Dino-Blood Redux

| 45 Comments

On 24 March 2005, a team of paleontologists lead by Mary Higby Schweitzer published their discovery of dinosaur soft tissues recovered from the cortical bone of a T. rex femur. The three page paper in Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, presents the striking discovery of apparently preserved organic tissues. These include several cell types that the authors feel able to delineate by direct comparison to modern cells recovered from a recent ostrich femur. (Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955). Within hours of their story’s release creationist email lists and bulletin boards were blazing around the world about the new scientific “proof” of the Earth’s recent creation. One small, and hopeful change from Schweitzer’s similar 1990s ‘discovery’ is that this time both she and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth.

Some people have wondered why Panda’s Thumb did not immediately post a response to this discovery. And because I have written on the creationist distortion of earlier dinosaur soft tissue research published by Schweitzer, Dino-blood and the Young Earth, on the TalkOrigins archive, some have wondered why I haven’t personally reacted. I even received a few emails that demanded that I retract that article. This is an absurd misunderstanding of that article, the evidence it was based on, and the research published by Schweitzer and various colleagues since the early 1990s.

It may surprise a few people, but I am not interested in dinosaurs. I rented the first Jurassic Park movie when it came out on videotape, and I skipped the rest.

The media response: Send in the Clones .

The main Science article appears as a fairly straightforward report that when the mineral component of a tyrannosaur femur was removed, there remained an organic mass with characters similar to those found in ostrich bone. Schweitzer et al believe they have recovered material that represented osteocytes, blood cells, and vessels. They state, “The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from extant ostrich bone.” (Photos of these can be seen from the original article, and some are also available in Tyrannosaur morsels on PZ Myers’ personal blog). Schweitzer et al notably offered no alternate explanation for their finding- they are entirely standing on the assertion that these are the original dinosaur tissues. Not until the last paragraph do they even comment that, “Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.”

However, alternatives do exist, as has been pointed out in the accompanying perspective article in Science written by Eric Stokstad, “Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects” (Science, vol. 307:1852).

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material–likely collagen–had not survived.

In short, there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance of the ‘tissues’ reported by Schweitzer et al.

As is nearly always the case, the juicy bits are in the background. The great advantage that science journals have today is the ability to put all supplemental details on-line. In this case, the three page “main” article sports a supporting text over four times as long. For example, the main article has left many people with the false impression that the recovered tissues were in a soft pliable state when first exposed. This is not true. All of the fossil material was rehydrated during the same process that removed the mineral components of the bone. They were then buffered, and also some were fixed. The related press reports have created the impression that there are large features with the characteristics of fresh tissue. This is not true. The structures examined are a few millimeters across at most. The last, and rather irritating aspect of this research is not from the Science article, or the supporting material, but from the press interviews given by Schweitzer which repeatedly hint at the recovery of DNA, and even of cloning.

The most absurd example of this was a 2 minute video Associated Press distributed on the Schweitzer dino-blood announcement which is linked from the LA Times and other news sources. In outline, we have 37 seconds of “Jurassic Park” clips with lines like “Dino DNA … is a disaster …” and then we are treated to Jack Horner’s single sentence; something about “DNA…DNA…DNA…” followed with more “Jurassic Park” until at one minute into the clip, we are shown Mary Schweitzer saying her only line, “No this does not mean that we are cloning dinosaurs in our lab, and we probably will not.” The narrator Rita Foley in her best “ingénues are stupid™” voice, squeaks, “Probably?!!”

A last few seconds of “Jurassic Park” clips and the window to educate the public was closed.

A significantly better video was presented on MSNBC, and is linked from Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels. No “Jurassic Park” footage, but here again, Schweitzer made easily misinterpreted statements contradicted by her published work. Just one example was her statement that the contents of vessels could be readily “squeezed out.” Since she offered no laboratory procedure as a context, this left the impression that these remains just popped out of the bone as fresh as if the dinosaur died yesterday.

The print media have been a little better in their reportage. The Los Angeles Times ran the story on the 25th (front page below the fold) and used three microphotographs from the Science article. But even here, they referred to the recovered material as “fresh” at the same time describing the weeks long labor need to recover and reconstitute them. However, they are obviously following closely to Schweitzer’s statements regarding her results. She stated, “The tissues are still soft. The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way” (as quoted in the LA Times). Much worse was the later editorial published in the LA Times. The antiscience bias of the editorial was manifested by referring to paleontologists as ‘fossil geeks.’ The writer’s scientific incompetence was made manifest by the their dismay at the possibility of cloning a T. rex based on Schweitzer’s reported material. I was left with the unavoidable conclusion that the editorial’s author had not been able to understand the article by their own reporter, Robert Lee Holtz.

The New York Times had an editorial prompted by the discovery, An Unexpected Softness, that made a good observation on science in general, that a tension exists between, “… the effort to consolidate the known facts into a stable theory. The other is to discover new facts - with no guarantee whether they will reinforce or undermine the old consolidations.” Beyond this insight, the cloning of dinosaurs again raised its head.

Adding fuel to the simmering sense of cultural inferiority many Americans harbor toward the British, the BBC Word News did a much superior job of reportage which is available online at, T. rex fossil has ‘soft tissues’. There the reader learns that, “Dr. Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.” Also, another expert in the small field of molecular paleontology, Prof. Matthew Collins provided comment.

“This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level,” commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK. “My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure,” he told the BBC.

(See Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths for a discussion of how creationists have distorted Dr. Collins’ research in the past).

Further, totally distinguished from the Associated Press video nonsense, the BBC quoted Schweitzer with more than an out of context sound bite regarding DNA,

“I actually don’t work with DNA and my lab is not set up to do that,” said Dr. Schweitzer. “Our goal is more to look to see what we can find with respect to the proteins that are coded by the DNA.

To a large degree, most of the chemical studies that have been done suggest proteins are more durable than DNA and they have almost the same kind of information because they use DNA as their template.”

In media interviews Jack Horner, Schweitzer’s coauthor and former professor, has been much more cautious. He appeared on a radio program, “On Point” broadcast by National Public Radio were Tom Ashcroft interviewed him along with molecular taphonomist Derek Briggs of Yale University, and science writer Carl Zimmer. Then he repeatedly said that they in fact have no idea what the recovered “tissues” are made of, or actually represent. Schweitzer did not appear on the program, but this could mean that there are the familiar disagreements that can occur between coauthors and particularly professors and former students. For example, when Ashcroft asked the question,

“If it’s soft tissue, what else would it be other than biological?

Horner replied, “Well that’s a good question, but I don’t think we go in with the assumption that it is {biological} until we can do our analyses. (approx. minute 30 of the interview)” He also said, “It would be nice to know what this stuff is made of … if there are proteins present, is it biological?” And, “We’re not looking for DNA, we are trying to determine what this stuff is and why it is flexible.

The new creationist response: the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

[u]Creationist E-mails, and Bulletin Board quotes.[/u]

There are perhaps hundreds of internet sites devoted in at least part to the conflicting views about science and religion that are in sharpest focus when addressing evolution. These discussions can appear in some strange contexts, such as web sites dedicated to competitive weight lifting, “Star Wars” fan clubs, and Christian rock ‘n roll bands, as well as the more obvious sites dedicated to fundamentalism and even the “impending” apocalyptic rapture. The first commentary on these sites appeared within minutes of the Schweitzer announcement.

I received my first creationist email within an hour of the Schweitzer announcement which demanded that I retract my earlier writing on creationism and dinosaurs and concluded,

So far, it looks like nearly every new finding falls in line with a ‘young-earth’ and, people like you who find it so easy to criticize creationist’s views (many of which are speculation, I’ll agree) seem to completely ignore the FACT that the entire theory of evolution and ‘millions of years’ is speculation. I guess ‘scientists’ may use speculation or guesses but the ‘unscientific’ creationists must always use true, observable and reproducible science in all their arguments. Okay. In the end, the people who take the Bible literally will win. Not because they are always perfect or right but because God is - and His Word is!

Throughout the next few hours, stretching into days, similar opinion was repeated. A few typical examples follow:

“There were no dinosaurs 70 million years ago. If there is enough DNA some whack job will attempt to clone one. However, if God wanted them here they would still be here so I don’t think there will be much success. God is God and we are not! “

“Under no condition could soft tissue exist 70 million years.

Besides, creation is only 6000 years old. “

“IMHO, it would take more faith to believe these soft tissues are 70 million years old than it would take to believe Almighty God brought the universe into existence in 6 days.

The invention of man is clever in his own mind and foolishness to God.”

“It will take a few days for the evolutionists to circle the wagons and invent another foolish explanation.”

“For those who believe in a 6,000 year-old Earth (such as myself): I heard a speaker last year in Tulsa (Dr. Thomas Sharpe) who discussed convincing evidence of a younger earth. Amoungst his evidence were some red blood cells discovered inside a T-Rex bone. This discovery stunned some scientists because it was simply impossible that red blood cells could’ve existed for millions of years, and the find is still hotly debated. (This refers to Schweitzer’s graduate work in the 1990s. gh).

Then this week, this was discovered: …”

“Someone will argue that the bone was encased in enough dirt or rock and deprived of oxygen so the process of decay was slowed/halted.

There can be nothing that unrepentant man will allow to challenge his arrogant knowledge.

But God will not be mocked.”

“As a science teacher, I agree with {the comment above}. There is nothing that an unbeliever will not accept on faith (ha ha) to disprove a real God. They will come up with some explanation for this one. But be encouraged, I am coming across more and more scientists who are also followers of Christ. Do not assume that all scientists are unbelievers. I am one of those EVIL PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS By the way, I also proclaim JESUS whenever presented with the opportunity. And those opportunities come often when working with hurting teenagers.”

“Will anyone tell us how the T-Rex tissue remained soft for over 65,000,000 years while the rest of the dead decaying dino carcuss either rotted completely away or fossilized? Could the real answer be surfacing? That is it’s not as old as the EVO-BABBLERS make it out to be?”

“To me this blood sample cant be millions of years old. As a person who has attended deceased bodies, blood specimens cant be in a fluid state surrounded by rock ect. This rock would surly draw out any moisture.”

“Actually, the evolution emperor knows he has no clothes…he just has far too much invested in the facade.…his empire…his very way of life…

If the emperor lets even one thread fray in his carefully crafted fallacy, he knows the whole of his foolish empire will unravel and be exposed for the ugly, naked, lie that it is.

You and I will never be able to show the truth to a dedicated evolutionist any more than they will ever convince us that a monkey becomes a man.…because, that (evolution) is what they put their faith in. Just like you and I put our faith in God and His Word.

There is only way to convince such a foul realm of the truth…pray that Almighty God will burn away the fog of imagined intellect that they use to hide behind and let His light shine truth upon all.”

I just can’t believe scientists still perservere with this evolution theory. After such contradictory evidence why are scientists still determined to believe a lie than the truth?

And of course, the constant creationist stand-by all purpose mantra,

“Evolution is one of the biggest lie, the devil ever came up with to deceive mankind”

{Spelling and grammar of all quotes are as in the originals}.

These, and hundreds of similar comments, reduce to just a few themes:

1) The discovery was of “fresh” soft tissue obvious merely by cracking open the bone, 2) Fresh tissue “proves” that these bones are recent, 3) Scientists know this is the case, and lie to the public, (A particularly ironic variation is that scientists have been so indoctrinated that they are incapable of recognizing reality). 4) Evolutionary biology, and related sciences such as geology, paleontology, and anthropology are anti-God, if not actually demonic.

These widely and fervently held beliefs are fueled by professional creationists who profit through promoting ignorance.

The professional creationists weigh in

The creationist public is ill served by a cadre of professional parasites whose major product is an outrageous distortion of scientific research. They also promote a version of theology that I am not qualified to comment on personally, but is clearly contradicted by representatives of nearly every mainline Christian denomination in the world today as evidenced by An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science that has been endorsed the date of this writing by 2,633 members of the clergy.

Within the span of just a few hours from the Schweitzer release, Carl Wieland, über-creationist MD and a lead officer of Answers in Genesis Ministry, Inc. had issued his proclamation Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years.’ It is a condensed reprise of all his similar articles. As I pointed out over a year ago, in “Dino-blood and the Young Earth”

It refers to a non-technical news item as if it were an actual scientific paper. … It asserts that organic molecules found in ancient material disproves all independent dating methods and therefore implies the Earth is a scant thousands of years old.

Note that I had to remove the following sentence from above, “It misrepresents the findings claiming that there were ‘obvious, fresh-looking blood cells’ seen in dinosaur bone.” because in this instance, Mary Schweitzer has hung her professional standing on just this claim. She does in fact, and repeatedly, state that these new materials are obvious fresh-looking cells in both her publications and her popular press assertions. While it is quite true that “fresh-looking” isn’t the same as “fresh” this should afford little protection from the critical review of Schweitzer’s work.

Wieland does provide a few new ‘zingers.’ For example, in the very first sentence he tells us that, “We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells …” The day that AiG, and their house rag, Creation is the debut publication of mainstream science is the day I’ll shoot myself. The cited items are “announcements’ only in Wieland’s fevered imagination. Nevertheless, his major misrepresentations do not begin until the fourth sentence. There were several prior errors of fact and interpretation, but the first gross falsehood was not until the fourth sentence. For AiG this is doing very well (see Boiled Creationist with a Side of Hexaglycine: Sarfati on Imai et al. (1999)). Wieland wrote,

The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely ‘history’.

There are three falsehoods in this sentence; first, there were not soft remains “obvious to the naked eye” unless Wieland has superhuman microscopic X-ray vision. Oddly, one might say ‘suspiciously’ or perhaps more fairly ‘incompetently,’ none of the microphotographs associated with the AiG “announcement” of Schweitzer’s latest publication have the scale bars found on all scientific publications of these results. Even the LA Times thought to include the obvious fact that these are microscopic features. AiG provided their readers with the photos above, credited to Mary Schweitzer. These appeared in the on-line supplement to Schweitzer et al as Figure S2.C (left), and Figure S1.C (insert) for the image on the right. The captions are strikingly different between Schweitzer et al and Wieland for these images. For example, of the right image, Schweitzer says,

“Fig. S1(C) A third vessel shows small microstructures either within or attached to the vessel wall. The structures are ovoid and possess an inner opaque core. They are completely consistent in size and shape with nucleated circulating blood cells taken from mature ostrich (D) and extant chicken (E).”

Wieland says,

Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to ‘look like cells’ as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, ‘How could these cells last for 65 million years?’ {again referring to Schweitzer’s popular press article in 1997. gh}

Of course, Wieland neglects to inform his readers that the entire image is about 0.25 millimeters across. The entire long axis of the left image is a grand 0.03725 of a millimeter. Hardly “obvious to the naked eye.”

The second falsehood is that this material is “unfossilized.” The third falsehood is that Wieland asserts without foundation that this newest claim reduces the prior refutations of his nonsense to “history,” by which he means unfounded. The earlier lies promoted by Wieland concerning Schweitzer’s early graduate student work are contradicted by evidence- that evidence being the public record of Schweitzer’s statements and publications. (I do grant Wieland that Schweitzer’s current statements are that she sees essentially intact dinosaurian tissues preserved by some unknown fossilization mechanism, and I think that she should be held to that standard).

However, this misdirection is not the ‘main event.’ Center stage is the YEC fallacy that organic remains recovered from ancient bones forces the conclusion that these bones must be recent. As Wieland phrased the issue,

The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in ‘millions of years’. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) ‘70 million years’.

Wieland concluded,

“I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.*7

7. Some dinosaur fossils could have formed in post-Flood local catastrophes.

What is inconceivable is that Wieland is honestly ignorant that the dates associated with the age of these remains has anything at all to do with their condition. This is the great fraud perpetrated on their dupes by professional creationists such as Wieland. The age of the specific T. rex bone which was the principle database for Schweitzer et al is not based on either its macro- or microscopic appearance but of the age of the rock that it was found in, ”… the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements.” The appearance of soft tissue, hard tissue or no tissue has no bearing in the age of this material- organic or inorganic. What is the basis for these age determinations is the independent existence of geochemical “clocks” known as radiometric dating. Professional creationists and their prey simply reject radiometric dates, which has always seemed to me to be an odd logical contradiction, or in an anthropological term: cognitive dissonance. If these people are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology? Why does Wieland, having left the universe of chemists, physicists, and geologists (the rest of the sciences one also assumes), feel compelled to lie about paleontology, and evolutionary biology?

How do we know the age of these bones, regardless of their condition? The existence of atoms which comprise the elements vary by their number of protons and electrons. This is the basis of the periodic table and of most chemistry. The existence of neutrons, and the discovery that some elements vary in the number of neutrons they have, lead to the integration of atomic theory and observations of radioactivity. A theoretical basis is partially given in Einstein’s theory of relativity where we learn that mass can be considered a form of energy. For a non-technical review of radiometric dating that is particularly appropriate for Christians, I always recommend Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens maintained by the American Scientific Affiliation. ASA is “a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.”

However, for the specific data relevant to the fossils reported on by Schweitzer et al, and manipulated by Wieland (and David N. Menton, to follow) which we recall were found in, “… the base of the Hell Creek Formation…” we need only consult Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple.

There we find the following data for the Z-coal strata of the Hell Creek Formation presented in the order of; Material, Method, # of samples, Result in Millions of Years tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 28, 64.8 ++ 0.1 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 66.0++0.5 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 64.7++0.1 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 17, 64.8++0.2 biotite & sanidine, K-Ar, 12, 64.6++1.0 biotite & sanidine, Rb-Sr isochron (26 D.P.), 1, 63.7++0.6 zircon, U-Pb concordia (16 data), 1, 63.9++0.8

So, the MOR 1125 femur happens to be one of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn’t get much better than that.

It doesn’t matter what the bones look like, or what is in them. If Wieland and his deluded followers want to dispute the age of this fossil, or the Earth, or the Universe, they can not use the presence or absence of organic tissues among their “evidences.”

[u]But, it gets even better![/u]

Anatomist David Menton, Ph.D. (biology, Brown University) has been an active creationist his entire life, turning pro after his retirement from Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis Missouri. His other recent pseudoscience articles include promoting that Neanderthals were modern humans which was once considered a possibility and is now rejected based on modern anatomical studies, and even genetic analysis. Most fatuously, Menton falsely claims that, “the famous ‘Lucy’ fossils belong to a knuckle-walking, apelike creature”.

Just four days after the Schweitzer et al announcement, we were treated to his assessment of these results, ‘Ostrich-osaurus’ discovery?. It is obvious that Menton should have taken the time to read more carefully or better, to not bother at all.

That said, Menton did avoid many of the gross errors made by Wieland, but managed to make some new ones all his own. In his second sentence, we find the repeated falsehood that the ages of bones are determined by their appearance. In my thirty years of excavation, I have recovered bones that looked quite modern, and others that were little more than a streak of discolored soil. This reflects the burial conditions and not the age of the bone. The characteristic creationist flourishes such as “supposed evolutionary history,” and the false assertion that any water borne sediment implies the Noah’s flood myth, have become so familiar that they may pass largely unnoticed. We read to the second page before Menton’s ideologue status is fully confirmed.

Menton: “Then, in an obvious effort to capitalize on the current ‘birds are dinosaurs’ craze in evolutionism, the authors go on to compare the microscopic anatomy of their well-preserved dinosaur bone to a bone from a bird. For some unexplained reason, they chose an unidentified area of an unidentified bone from a recently deceased ostrich.

What Menton has chosen to obsess over is the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs which, far from a “current craze,” is the nearly universal consensus among paleontologists. As Jack Horner observed in a recent interview, “Birds are dinosaurs.” The “unexplained” reason that paleontologists would refer to bird bone for comparative material is “unexplained” because no scientifically competent reader needs explanation. Menton’s fatuous complaint that the specific ostrich bone and sampled area are not described must stem from his lack of familiarity with current scientific publishing. As I mentioned above, the three page ‘main’ article has a nineteen page “on-line supplement” where details of experimental procedure and additional results are presented. This has been the standard procedure for many years now, and the supplement is considered part of the literature associated with the finding.

In the supplement, we learn that the ostrich cortical bone, “was ground for earlier experiments and stored at –20oC for several years.” Whether this cortical material came from one specific bone or another is to the best of my knowledge irrelevant. This also addresses Menton’s inane, and insulting suggestion that “these paleontologists” had never before “looked at soft tissue or bone through a microscope.” What is apparent is Menton is so intent on attacking these results he has missed why any comparison was made to any recent fresh tissue: Schweitzer et al were presenting the case that the ancient material they observed looked like modern cells and tissues. That was all the main paper was claiming, and it is good of Menton to fully confirm these results. If he were to retain any credibility as a scientist, which his current screed shows he lacks, Schweitzer et al should no doubt have been grateful. Menton’s criticism is truly weird; he slams Schweitzer et al for demonstrating to Menton’s satisfaction everything which they had set out to demonstrate.

Menton’s next error again stems from his failure to read the supplemental data included with the main article. I do not know if he lacks access to Science, or the wit to know what supplemental “Supporting Online Material” meant, or how to use the internet. Actually, I can’t imagine that a “Professor Emeritus” is denied library privileges or that the Washington University School of Medicine lacks a subscription to Science magazine. Regardless, Menton objects that, “While the authors report what appear to be red blood cells in both the dinosaur and the ostrich, they do not mention the presence of nuclei in the red blood cells.” There are a number of descriptions of nucleated blood cells in the supplement, including those recovered from MOR 1125, the T. rex discussed in the main article, but also, in additional dinosaur bones examined by the team. Most notably, an image taken from cortical bone of T. rex FMNH-PR-2081, are directly compared with those from fresh ostrich blood, and fresh chicken blood. Schweitzer et al say,

“These microstructures are of a consistent size and character, and contain what appears to be a central nucleus (inset). These structures are virtually identical in size (approximately 20 µm), shape, and overall appearance with mature nucleated blood cells from ostrich (Fig. S1D) and chicken (Fig. S1E).

Why is this so notable? Because the same T. rex image was used in Carl Weiland’s bloviation, referred to by Menton, and reproduced both by AiG and discussed here.

Merton, leads his conclusion with, “Sadly, we have become accustomed to reading published reports pertaining to evolution and its millions of years in both the popular and scientific literature that are highly biased and lacking in scientific substance.”

This is idiocy. The point undertaken by Schweitzer et al in their main paper is conceded in its entirety by Menton- there are residues following the demineralization of dinosaur bone that have the appearance of vessels, blood cells, endothelial cells and osteocytes. Menton’s colleague in foolishness, Wieland, cites the discovery as proud “proof” that the Earth is young based on “common sense.” Not once in the main article, or the supplement did Schweitzer et al refer directly to the age of the fossil. They needed only refer to the rock where it was found encased. As discussed above this is one of the better dated strata in the world. If Weiland and Menton wish to dispute chemistry and physics, then they should respond to a far different literature. The irony of Menton’s statement regarding “bias” and lack of scientific substance is only exceeded by one he makes almost immediately afterward.

But this study and report by Schweitzer and co-workers are lacking in merit even by evolutionary standards.

The article received worldwide press coverage. The article hints at unsuspected ways to recover fossil data. The article totally vindicates Schweitzer’s graduate work. (It was extremely good of Horner to give her this “second shot’ as it were, one which will hopefully bring more attention to her interesting interim papers). Having read a few journal articles by anatomists, though none I recall by Menton, I must say that Schweitzer et al compares very well on the basis of scientific merit (and this is not a criticism of anatomists).

Hinting at an even greater lack of competence that I earlier suspected, Menton continued,

”… why did the authors choose to compare the histology (microscopic anatomy) of this bone to an unidentified bone from a bird—and why an ostrich? Why not compare the histology of the dinosaur bone to that of some living reptile? After all, dinosaurs are reptiles.

