Hemo compounds and dinosaurs= problems.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:25 pm

Isn’t it true that Hemoglobin breaks down rather quickly and could not last for millions upon millions of years?

So, just how does traces of the blood protein hemogloben recovered by scientists at Montana State University from a T-Rex’s trabecular tissue exist for over 80+MY’s without being fossilized or completely disintegrating?

Doesn't the evidence indicate that this T-Rex died not to long ago?

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:23 pm

Sounds like you forgot what my second paragraph stated.

The second paragraph doesn't matter anymore, as the article itself already destroyed the base of your argument - haemoglobin not being very resistant to the effects of time. The haemonglobin found in that bone was fragmented.

Finding it...once....is not considered as very often.

Umm...so what? There is a first time for everything.

jwu

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:04 pm

[Personal abuse deleted]

1) Heme is based on iron, and is hardly an ordinary organic compound. from the article: "The heme prosthetic group at the core of hemoglobin
consists of a porphyrin ring with one iron atom at its center."

2) I look all through that article, and didn't find a thing to indicate the authors were creationists.

3) The article explains how the authors think the compunds survived for millions of years.

4) There is no real difficulty in organic compounds surviving for millions of years. That's where oil comes from.

DanZ

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:18 pm

juliod wrote:How clueless!

Please, juliod, remember the rules here at the Debating Christianity & Religion forums. As a reminder, here's the first one:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.

Thanks for your cooperation and participation at DC&R.

Regards,
mrmufin

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:54 pm

No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.

Yup. Understood. My mistake. Won't happen again, etc etc...

DanZ

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:16 pm

...if heme is so resistant, why don't they find more of it in dino bones?

They said resistant. Not impervious.

source: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291

Looking at your source, I don't see anything in there that requires the dinosaur to be recent. I'll quote it in its entirety since nobody has taken care to do such.

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.

From whence in your source do you find some sort of age in there?

JWU,
Sounds like you forgot what my second paragraph stated.

Here is what you wrote.

So, just how does traces of the blood protein hemogloben recovered by scientists at Montana State University from a T-Rex’s trabecular tissue exist for over 80+MY’s without being fossilized or completely disintegrating?

If the specific compound was in no danger from the environment, and was stable enough such that decay was not an issue, there is no problem.

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:41 am

The sub-heading of this thread is funny - "More proof of a young earth."

So, a few molecular by-products of hemoglobin "prove" a young earth, but none of the following disprove it:

Carbon dating back 40,000 years
Ice cores back 170,000 years
Radiometric dating back hundreds of millions of years
Light from distant galaxies, 13 billion years back

I'm not trying to derail the thread here - I'm trying to focus on the assertion of "proof." For a young earth, there isn't any.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:33 pm

My point in a previous post has been made...thanks.

In that post an evo accused the creationist of having his ideas locked in to a theory.

In this case...according to the evos there is no way the dino could have been recent...no way!!!!

The idea that the heme was young rather than 80 + MY's old could and would not be considered....despite the fact there was no logical reason as to why the heme fragment survived.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:42 pm

according to the evos there is no way the dino could have been recent...no way!!!!

Has anyone, anywhere, suggested that dinosaurs could not have been alive in recent centuries?

Of course they could. But we have zero evidence of such.

This article you willfully misinterpret supports only the old earth/old dinosaurs theory. It contradicts creationism.

DanZ

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:00 pm

juliod wrote:
according to the evos there is no way the dino could have been recent...no way!!!!
Has anyone, anywhere, suggested that dinosaurs could not have been alive in recent centuries?

Of course they could. But we have zero evidence of such.

You have the heme as evidence of such.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:37 pm

So far that's merely a claim. You need to provide hard evidence that heme cannot possibly survive that long. Otherwise this doesn't prove anything.

jwu