Hemogloben

Ark Guy · Dec 23, 2003

How does traces of the blood protein hemogloben recovered from a T-Rexs trabecular tissue exist for over 80+MYs?

Isnt it true that Hemoglobin breaks down rather quickly and could not last for millions upon millions of years.

Then again the bible has the answer...the earth is not millions of years old.

seebs · Dec 23, 2003

How about citations and references for the exact details of this claim? It's pretty hard to find out what you're talking about from what you just said.

notto · Dec 24, 2003

The question should be:
"If the world isn't million of years old, why don't we find more unfossilized dinosaur bones and hemogloben, after all, we find he unfossilized bones of mammoths and other large mammals, why not more dinosaurs?".

I believe that in the find Ark Guy is referencing that it was not intact hemogloben, but it was the broken down derivative heme that where found, so basically, the hemogloben did not survive. What was found was some of the organic compoiunds that make up hemogloben.

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/06/12/03.asp
"It's the first time that blood components, specifically fragments of hemoglobin, have been recovered from dinosaur bones making this find the closest science has come to Michael Crichton's "Lost World.""

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Dec 24, 2003

What's also interesting is that the story peters out after about 1998. The likely explanation is that further tests showed that this was not what the team hoped it to be.

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
What's also interesting is that the story peters out after about 1998. The likely explanation is that further tests showed that this was not what the team hoped it to be.

Interesting way you wrote that KLBS....."The likely explanation"...Likely????

What is the real explanation and not the likely explanation KLBS?

A google search for hemoglobin and dinosaur yields tons of hits.

Bushido216 · Dec 24, 2003

A google search for "Loch Ness Monster and Proof" yields forty thousand hits as well.

As well, the hemoglobin wouldn't last 6,000 years either, so this isn't really proof one way or another. Either notto is right and it's broken down heme or it was preserved some way, and you've managed to ruffle no feathers.

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

notto said:
The question should be:
"If the world isn't million of years old, why don't we find more unfossilized dinosaur bones and hemogloben, after all, we find he unfossilized bones of mammoths and other large mammals, why not more dinosaurs?".

From what I have read, but not studied to much on, the mammoths were frozen POST-FLOOD.
I would think that the colder temperatures in these more northern areas where the mammoths were roaming kept the dinosaurs away creating a geographical seperation of these animal kinds.

As to why we don't find more hemogloben, it seems that it breaks down rather quickly, sooner than 4,000 years.

The question still remains, how did it survive for 80+ MY's?

notto · Dec 24, 2003

An interesting tidbit about this find is that the antibody tests that were used were positive in turkeys and pigeons but were negative in snakes.

What's that tell you?

One thing that is interesting is that many of the google hits are from creationists websites, many that are saying that 'blood cells' were found or that 'intact hemogloben' was found. This is far from the truth and is either an intentional deception or a statement from ignorance.

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

Bushido216 said:
A google search for "Loch Ness Monster and Proof" yields forty thousand hits as well.

As well, the hemoglobin wouldn't last 6,000 years either, so this isn't really proof one way or another. Either notto is right and it's broken down heme or it was preserved some way, and you've managed to ruffle no feathers.

The search has nothing to do with how many hits equals proof of it being true...sheeze Bushido.

When you do such a search you then need to filter through it and pull out the technical/scientific sites....then go from there. But of course you already knew that.

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

notto said:
An interesting tidbit about this find is that the antibody tests that were used were positive in turkeys and pigeons but were negative in snakes.

What's that tell you?

One thing that is interesting is that many of the google hits are from creationists websites, many that are saying that 'blood cells' were found or that 'intact hemogloben' was found. This is far from the truth and is either an intentional deception or a statement from ignorance.

Isn't it ironic that Notto who often is the first to complain when a source isn't presented...never really presents one himself.

notto · Dec 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
From what I have read, but not studied to much on, the mammoths were frozen POST-FLOOD.
I would think that the colder temperatures in these more northern areas where the mammoths were roaming kept the dinosaurs away creating a geographical seperation of these animal kinds.

As to why we don't find more hemogloben, it seems that it breaks down rather quickly, sooner than 4,000 years.

The question still remains, how did it survive for 80+ MY's?

But we find dinosaur fossils in the same areas as the mammoths. We also find unfossilized bones of large mammals in tar pits. Why no dinosaurs along with these large mammals?

As to the hemogloben, the question has been answered. The hemogloben DID break down. What was found were a few protien strands that were at one time part of the hemogloben molecule.

Unless you can provide a source that says that these protiens would break down as well when they are preserved in this very particular way (deep in the bone), then the question has been answered.

It is also interesting to note that this is extremely RARE and only a very little amount of these protiens can be extracted from deep within the fossilized bones that have been very well preserved.

Bushido216 · Dec 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
From what I have read, but not studied to much on, the mammoths were frozen POST-FLOOD.
I would think that the colder temperatures in these more northern areas where the mammoths were roaming kept the dinosaurs away creating a geographical seperation of these animal kinds.

As to why we don't find more hemogloben, it seems that it breaks down rather quickly, sooner than 4,000 years.

The question still remains, how did it survive for 80+ MY's?

Exactly, you fool, if it breaks down quicker than 4,000 years, more like 4 minutes, then having a piece intact wouldn't be proof either way.

Do you understand this, or do I need to devote a third post to this?

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

So...how was it preserved???

Too much Mr. Bojangles going on here.

notto · Dec 24, 2003

The originl paper can be found here:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291

Here is the abstract:

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

TheBear · Dec 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Too much Mr. Bojangles going on here.

Are these snide remarks really necessary?

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

Mr. Pick and Choose Moderator, why don't you address the way Bushido started his responce in post 12?

Or do you just moderate the Young Earth Creationist because you disagree with them?

The Mr. Bojangles comment refers to the way particular posters are DANCING around the issue at hand.

Would you have preferred if I said playing DODGE BALL?

TheBear · Dec 24, 2003

Bushido216 said:
Exactly, you fool, if it breaks down quicker than 4,000 years, more like 4 minutes, then having a piece intact wouldn't be proof either way.

Do you understand this, or do I need to devote a third post to this?

Ark Guy is correct. Enough with this personal attacks. Any further such posts will result in official warnings.

Bushido216 · Dec 24, 2003

Ark Guy said:
So...how was it preserved???

Too much Mr. Bojangles going on here.

What you fail to realize is that IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Ark Guy · Dec 24, 2003

Of course IT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU.

It can't matter to you because then you don't need to explain why or how it lasted so long.

Add another point to the YEC score board.

Bushido216 · Dec 24, 2003

Explain to me, Ark Guy, how the method used to preserve the Hemoglobin would swing the debate one way or another?

Hemogloben

Ark Guy

Guest

God Made Me A Skeptic

Legend

Senior Veteran

Ark Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ark Guy

Guest

Legend

Ark Guy

Guest

Ark Guy

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Ark Guy

Guest

Legend

NON-WOKED

Ark Guy

Guest

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Ark Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency