http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2005/324/2
What???????????????????????

Believe or not believe?
hellm!g escreveu:no pouco tempo que passei no Orkut vi o sodré a ser esmagado por uma biologa a respeito desse assunto
We are all in the middle of something- a creationist attack on reason and science- and it is ugly.
manoelmac escreveu:Parece que é trabalho deles postarem a mesma coisa repetidamente... putz... parecem máquinas!!!
hellm!g escreveu:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.htmlWe are all in the middle of something- a creationist attack on reason and science- and it is ugly.
hellm!g escreveu:read between the lines.
Há mentiras dissimuladas
hellm!g escreveu:olha lá... olha láhellm!g escreveu:read between the lines.
Há mentiras dissimuladas
hellm!g escreveu:no pouco tempo que passei no Orkut vi o sodré a ser esmagado por uma biologa a respeito desse assunto
docdeoz escreveu:Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
Mary H. Schweitzer,1,2,3* Jennifer L. Wittmeyer,1 John R. Horner,3 Jan K. Toporski4
Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5717/1952
Mesmo isso é fantástico após 65 milhões de anos...
hellm!g escreveu:entre a linhas não há nada escrito. há as intenções. não falei dos artigos
"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 more fairly say 'incompetently,' none of the microphotographs associated with the AiG "announcement" of Schweitzer's new 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.
hellm!g escreveu:mais ou menos a meio
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html"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 more fairly say 'incompetently,' none of the microphotographs associated with the AiG "announcement" of Schweitzer's new 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.