Menton is an anatomist, which can be approached as a largely descriptive discipline where an entire career can be spent teaching medical, and allied heath students the same muscle inserts and attachments, and the names of the same bones and all their bumps and protrusions. I know, because I did this same thing for some years, though hardly a career’s worth. Perhaps this is why Menton fails to grasp the experimental hypothesis subtlety tested. According to the principle of common descent, and modern paleontology, birds have descended from dinosaurs. According to creationists, dinosaurs represent many thousands of extinct forms of the reptiles. As Menton claimed, if creationists are correct, “… dinosaurs are reptiles.” (I personally do not understand why Menton wants this to be added to the creationists’ “evidences,” list but so be it). If then, bird material had failed to match morphologically with the recovered dinosaur material, this would have been a blow against evolutionary theory, and at least indirectly suggesting that there could have been some basis for creationists’ (or minimally Menton’s) reconstruction of how extinct life forms might be related to modern ones. Evolutionary theory holds the suggestion that both dinosaurs, and by descent, birds are related to reptiles. So there is little to be challenged by evolutionary theory to compare reptiles and dinosaurs because that relationship is already a given fact. A finding that the dinosaur material had not closely resembled that of birds would have strongly challenged current understanding.

By Menton’s own formulation, birds should not be related to dinosaurs because “After all, dinosaurs are reptiles,” and so he weakens his own position. Again, it is the “Supporting Online Material” that holds the even greater denunciation of Menton’s creationism. It is there that we find that Schweitzer et al also prepared organic extracts from the MOR 1125 T. rex, encasing sandstone, and associated fossilized plants. They also prepared similar extracts of modern bird tissues, specifically ostrich bone, chicken bone, and chicken tendon. These extracts were tested by ELISA immunoassay against antisera for bovine osteocalcin, and chicken collagen. Osteocalcin is highly conserved (very little variation) across boney organisms, and it matters little which type is used (See Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths for further details). Not so for collagen. In the graph below, these data are summarized with negative controls from blanks, and buffers. The data have been adjusted to account for non-specific reactivity of the controls. Note also the dilution effects.

This graph is David Menton’s nightmare; strong indication that there is molecular evidence that birds evolved from the dinosaurs. Notice that the two samples drawn from the fossilized femur MOR-1125 both show significant responses to x-Osteocalcin and x-chicken collagen, as do tissues from modern chickens and ostriches. Comparison to the burial matrix, and other controls which showed little reaction clearly demonstrates that there are protein fragments assoiated with the fossil bone. The ratio of collagen reaction to osteocalcin reaction contrasted between the dinosaur samples and the chicken tendon and chicken bone samples helps further fix these as bone derived protein fragments. Even though nearly every paleontologists alive feels that the fossil data relating birds and dinosaurs is already adequate, we could be looking at the molecular “smoking gun.”

The potential significance of Schweitzer et al was totally over the head of Carl Wieland, who incompetently cheered this paper as “evidence” for a young Earth. Merton’s desperate need to attack Schweitzer et al with such flatulence as, “One must assume that the standards for publication in even the most prestigious scientific journals like Science are quite different for evolution than for any other branch of empirical science,” at least suggests that unlike Wieland, he is aware of the fact that this paper could presage the end of creationism’s favorite argument that birds are unrelated to dinosaurs.

What Next?

Horner and Schweitzer have both indicated that there will be much more to be published related to this discovery. Horner indicated in his NPR interview that there were aspects that he could not discuss because they have another article already in review at Science. So at a minimum we will see more science and much more fresh creationists’ reaction.

Early student work by Schweitzer, and coauthored by Horner, was grossly distorted by creationists. Popular press announcements by Schweitzer were very bold and provocative with hints of dinosaur DNA and linkage to the Crichton/Spielberg “Jurassic Park” series of books and movies. Young Earth Creationists immediately leapt on Schweitzer’s claims of ‘fresh-looking’ tissue as proof that the Universe is merely thousands of years old. Schweitzer then spent most of a decade backing away from her earliest claims, and denying that there was any point in confronting creationists’ distortion of her work.

The motivation to read and write about dinosaurs comes merely from my interest and, as I see it, obligation to expose fallacious manipulation of science by creationists. I chose to train in anthropology because I am interested in people and our nearest kin. I found that to best understand my interests in human evolution and culture, I needed to learn a modicum of the physical and biological sciences. This modicum at least enables me to carefully read articles such as Schweitzer’s. This was the only basis of my only writing about the paleontology of dinosaurs. In my opinion, this obligation to refute ‘false teaching’ is a general one shared by all scientists, and in the case of the earlier research by Schweitzer, I personally encouraged her to face this obligation. Nor was I the first to have done so. She declined in 2003 saying to me that it would be best for her career to simply ignore the massive distortion of her work stemming largely from the Answers in Genesis Ministry, Inc. Few scientific colleagues were aware that Schweitzer has become something of a favorite among young Earth creationists, and she was glad to keep it that way. Schweitzer’s major professor, Jack Horner, was similarly disinclined in directly confronting creationists. In brief, Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner, in spite of their protests, have provided creationists with a rich diet for over a decade without ever bothering to publicly refute the gross misrepresentations of their work.

Their new announcement has every indication of following in the same pattern with one exception. This time there could be a slight variation in that Horner and Schweitzer have both publicly acknowledged the creationist distortions of this new publication. In an interview given to Catherine Clabby of the North Carolina “News & Observer,” Schweitzer’s hometown newspaper, ‘Creationists welcome fossil find’, Schweitzer reports receiving hostile mail from creationists questioning why she does not admit that her work is compatible with their beliefs. She was quoted as saying, ‘I’m caught in the middle of something. It feels ugly.”

We are all in the middle of something- a creationist attack on reason and science- and it is ugly.

That is why I hope that scientists like Horner and Schweitzer whose creative ability attracts global attention will stop ignoring or denying their responsibility to address the creationist threat. It is no longer adequate to merely present results, but we must also address their larger implication and anticipate creationists’ attacks.

45 Comments

NCSU! WOOT WOOT!

Well done. And I totally agree that scientists have to start communicating with the wider public. The first, best, step would be to fire all the University PR hacks…

It’s been almost a month. Any news on what the soft, er, substance is?

nitpick: the paper here in Raleigh is the News and Observer, not the News Observer.

Thank you very much for this, GH. I now have new ammo.. uhh.. I mean.. rebuttals to creationist claptrap.

But is the soft tissue irreducibly complex? If not, then the mysterious alien beings might have worked their magic after this particular dinosaur died.

Schweitzer should give some of the tissue to Dembski to study.

Of course, Big Bill will probably just slap some barbecue sauce on it because he knows it will taste like chicken.

I salute you on this post, possibly the most informative I have ever read on PT. I have used your dino-blood paper to argue with YEC, and I will use this analysis as well. Thanks.

Can anyone tell me what is the range of time frames within which fossilization may occur? That is, can something, say, just a few hundred or a few thousand years old show signs of fossilization? I am, most emphatically, neither a creationist nor an IDer, trolling for “proof” that scientists have misdated the fossil record. I’m just curious about the various processes and how much time they take.

What you “scientists” need is to add an additional step to the review process. Prior to publication, all articles concerning paleontology should be reviewed by the Committee of Research Regarding Evolution Correct Thinking (CORRECT). Any articles submitted by paleontologists that contain results that may be “misinterpreted” by “creationists” will be censored. Journals that do not comply will by censored by the general Darwinist community such that their impact factor drops throught the floor. Scientists who repeatedly provide fodder such as Horner and Schweitzer will reprimanded at first and then barred from publishing in the CORRECT-acceptable journals if they continue to offend.

Its a brave new world folks.

Any articles submitted by paleontologists that contain results that may be “misinterpreted” by “creationists” will be censored.

Unfortunately, this restriction would stop all scientific publications in their tracks.

Gary

I also want to compliment you on this fascinating post. It’s an excellent piece of work.

I hope that scientists like Horner and Schweitzer whose creative ability attracts global attention will stop ignoring or denying their responsibility to address the creationist threat. It is no longer adequate to merely present results, but we must also address their larger implication and anticipate creationists’ attacks.

I agree this is important particularly when providing sound bites to the mainstream media. Scientists should be clear that they are concerned about their quotes being taken out of context, and they should also request (or demand) that particular points be emphasized. And whenever discussing possible creationist interpretations of results, the tone should be appropriate, i.e., ridicule, bafflement, plus reference to talkorigins and other scientifically robust websites (hint, hint).

What you “scientists” need is to add an additional step to the review process. Prior to publication, all articles concerning paleontology should be reviewed by the Committee of Research Regarding Evolution Correct Thinking (CORRECT). Any articles submitted by paleontologists that contain results that may be “misinterpreted” by “creationists” will be censored. Journals that do not comply will by censored by the general Darwinist community such that their impact factor drops throught the floor. Scientists who repeatedly provide fodder such as Horner and Schweitzer will reprimanded at first and then barred from publishing in the CORRECT-acceptable journals if they continue to offend.

Its a brave new world folks.

The fact that scientific research has no such step of this nature, and that science is in fact advanced most by those who open up areas of discovery outside the existing paradigm, suggests that your helpful suggestion will never be followed.

What you have described in fact better represents the creation “science” being conducted in places like Answers In Genesis, a group that states in its creed that “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

If these people are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology?

love that sentence

It is hard to imagine the ingorant obscurantist hidy-hole as a “brave new world.”

Thank you for that post Dr.GH. I immediately printed the Science article and found it to be a truly fascinating read. The manner in which religious fundamentalists distort the findings is unfortunate, however. That being said, I disagree with your last stanza:

Dr.GH said: That is why I hope that scientists like Horner and Schweitzer whose creative ability attracts global attention will stop ignoring or denying their responsibility to address the creationist threat. It is no longer adequate to merely present results, but we must also address their larger implication and anticipate creationists’ attacks.

It is not a scientist’s place to anticipate attacks that use irrational arguments, nor is it a scientist’s place to think of and thwart all of the possible ways their work could be mis-interpreted or mis-used. To formulate reports of findings with a particular group in mind is to introduce an element that potentially biases the reporting and certainly diminishes the value of the work. In my experience, field scientists like Schweitzer and Horner would rather spend time on a dig, with a microscope, or on a mass spectrometer than thinking about how to thwart creationists. Let legitimate scientists do what they do best - observe, hypothesize, experiment, report. The philosophers can debate the creationists.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 1, byte 317 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

HPLC_Sean Wrote:

It is not a scientist’s place to anticipate attacks that use irrational arguments, nor is it a scientist’s place to think of and thwart all of the possible ways their work could be mis-interpreted or mis-used. To formulate reports of findings with a particular group in mind is to introduce an element that potentially biases the reporting and certainly diminishes the value of the work. In my experience, field scientists like Schweitzer and Horner would rather spend time on a dig, with a microscope, or on a mass spectrometer than thinking about how to thwart creationists. Let legitimate scientists do what they do best - observe, hypothesize, experiment, report. The philosophers can debate the creationists.

There is some truth to this. Scientific reports should not be written with creationism in mind. Scientific reports are for science. Besides it would only make creationist claims that scientists self-censor their literature seem credible. And putting in debunking comments in the literature in anticipation of anti-evolutionists only makes the appearance of a real scientific controversy over the reality of evolution seem credible to outsiders and thus is counter-productive.

That being said, scientists whose work is widely misused by the creationists do have a responsiblity to speak out – especially when it is being so widely misused as in this case. They need to clearly show why what they found is not evidence for creationism and explain the real context and significance of their discoveries.

(Though if they comment beyond the immediate context of the distortion they might get it quickly reviewed by someone familiar with current creationism since I suspect most scientists are fairly uninformed on the current state of anti-evolutionary rhetoric.)

– Anti-spam: Replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Well written, and informative beyond my hopes.

Nicely done and thank you, Dr. GH. I’ve been waiting for this one.

doov

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 68, byte 68 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

An excellent article. Scientists should not be afraid to contradict their detractors, and Dr Schweitzer might not be in this case, if it were not for the disproportionate propensity of fundamentalists to go loco with deadly weaponry. The AAAS needs to be out front and making a firm stand, both for science, and for the freedom and integrity of scientists.

The writer who warns with apparent optimism of the coming of a “brave new world” would seemingly prefer a return to an older, more cowardly one. That view deserves no quarter.

The fact that they detected collagen that was similar to chicken collagen is very exciting. But I think that in order to make this “smoking gun” REALLY smoke, they still should compare the T. rex collagen to modern lizard collagen, and also to mammal, amphibian, & turtle collagen. Evolution predicts that there should be a certain rough ratio of relatedness between these five types of collagen, in the same order as the geneological distance between the five species. Correct? And creationism would “predict”, if anything, a random distribution, since all similarities between “kinds” (however defined) are purely coincidental.

This would be the kind of comparison that would be compelling to laypeople like myself, even if working scientists already understand that dinos-to-birds is already a slam-dunk case.

And anyways, getting ancient proteins that can be examined directly (& ideally sequenced) is the holy grail of paleontology, isn’t it?

Groups like Answers in Genesis–which are believed to be scientific by people I’ve met in real life–are on the wrong side of the evidence. Recently, such as with this tissue, we’ve started seeing their new adaptive technique: Don’t reactively try to explain away the evidence, but rather, quickly put up claims that the new evidence dramatically supports creationism. Go on the offensive, in other words. i think it’s a good tactic. ID and Cretinism are going to continue to fool a lot of people for years to come.

Step back for a second and be happy with our lot. We really have it easy. Over the 150 years, a mountain of evidence has piled up, so large that only willfully ignorant people can deny it. 99% of smart people in the relevant fields will easily understand that evolution’s true. There’s no grave danger, really.

I think steve is correct here:

And creationism would “predict”, if anything, a random distribution, since all similarities between “kinds” (however defined) are purely coincidental.

On the contrary, creationism only ‘predicts’ that whatever science discovers is how the Creator chose to do it. Differences are explained by saying “Of course they’re different, they’re different kinds.” Similarities are explained by saying “Of course they’re similar, they were designed by the same designer.” Heads I win, tails you lose.

I add my thanks, too, part of the thunderous applause. I had recently listened to some friends discuss this report and was stunned by what they “knew” but I hadn’t had a chance to read the paper in Science which I will now do. Your analysis and distillation is going to shed light on this, I’m sure for I’m out of field here. What a nice job. Three cheers for TPT and its contributors.

Thanks for all the kind comments.

That is why I hope that scientists like Horner and Schweitzer whose creative ability attracts global attention will stop ignoring or denying their responsibility to address the creationist threat. It is no longer adequate to merely present results, but we must also address their larger implication and anticipate creationists’ attacks.

My remark that we should all acknowledge our social responsibility as scientists was not meant that we ought to “censor” anything. Rather that as part of our obligation to inform the public we should explicitly point out that there are no research results which support the young Earth creationists’ schemes.

While I agree with HPLC_Sean that nearly every scientist finds it much more fun to go into the field, or to do just about anything compared to dealing with creationists, it is still an obligation. Sadly, philosophers often lack the scientific background and find it just about as miserable to debate creationists as do scientists. The exceptions are still few even including the PT crowd, and other well known others.

It is also true that few scientists even know enough about creationism to be able to address the more common YEC distortions and misrepresentations which was also pointed out by Mike Hopkins. Often when I talk about creationism with colleagues they either chastise me for wasting my efforts, or they occassionly will say something like, “I suppose someone has to do it.”

The potential use of collagen for evolutionary studies is illustrated by Raymond P. Boot-Handford, Danny S. Tuckwell, Darren A. Plumb, Claire Farrington Rock, and Richard Poulsom 2003 A Novel and Highly Conserved Collagen (pro1(XXVII)) with a Unique Expression Pattern and Unusual Molecular Characteristics Establishes a New Clade within the Vertebrate Fibrillar Collagen Family J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 33, 31067-31077, August 15.

It will take a ton of work.

Re “[…] Heads I win, tails you lose.”

Yeah, and finding a “missing link” only increases the number of gaps. (rolls eyes)

Henry

I did not say that, Flint. Would I have, though? I’m not sure. If creationism means the “god did it” kind, then I would kind of agree. Deep similarities in engineered forms reflect design constraints. For example, the code in WindowsXP is similar to the code in Windows 2000 because MSFT didn’t want to waste huge resources engineering from scratch. They adapted a preexisting close solution. An omnipotent designer wouldn’t have such constraints. There’s no reason why an omnipotent designer’s creations would have to be so similar under the hood. You’d need to bring in some special pleading to explain underlying similarity, like, such and such a solution is very pleasing to god because so and so, therefore he wanted to reuse it. The creationists have never, to my knowledge, provided any good justification for the genetic similarity, even post-facto. It’s certainly not part of any ‘theory’ they claim to have.

steve Wrote:

The creationists have never, to my knowledge, provided any good justification for the genetic similarity, even post-facto. It’s certainly not part of any ‘theory’ they claim to have.

In my experience, creationists point out that code re-use is considered good programming practice, and best practices are what you’d expect from an intelligent designer.

I respond by pointing out that code re-use is a best practice precisely because it compensates for humans’ limited intelligence. It minimizes the complexity of the source code we have to deal with so we can bring it down to a manageable level given our puny human brainpower.

OTOH, for an infinitely-intelligent designer, the simplest, most efficient & modular code would be infinitesimally easier to design with than something many orders of magnitude more baroque.

Rampant code re-use is a sign (if anything) of a finitely intelligent designer. And evolution - a non-teleological, non-personal process - is about as finitely-intelligent a designer as you can have.

Rereading your post, Steve, I see you pretty much said what I said. :-)

Flint: I agree that creationist polemicists will spin away both similarities and differences between species as both supporting creationism, but the point is to convince the “audience”. When AiG writes their articles for their magazine, I assume they’re aiming for the kind of person who has just enough respect for logic & science to want to read the articles (otherwise they’d skip these “scientific” articles altogether), but not enough knowledge or skepticism or debating savvy to realize they’re being snowed.

IMO the way to counter this kind of rhetoric is to demonstrate that this new data - actual, ancient collagen - does indeed conform to what evolutionary theory predicted. For those in the audience who still hold reason as their highest epistemological value, it will be effective. For those who’ve abandoned reason & open-mindedness as being too risky to their chances for eternal life, there’s nothing we could ever say or demonstrate anyway.

“Let legitimate scientists do what they do best - observe, hypothesize, experiment, report. The philosophers can debate the creationists.”

I used to have the same argument with my major prof at Berkeley.

I used to use this analogy:

I can be a botanist studying bark in a forest of trees, and that’s great, until the forest is cut down.

“99% of smart people in the relevant fields will easily understand that evolution’s true. There’s no grave danger, really.”

famous last words.

I doubt they’ll be my last words.

do you understand what i am getting at tho? why do you think 45% of americans disbelieve the theory of common descent?

why has it not changed significantly in over 20 years (probably longer, but that’s as long as legitimate polls have been conducted on the issue)?

if you think the issue will just “go away”, I can argue against that postion quite easily. what real world figures do you have to support the idea that there is no grave danger? the assumption that the people around you support the validity of evolutionary theory? Take that claim outside of the Univeristy and see how well that holds up.

Why do you think PT even exists? do we spend more time here discussing the methods and conclusions of recent publications, or more time discussing the political realities of the ID movement and its potential and real impacts? think it is all just “chicken little”?

If science standards end up being changed, can you not see the ramifications?

that 99% of ‘smart’ people you refer to will likely greatly diminish over time, if they aren’t taught correct science to begin with.

I hate to say it, but you can hide your head in the sand all you want, it won’t change the political realities of what’s going on out there.

yeah, i doubt they’ll be your last words, but that doesn’t make them right, either.

If Schweitzer & Co found a few millimeters’ worth of dinosaur soft tissue during the process of demineralizing a fossil bone, does this mean that an extremely rare type of cellular fossilization occurred in this particular specimen, or that possibly thousands of similar samples might be found by excavating storage rooms of natural history museums? In any case, the mechanism of this “unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels” may be an even more fruitful research subject than the comparative micro-anatomy work covered in the Science report.

Let me add my kudos to Dr.GH both for the clarity of this post and for his fortitude in carrying out field work among the savage creationist tribes. While the full-timers (let’s not cheapen the word “professional”) such as Wieland & Menton, and the embarrassing performances of the mainstream media, are the ones most obviously in need of in-depth rebuttal, I hope he will also report on some of those creationist-tinged “web sites dedicated to competitive weight lifting, ‘Star Wars’ fan clubs, and Christian rock ‘n roll bands”…

Thanks for the comments.

On a more scientific note, the notion by Briggs that the original proteins may have formed some sort of polymer is very intriguing. If he is correct, this would be a very stable material. What ever it is- it is a very stable material and this could actually have commercial consequences.

I am reminded of Stanley Miller’s 1953 paper where he seemed more interested in the potential inductrial apptication of amino acid production than the implications to the origin of life.

ABC Bodybuilding, is a classic example of the type of creationist propaganda fount I sometimes scout. They won’t alow me (or any informed scientist) to post on topics related to their creationist screeds.

Gary wrote

On a more scientific note, the notion by Briggs that the original proteins may have formed some sort of polymer is very intriguing. If he is correct, this would be a very stable material. What ever it is- it is a very stable material and this could actually have commercial consequences.

Why did I suddenly flash on Dustin Hoffman and “One word: Plastic”?

Do I elaborate on what I meant, and ensnare myself further in a debate with a guy who calls himself “Sir Toejam”? No. Evolution’s not really in danger, and neither is my point.

Dr.GH Wrote:

ABC Bodybuilding, is a classic example of the type of creationist propaganda fount I sometimes scout.  They won’t alow me (or any informed scientist) to post on topics related to their creationist screeds.

Quite eye-opening. After a little head-scratching, I followed their “Bible Study Links” to a page apparently maintained by one “Old School: High Priest of Hyperplasic Sacraments”, from there to a link called “Richard Dawkins, the pope of evolutionism, cannot give an answer to the magic behind evolution.”, and thence to a dialog of ~100 postings on the theme, “(Christians) Do you believe the earth to be 6,000 years old?”

The content there ranges from stereotypical-dumb-jock raves about how smart “Dr. Hovind” is and awful “refutations” of carbon-14 dating from the ABCBodybuilding President to uninformed but game attempts to defend the scientific worldview and sincere questions based on good (if elementary) reasoning; even a science-journal-quoting heckler (who soon vanishes). I would highly recommend following up on this (and whatever other clues Dr. H may care to drop) for anyone planning to reach out to the general public on evolutionary issues - or on the need for more ‘n’ better science education!

I guess today it would be “Ms. Robinson.”

Regarding the media jump to Jurassic Park talk, I think part of the problem was just the slipperiness of lazy speech. People say “femur” instead of “fossil femur” and likewise otherwise cautious scientists bandied about the term “soft tissue” and the media were off and running without realizing a need to ask whether it was made of dinosaur or rock.

“Do I elaborate on what I meant, and ensnare myself further in a debate with a guy who calls himself “Sir Toejam”? No. Evolution’s not really in danger, and neither is my point.”

right, like i said, be comfortable hiding your head in the sand. when you run out of qualified grad students, do let me know?

Can someone answer a question:

Was Huxley a Proponent of Evoloution?…Just parts of it…or an Opponent?

Was Huxley a Proponent of Evoloution? … Just parts of it … or an Opponent?

Which Huxley, Thomas? He was a strong supporter of evolutionary theory, but he had some doubts about some of Darwin’s ideas. In short, about like every biologist today.

Well, its been quiet today.

Thanks for all the kind words.

Comments are closed.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Hurd published on April 20, 2005 9:58 PM.

Who’s Your Daddy? Intelligent Design Creationism at Harvard Law School was the previous entry in this blog.

Michigan’s Impending ID Lawsuit is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter