Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
byCopyright © 2004-2006
[Posted: June 13, 2004]
[Fixed Links: October 1, 2006]
[Posted: June 13, 2004]
[Fixed Links: October 1, 2006]
common YEC misinterpretation of surviving organic
material in dinosaur bone is that this "proves" that the
Earth is young and that radiometric dating methods should
be rejected. Their argument reduces to nothing more than
organic molecules can't last a long while. The most
commonly cited materials are fragments of the bone protein
osteocalcin, Muyzer et al
(1992), and hemoglobin, Schweitzer et al (1997). I have
already dealt with Carl Weiland's bogus assertion that "red
blood cells" and "hemoglobin" had been discovered intact in
"fresh" dinosaur bones (Wieland
1997) in "Dino-blood and the Young
Earth". I turn now to the argument that the
preservation of ancient osteocalcin fragments can be
construed as evidence for a young earth.
My interest in osteocalcin was sparked by a young earth creationist
asserting, "Actually, the Genesis Creation account fits the evidence
perfectly. Far better than the theory of evolution, certainly. For one thing,
all the evidence suggesting a young Earth fits the Creation account and
essentially disproves evolution - for example, how is it that some fossilized
dinosaur remains contain blood (or something) that could not exist for millions
of years even in a fossilized state (see page 236 of In Six Days for the
specific claim)?"
They later wrote, "Look, my point about fossilized
dinosaur bones being found with "recognizable bone protein" is completely
"scientifically relevant" to the issue of the age of the Earth."
They then presented a quote by John R. Baumgardner from Chapter 24 of the book In Six Days (Baumgardner 2001).
The osteocalcin equals a young Earth argument originated with the writing of young Earth creationist John Baumgardner based on scientific research reported in Muyzer et al (1992). As discussed below, Baumgardner's argument seems predicated on a fervent a priori young Earth creationist faith which destroys scientific objectivity, coupled with his very cursory or incompetent reading of the scientific literature.
In Six Days (inexpensive remaindered and used copies are available at Amazon.com) was published in 2001 and based on experience, the manuscripts would have been submitted about a year before publication. I would ordinarily limit my direct criticism of Baumgardner on this point to relevant scientific literature that he reasonably had access to in 2000. However, a bit of textual research reveals that Baumgardner has been making variations of this false argument since 1995. His 2001 book section is a nearly verbatim version of an earlier article, still carried on-line today (accessed April 11, 2004) on the Institute for Creation Research's web site. This in turn was a compilation of a series of Letters-to-the-Editor Baumgardner had published in The Los Alamos Monitor between 1995 and 1997. Further, this claim is still repeated and published by other creationists and their lack of diligence must be noted as well. An honest person must take the available opportunity to correct their errors of fact or logic, which Baumgardner has not done in nearly a decade. So we will take in to consideration the publications by Baumgardner from 1995 forward, and all available relevant publications by scientists.
Baumgardner's earliest abuse of the literature on
osteocalcin was part of a claim he made in 1995 that
radiometric data on the age of the Earth ought to be
denied, because "Radiometric techniques are in glaring
conflict with most non-radiometric means for estimating
geological time"
(1995A). There is a glaring
error in his argument; the very notion that the
"non-radiometric methods" he promotes are worth
consideration as estimates of the age of the Earth.
Baumgardner wrote in 2001 that "There are other
processes which are not as easy to express in quantitative
terms, such as the degradation of protein in a geological
environment, that also point to a much shorter time scale
for the geological record."
The specific non-radiometric methods he referred to are
more aptly called "non-metric non-methods." In addition to
"The amazing state of preservation of bone protein in
dinosaur bone from many locations in the world, ..."
we
give more attention to later, Baumgardner included, "ion
accumulation in the oceans
," "diffusion of
radiogenic helium measured in highly radioactive zircon
crystals
," and "the capture of entire magnetic
reversal events in single volcanic lava flows
." (1995B). In Baumgardner (2001) he repeats
these claims, and adds "sediment accumulation into the
ocean basins,"
and the "rate of uplift of the
Himalayan mountains."
Baumgardner's entire comment regarding sodium (salt)
concentration in the ocean is, "The sixth less than
honest aspect of evolutionary theory concerns the
confidence level assigned to radiometric dating methods.
Radiometric techniques are in glaring conflict with most
non-radiometric means for estimating geological time. One
example is the rate of soluble ion accumulation in the
oceans. Concentrations of highly soluble species like
sodium, that are far below saturation levels in ocean
water, are readily measurable in the world's rivers. The
simplistic procedure of dividing the present mass of sodium
in the oceans by the current rate of sodium deposition
yields an age for the oceans less that two percent of the
radiometric age of the earth!"
Baumgardner (1995A). The irony
of Baumgardner saying that anything related to evolution or
the age of the Earth is "less than honest" should be sliced
and sold by the pound. This salty argument can actually be
traced back nearly 300 years to Edmund Halley in 1715, and
as Brent Dalrymple's review presents, the calculated
residence time of sodium in the oceans is
about 68 million years (1991: 52-58). It has been known for
many decades that this is no basis by which to calculate
the age of the Earth, or even the age of oceans. Dalrymple
also dismantled the sedimentary accumulation argument and
by a simple extension this answers any other argument based
on erosion of geological features as an estimate of
The Age of the Earth (1991: 59-69). There
are instances were specific geologic features' ages may be
estimated, but with a very limited scope and accuracy.
Baumgardner belabors the Helium in zircons argument in his (2001) chapter, and was co-author on an Institute for Creation Research publication on this topic, Humphreys et al (2003). Pedantically, one should note that this is actually a radiometric issue. The demonstration that this is a false argument is addressed in readily accessed Internet sources, Meert (2003A) "More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research," and Isaak (2004) "Index to Creationist Claims." The actual geophysical modes of helium production by radioactive decay and accumulation are reviewed at The Stanford University Noble Gas Lab (2004) "The (U-Th)/He method." It should be needless to say; there is no scientific support for Baumgardner's contentions.
Baumgardner's claim that there has been, "the capture
of entire magnetic reversal events in single volcanic lava
flows"
is quite simply a falsehood. Creationist
distortion of magnetic reversal data owes much to Humphreys (1993)
"The Earth's
magnetic field is young." This "work" has been thoroughly
debunked. Some marvelous geological and historical data
plus a very revealing examination of Humphreys' methods is
available at, Is
the Earth's Magnetic Field Young? Joe Meert (2003B,
accessed March 28, 2004). Additional discussion worth
reviewing is at "
A Word to the Wise" by Christopher C. Tew on
creationism's general misrepresentation of geological
research including magnetic reversals. Current research
indicates the reversals alone take about 7,000 years to
complete, Clement (2004).
So just for openers, Baumgardner is arguing merely from methods long exposed as failed, or in the case of osteocalcin, personal incredulity about a topic upon which he has done no relevant research.
The biochemistry of osteocalcin is both interesting and directly relevant to our discussion. I highly recommend that the reader consult at least the opening sections of Measurement of Osteocalcin Lee et al (2000), (easily available to Baumgardner) with particular attention to Figures 1 (reproduced below), and 3.
From Lee et al (2000)
Osteocalcin (syn. Bone Gla Protein, ) is a relatively small protein 49 amino acids long. Confirmation of the presence of osteocalcin by Muyzer et al (1992) was the detection of g-carboxyglutamic acid. This uniquely vertebrate amino acid gamma-Carboxy-glutamyl (Gla), is produced by the gamma-carboxylation of glutamyl residues at amino acid positions 17, 21 and 24 of osteocalcin which confers a great affinity to bind to Ca+2, and consequently to the bone mineral hydroxyapatite. Mizuguchi et al (2001), and Collins, et al (1999) provides an extended discussion of osteocalcin calcium binding and its relevance to long-term protein stability. Non-serum osteocalcin (the majority) is deposited in the extracellular bone matrix. Note that this puts osteocalcin in intimate contact with the calcium in bone minerals.
Some difficulties exist in the standardization of assay methods, which interferes with the quantitative assay of osteocalcin. Osteocalcin is a "late comer" in geo-evolutionary terms and highly conserved -has very little variation- among vertebrates. Mature human osteocalcin has the amino acid sequence presented here for reference: (1)Tyr-Leu-Tyr-Gln-Trp-Leu-Gly-Ala-Pro-Val-Pro-Tyr-Pro-Asp-Pro-Leu-Gla-Pro-Arg-(20)Arg-Gla-Val-Cys-Gla-Leu-Asn-Pro-Asp-Cys-Asp-Glu-Leu-Ala-Asp-His-Ile-Gly-Phe-Gln-(40)Glu-Ala-Tyr-Arg-Arg-Phe-Tyr-Gly-Pro-Val, American Peptide Company, Inc (2002).
There are 5 well characterized immunoreactive fragments used for modern osteocalcin assay: N-terminal (amino acids 1-19), Mid (20-43), C-terminal (44-49), N-terminal-mid (1-43), and Mid-C-terminal (20-49). The assay method used by Muyzer et al (1992) was sensitive to a portion of the protein mid region, specifically amino acids Pro(15) - Glu(31). The region employed by Muyzer et al (1992) is roughly comparable to, and contained within, the Mid (20-43) section. Significantly, this is the region containing three molecules of gamma-Carboxy-glutamyl (amino acids 17, 21, and 24) that most strongly bind to bone mineral. Consequently, this protein segment will persist in a recognizable form so long as the bone mineral does not recrystallize, (Mizuguchi et al 2001, Collins et al 1999). Three important papers easily available to Baumgardner in 2001, Collins et al (1998), (1999) and (2000), provide kinetic, and experimental results which demonstrate that the long term stability of osteocalcin fragments is contingent on its being bound to calcium. Collins et al (2000) observed, "Nevertheless, our findings demonstrate the importance of mineral association to protein survival, as was borne out by an investigation of Holocene (ca. 6 ka) bones. Only in those samples with little recrystallisation was the a-carboxylated mid region well preserved."
Baumgardner’s poor understanding here is typical when creationist claims are subjected to critical review. He apparently lacked even the interest to review the literature available to him in 2000, and misinterpreted what scientific papers he did reference. He then made a totally unsupported conclusion that the Earth is only thousands of years old, and that radiometric dating should be abandoned based on his inability to read the scientific literature.
John Baumgardner converted to fundamentalism and became
a young Earth creationist as an engineering student. Years
later, he pursued a doctorate in geophysics which he
received from UCLA in 1983. He describes that his
motivation for graduate study was focused on Noah's flood,
"Back in 1978 I felt strongly led to go back to graduate
school and get professional credentials to work on the
problem of what happened to the Earth in the flood."
Unlike the majority of science students, Baumgardner's
interest in a science career was not related to discovering
true facts about nature. In his own words, "I would say
my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of
God's Word, plain and simple."
( http://www.rae.org/believe.html
accessed 12, April 2004). As we will see, his fervent
commitment to biblical literalism presages and shapes any
work that we have from Baumgardner. By his own admission,
objectivity is not a characteristic of his "science." This
does not destroy Baumgardner's ability to function
competently away from scientific issues directly associated
with young earth creationism, but it must give pause to any
acceptance of those issues he might see as related to
things such as evolutionary biology, the Noah's Flood myth
or the age of the earth.
Baumgardner has this to say on osteocalcin found in
dinosaur bone, "It is now well established that
unmineralized dinosaur bone still containing recognizable
bone protein exists in many locations around the world.
[17] From my own firsthand experience with such material,
it is inconceivable that bone containing such
well-preserved protein could possibly have survived for
more than a few thousand years in the geological settings
in which they are found."
(2001:236).
The cited reference, [17], in Baumgardner's chapter was
to "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in
Dinosaurs," by G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M.H.J. Knapen, C.
Vermeer, M. Collins, and P. Westbroek published in
Geology (1992, vol. 20, pp. 871-874). This
only a slight variation on his (1995A) statement that,
"The amazing state of preservation of bone protein in
dinosaur bone from many locations in the world, including
New Mexico's own Seismosaurus, likewise suggests profound
conflict with radiometric techniques."
Baumgardner's statement "From my own firsthand
experience with such material, ..."
is more or less the
same as him saying "Based on nothing
..." as he has
no published paleontological or molecular biology research.
We can at least judge his ability to fairly and accurately
report the research of others. Baumgardner claims that Muyzer et al (1992) reported the
bone protein, osteocalcin, was "well-preserved" and that
based on Baumgardner's non-existent personal experience
this must have been from material less than a few thousand
years old under "the geological settings in which they
are found
." His reference to Muyzer et al (1992) is the sole
information on this topic he apparently has ever had at his
disposal. Baumgardner has not understood the major points
of the only relevant osteocalcin article he cited, and he
seems to have never followed the published research on
fossil osteocalcin, or the biochemistry of osteocalcin. And
he uses his lack of understanding to support his absolutist
rejection of radiometric dating.
The dinosaur specimens tested by Muyzer et al (1992) came only from Alberta Canada, (3 specimens) and "unknown, Upper cretaceous" (3 specimens). This is a very distorted version of "many." I know of one other scientific study that recovered bone protein (osteocalcin) fragments from an Iguanodon dinosaur bone recovered in England, Embery et al (2003). And while Baumgardner obviously is unaware of this paper, as a matter of fact the Embery et al Iguanodon bone specimen was much older than the material studied by Muyzer et al. This is still a distorted version of "many." Ulrich et al (1987) also identified osteocalcin from later, non-dinosaur fossil bones and teeth. Gurley et al (1991) did analyze the organic content of bone from a Seismosaurus with positive results, but did not report the presence of osteocalcin. None of these articles seemingly had any connection to, nor in any event could be used, to support Baumgardner's sweeping claims.
Another example of Baumgardner's poor reading
comprehension is that nowhere in Muyzer et al (1992) do they
argue that the osteocalcin they report was "well
preserved
," or from "unmineralized dinosaur
bone."
We can read from their abstract, "Two
different immunological assays were used to identify the
remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the
bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates."
Not
one dinosaur bone showed the equal degree of protein
integrity as modern bone or Pleistocene fossil bone (table
2, pp. 872). There is actually little detailed information
provided about the burial conditions of the samples
analyzed by Muyzer et al
(1992), and as Baumgardner
(2001) can offer no additional data or references, his
elaboration "in the geological settings in which they
were found."
is the purest fabrication. Baumgardner's (1995B) claim
that "protein
(referring to osteocalcin) in
dinosaur bone buried in strongly leaching conditions in
porous rock"
had been recovered is dishonest. The only
samples that received any detailed stratigraphic discussion
in the original publication were two approximately
contemporaneous fossils from the Upper Cretaceous,
designated F38, and F39. These data indicated that the
slightly younger bone (2.25 Ma younger) experienced greater
absolute temperatures and higher matrix permeability to
water. Significantly, this younger bone showed no
preservation of osteocalcin at all. This is a direct
contradiction of Baumgardner’s report of this
research; the actual relationship is the more "leaching,"
the less protein preservation.
The foregoing demonstrated that Baumgardner's claim that the presence of osteocalcin fragments in ancient bone could provide any support for his conclusions was without rational basis. These claims were that A) the Earth is merely thousands of years old, and B) we should reject radiometric dating as a consequence of his bogus interpretation of actual research. This was shown merely from a careful and competent reading of Muyzer et al (1992), the only relevant article that Baumgardner actually proclaims to have read himself. There is a further argument to be made for the lack of diligence of Baumgardner and his followers; they do not even bother to maintain familiarity with the relevant literature.
Baumgardner has argued that there are severe
discrepancies in scientific dating methods. On examination
of this argument, the radiometric dating methods are
broadly compatible and based on well-established physical
principles. The methods offered as counter examples by
Baumgardner have been long known by scientists as failed
attempts, or are based on refuted creationist "research."
From this Baumgardner concludes that consistent and
reliable radiometric methods be abandoned, "For the
pieces of the puzzle to fit together for the earth, the
radiometric time scale must be abandoned."
(1995A) And, "I therefore
believe the case is strong from a scientific standpoint to
reject radiometric methods as a valid means for dating
geological materials."
(2001). In the specific case of
the preservation of fragments of the bone protein
osteocalcin, Baumgardner can offer no reason that these
should not be found, other than his "personal experience"
which in turn is found to be non-existent. This latter bit
of business is classic "argument from authority."
Baumgardner cloaks himself as a "scientist" and insists
that his "personal experience" is sufficient to determine
that the earth is young and that radiometric dating should
be ignored.
Other creationists act as an "echo chamber" for the falsehoods promoted from within their ranks. This is particularly true for the handful with scientific training that they exploit in "arguments from authority." The development of creationism, and particularly "creation science" in the United States has been very sympathetically reported by Ron Numbers (1992).
But in the elaboration of myth, once mere facts are
rejected, there is no limit to the conceptual horizon. In
his 1995 letters, Baumgardner goes so far as to assert
that, "An error in time scale of even one order of
magnitude reduces the evolutionary paradigm to complete
rubble."
(1995A). It is
perhaps tedious to point out that Darwin's theory of
evolution predates the discovery of atomic radiation and
was published about fifty years earlier than the concept
that radioactive decay might be used to date geological
processes. Evolutionary biology was over a century old
before there were even slightly accurate radiometric dating
methods, and those have since been continuously improved.
Even if these methods were found incorrect (very unlikely),
there would be no logical consequence to the validity of
evolution.
The creationist "ministry" Answers in
Genesis (AiG) that figured
prominently in the Dino-blood folderol has also made
similar use of the osteocalcin discovery. AiG in a 2001
item called
"Focus: news of interest about creation and evolution:
Dino bone riddle" stated that, "So there is
no reason not to accept the original premise, based on
sound physico-chemical
[sic] reasoning, that
osteocalcin cannot survive for more than a few thousand
years. Whenever such fragile molecules are found in fossils
allegedly millions of years old, it is more evidence
consistent with the Bible’s record of a young
Earth"
(AiG, 2001). AiG then typically referenced a
secondary news item that did not even support their
assertion. Indeed, the only sound research has been cited
here, Collins (et al) 1998,
1999 and 2000 which instead of wasting time trying to deny
scientific results, has established the physiochemical
basis for the preservation of osteocalcin fragments for
many millions of years. AiG returned to this canard in 2001
with, "Widespread accounts of human contact with
‘dinosaur-like’ creatures together with
findings of ‘fresh’ osteocalcin protein and red
blood cells in dinosaur bones support the biblical
time-frame"
(References deleted) (AiG, 2001). For
anyone just tuning in: there was no "fresh osteocalcin" nor
red blood cells ever found in dinosaur bones. AiG compounds
their falsehoods in 2003 with, "Evolutionists have been
skeptical about reports that dinosaur bones, dated at over
65 million years old, contained osteocalcin and even red
blood cells (Creation 15(2):9, 1993; see
also Creation 23(4):15, 2001.). They surmised
(logically) that organic material should have long since
biodegraded—but they missed the obvious conclusion
that the bones must be ‘young’ (consistent with
being buried in the global Flood around 4,500 years
ago)."
First of all, we all know that "red blood cells"
have never been found in dinosaur fossils, just as intact
osteocalcin has not been recovered from dinosaur fossils.
After the early reports of the preservation and recovery of
these protein fragments, it was
reasonably demanded that a mechanism be proposed and tested
to account for this fact. This was accomplished, and yet
creationists are still stuck in denial. The recovery of
ancient protein fragments is a significant scientific
result, but like all science, it gives no support for
mythical floods. Carl Wieland also entered this clown act,
trying to defend his argument that there are "fresh"
dinosaur remains by claiming that if osteocalcin had been
found, then for some reason that made the discovery of
blood cells more likely (Wieland
2002).
Baumgardner, in his first letter to the Los Alamos
Monitor said, "In summary I submit that
evolutionary theory is far from having the status of
"fact-based science." Myth is too generous a term for an
idea that properly should be labeled intellectual fraud. I
predict at some time in the not too distant future it will
be regarded as one of the most outrageous hoaxes ever
perpetrated on the human race."
Should we substitute
"creationism" for "evolution" above we would be closer to
the truth. But we need not wait for the future to expose
the promoters of 'creation science' such as Baumgardner as
frauds. The future is now. The creation science depiction
of dinosaur research is an outrageous hoax.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Michael Collins for providing the majority of his publications, and to Mike Hopkins for formatting, and editorial assistance.
American Peptide Company, Inc. 2002 "Osteocalcin (1-49)", Human http://www.americanpeptide.com/commerce/catalog/product.jsp?product_id=16052
Answers in Genesis 2001 "Focus: news of interest about creation and evolution: "Dino bone riddle" Creation 23(3): 7–9 June http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/focus.asp
Answers in Genesis 2002 "Focus: news of interest about creation and evolution: Dino theory under a cloud" published: Creation 24(3): 7 June 2002 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/focus.asp
Answers in Genesis 2003 "Focus: news of interest about creation and evolution: Protein survivor" Creation 25(3): 7–9 June http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/focus.asp
John R. Baumgardner 1995-1997 "Letters to the Editor of The Los Alamos Monitor" These were accessed from http://globalflood.org/letters/letterindex.html on 16, March 2004. These letters ran from 20 Jan 1995 to 15 Aug 1997 and formed the basis for Baumgardner's subsequent publications cited herein.
Baumgardner, John R. 1995A Letter to the Editor The Los Alamos Monitor 23 Feb.
Baumgardner, John R. 1995B Letter to the Editor The Los Alamos Monitor 21 April
Baumgardner, John R. 2001 "Baumgardner, John R., Chapter 24', in In Six Days John F. Ashton, editor. Green Forest Arkansas: Master Books. Also published as: "Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate" Research Papers, Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_debatehighlights accessed March 16, 2004.
Clement, Bradford M. 2004 "Dependence of the duration of geomagnetic polarity reversals on site latitude" Nature 428, 637–640 (2004);
Collins, M.J., Child, A.M., van Duin, A.T.C. & Vermeer, C. 1998 "Ancient osteocalcin; the most stable bone protein?" Ancient Biomolecules. 2: 223-238.
Collins, M. J., et al 1999 Is osteocalcin stabilised in ancience bones by absporption to bioapatite?" Ancient Biomolecules 2(2): 223-233.
Collins, M.J., Gernaey, A.M., Nielsen-Marsh, C.M., Vermeer, C., Westbroek, P. 2000 "Osteocalcin in fossil bones: evidence of very slow rates of decomposition from laboratory studies." Geology, 28: 1139 - 1142.
Collins, M. J., C. Nielseen-Marsh, J. Hiller, C. I. Smith and J. P. Roberts 2002 " The Survival of Organic Matter in Bone: A Review" Archeaometry 44, 3: 383-394
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991 The Age of the Earth pp: 52-58 Stanford: Stanford University Press
Embery G, Milner AC, Waddington RJ, Hall RC, Langley MS, Milan AM. 2003 Identification of proteinaceous material in the bone of the dinosaur Iguanodon Connect Tissue Res Vol. 44 Supplement 1: 41-6.
Gurley, L., Valdez, J.G, Spall, W.D., Smith, B.F., and Gillette, D.D. 1991. Proteins in the fossil bone of the dinosaur, Seismosaurus. Journal of Protein Chemistry, 0(1): 75-90.
Humphreys, Russell 1993 "The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young" Impact No. 242 http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371
Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling 2003 Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay July 22, 2003 http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
Isaak, Mark (editor) 2004 Index to Creationist Claims TalkOrigins Archive http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
Lee, Allison Jane, Stephen Hodges, Richard Eastell 2000 "Measurement of osteocalcin" Am. Clin. Biochem 37:4332-446 http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/carr/RESOURCES/osteocalcin.pdf
Meert, Joe 2003A More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research Last accessed 08 April 2004 http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm#who
Meert, Joe 2003B Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young? Accessed March 28, 2004. http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm
Mizuguchi, M., R. Fujisawa, M. Nara, K. Nitta, and K. Kawano 2001 "Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopic Study of Ca2+-Binding to Osteocalcin" Calcified Tissue International. http://www.springerlink.com/content/yketwjk000c3gxgl/
Muyzer G., Sandberg P. Knapen M.H.J., Vermeer C., Collins M.J., and Westbroek P. (1992) Preservation of bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs. Geology 20, 871-874.
Numbers, Ron 1992 The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism Berkeley : The University of California Press
Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey (1997) "Heme compounds in dinosaur Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291
The Stanford University Noble Gas Lab The (U-Th)/He method http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/noble/helium.html Accessed 08 April 2004
Ulrich, M.M.W., Perizonius, W.R.K., Spoor, C.F., Sandberg, P., and Vermeer, C. 1987. Extraction of osteocalcin from fossil bones and teeth. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 149(2): 712-719
Wieland, Carl 1997 "Sensational dinosaur blood report" Creation Ex Nihilo 19(4): 42–43 September–November
Wieland, Carl 2002 "Evolutionist questions AiG report — Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils? First Posted 25 March, 2002. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |