Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Response ArticleThis article (Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CC371:

Schweitzer et al. (1997a) found evidence of hemoglobin and red blood cells in an unfossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone. This indicates that the dinosaur died rather recently, not millions of years ago, which in turn indicates that the earth is young.

Source:

• Wieland, Carl, 1997 (Sep.-Nov.). Sensational dinosaur blood report. Creation 19(4): 42-43.
• Ham, K., J. Sarfati and C. Wieland, 2000. The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Green Forest AR: Master Books, pp. 246-247.

CreationWiki Response:

Even though Wieland's main source (M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997) is not easily available (and would have to be obtained at a Universisy Library, or purchased online via a document delivery service), this article did provide close up color photos of these red (blood-like) "cells".

It also needs to be noted that only the interior parts of the bone containing the "red blood cells" and "hemoglobin" were unfossilized.

It should also be noted that Carl Wieland and David Menton replied to many of Talk.Origins's objections, including the objections found in Hurd's often cited "Dino Blood Redux". It is a must read on this issue. [1]

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. The description of the "red blood cells" definitely sounds like red blood cells. Although Schweitzer et al clearly refused to believe that they are red blood cells, they have not been proved not to be red blood cells. The description of the objects favors their being red blood cells. The red blood cell interpretation is further supported by a more recent study, from which pictures of the red blood cell like objects are available.
2. Schweitzer et al. found clear evidence of heme which is a major component of hemoglobin. Rat immune experiments also confirmed that the material is of an organic nature. And the fact that hemoglobin is most prevalent heme baring protein in bone marrow show the heme most likely be from hemoglobin. Contrary to Talk Origins' claims, Schweitzer et al. shows evidence of hemoglobin. This conclusion is supported by the red blood cell like objects, whose red color supports the hemoglobin claim if they are indeed red blood cells. In fact the only reason for not concluding that these are red blood cells and hemoglobin is the belief that dinosaurs are 65+ million years old.

• Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296.
• Wieland, Carl, 1997 (Sep.-Nov.). Sensational dinosaur blood report. Creation 19(4): 42-43.

This is Straw Man since no one ever claimed that the bone was not fossilized, however the fact the bone was "not completely fossilized" shows that parts of it; not the entire bone; were unfossilized, specifically the part of the marrow containing "the red blood cells" and "hemoglobin".

Amino racemization dating is not an independent dating method, but must be calibrated with a sample of supposed known age and it needs to be calibrated for each situation. It is normally used to date fossils thought to be 5000-1000 years with a maximum "date" of 200,000 years, so it seems unlikely that this dating technique would be used on dinosaur tissue. This fact plus the lack of a reference makes it unlikely that the point is based in fact. However even if it was used there are plenty of reasons questioning its validity.

1. It calibrated with "known" sample date by radiometric dating, usually C14, thus the claim that it is nonradiometric, is deceptive.
2. It is known to be highly sensitive to temperature, such that and error of just +/- 2 degrees will cause an error in the date of +/- 50% . That's a whopper of an error for such a small difference in a property.
3. It is known to be highly sensitive to contamination, particularly in the presence of flowing water.
4. It is known to be highly sensitive to differences in pH such that small increase in pH will drastically increase the racemization rate.

Combined there is no reason why this method can not produce such high ages in sample that really only a few thousand years old.

• Reference: Racemization

This is Circular Reasoning since it presupposes that the other fossils are actually 10's of thousands to 300,000 years old. The fact is that if dinosaur fossils are less than 10,000 years old then so are these fossils. Also, a complete DNA sequence has been obtained from what is supposed to be a 17 million-year-old magnolia leaf (that was still pliable -- and green).

In addition: Unfossilized dinosaur bones HAVE BEEN dated on about 20-30 occasions (at different times, and at different laboratories), and the "dates" obtained are all between 10,000 and 48,000 years old: the same as for Unfossilized Sabretooth Tiger bones, and Neanderthal bones, and Mammoth bones. Perhaps that's because they are (almost certainly) the same age. Come to think of it, that's also (probably) why Dinosaurs are described in detail in the Old Testament book of Job.

This is an example of Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

External Links: See the Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA section of "Evidence for a Young Earth"

Responses to Anticreationist Assertions
Talk.Origins Index to Creationist Claims - responses to Index to Creationist Claims Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ - responses to Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions - responses to FABNAQ. EvoWiki