occurred in the dinosaur bones."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EVIDENCE OF FOSSILIZATION IN SO-CALLED "UNFOSSILIZED"
DINOSAUR BONES

EVIDENCE FOR POSTMORTEM ENRICHMENT IN LATE CRETACEOUS
DINOSAUR BONE USING MICROBEAM

PIXE GOODWIN, Mark B., Museum of Paleontology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; and
Graham Bench and Patrick Grant, Center for Accelerator
Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

The effects of diagenesis on the geochemistry of
fossils are poorly understood. The alteration of
stable isotopes by fossilization creates uncertainty
about the preservation of original biogenic isotope
values. The use of stable oxygen isotopes from
dinosaur bones and teeth to reconstruct dinosaur
thermophysiology remains controversial due to
potential overprinting by diagenesis. Studies using
stable isotopes for dietary or physiological
reconstructions are commonly based on the assumption
that postmortem alteration of the fossil did not occur
or that its effects are negligible. Successful isotope
analysis of fossil bone for the purposes of
determining paleophysiology depends upon the retention
of original isotope atoms in the bone phosphate. If
the chemical composition of dinosaur bone is affected
by dissolution, recrystallization, or mineral
substitution from the burial environment, the measured
oxygen isotope ratio may reflect groundwater
temperature, not dinosaur body temperature. PIXE,
coupled with microsampling and mass spectrometry, is a
potent analytical tool to assess diagenesis in
fossils. Nuclear microscopy using Proton Induced X-ray
Emission (or microbeam PIXE) provides accurate
quantitative values, multi-element detection,
sub-micron spatial resolution to ppm or mg/g
sensitivity, and elemental maps of micron regions of
bone. A thin section from an exceptionally well
preserved Late Cretaceous hadrosaur femur (UCMP
179501) from Alaska's North Slope was subject to PIXE
analysis. This fossil does not show typical signs of
alteration at a macro and micron scale, but is highly
altered nonetheless. PIXE analysis reveals enrichment
of Fe (180,000 ppm) and Mn (13,000 ppm) in the
lamellae surrounding Haversian canals and neighboring
tissue of several magnitudes higher than levels known
in modern bone. A corresponding depletion of Ca and P
also occurs. This enrichment is most likely due to
diagenesis from the burial environment since Fe and Mn
are present in modern bone in only minute amounts.
PIXE analysis of a modern Caiman and Rhea confirm
this. Goodwin (2001), above, refuted the alleged
unlatered ("fresh") nature of dinosaur bones found
along the Colville River in Alaska. The abstract for
this paper can be found in Re: Colville River, North
Slope Alaska, Dinosaur Fossils Questions

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Received on Tue Mar 29 22:57:27 2005