| zarx said: sorry this was debunked, the supposed "flesh" was just bacterial bio-films that have formed in the microscopic cavities that formed by the cells during fossilisation, a mistake that has been made before. http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/ The other videos from what I have seen are full of incorrect statements and bad science, sorry. |
Liar. It wasn't "debunked". You apparently didn't read the webpage you provided a link to.
From your link:
"The finding sparked a strong response from the researchers who originally claimed to have found ancient dinosaur tissue. Schweitzer argues that there are significant holes in Kaye’s study, namely an explanation for why the protein in the tissue looks like that expected for a dinosaur. She added that her group has considered biofilms but has found no evidence for their presence. Errors in the current study “seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations,” Schweitzer commented to the press."
"Other researchers seem hesitant to make a definitive statement about the controversy. “It’s actually quite common to find biofilms in areas where fossils would be formed,” said Frank Corsetti, an earth scientist at USC who was not involved in the research. “It’s an interesting idea, but the jury is still out.”"
From DiscoveryMagazine.com
"When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, "Jack said, 'Prove to me they're not red blood cells.' That was what I got my Ph.D. doing." She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. "The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur," she wrote in a 1997 paper."
