Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

This is final:T. Rex had mammalian RBC's.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Wretch Fossil - 22 Jul 2009 06:16 GMT
Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
wide
renown for publishing on the Science Journal an article about the
soft
tissue of a T. Rex dinosaur. She released the following two photos
that show--in her words-- "round structure" in the
"blood vessel". I found they were actually mammalian red blood cells
as labelled in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Don't forget to compare them with
the birds' red blood cells in Fig. 3.

Fig.1: Newly labled huge,red,round,concave, thus mammalian, red blood
cells within the blood vessel.

http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881284001&p=20

Fig. 2: Newly labled, nearly same as above.
          http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881274248&p=21

Fig. 3: Birds' RBC's

http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881203610&p=22
Devils Advocaat - 22 Jul 2009 19:52 GMT
> Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> wide
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881203610&p=22

You are a wretched fool, see what Mary Schweitzer has to say about the
very same image:

Source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html

Extract:

Q: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells. Is this so?
Judith Chester, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A: Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look
like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it
looks like a duck…." But after 70 million years, just because
something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The
fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to
show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular
level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.

However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates
(fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in
circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells "spit out"
the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a
disease). So, because dinosaurs' closest relatives are crocodiles and
birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been
nucleated.

End of extract.

Which blows your little story right out of the water.
Wretch Fossil - 24 Jul 2009 04:34 GMT
> > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > wide
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -

Your extract came from two years ago. Dr. Schweitzer has completed her
chemistry test. She also did a immunization test with animals by
injecting the animals with the protein remains of T.Rex RBC
(haemoglobin). That test proves the T.Rex remains contain organic
matter--haemoglobin of RBC.So, it is beyond doubt that the T.Rex
remains contain red blood cells. What she was wrong about was that she
identified the RBC's as nucleated (therefore non-mammalian)rather than
non-nucleated (mammalian). The fact is that the red blood cells
labelled in my Figure 1 and Figure 2 are " round and concave in the
blood vessel". Those shape features determine whether they were
mammals or not.

I have examined more fossilized RBC's than she did.
She was mistaken about the RBC's being non-mammalian, for she pre-
suppose that dinosaurs were not mammals or she twisted her findings to
suit the mainstrem view that dinosaurs were non-mammals.
Devils Advocaat - 24 Jul 2009 05:43 GMT
> > > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > > wide
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> suppose that dinosaurs were not mammals or she twisted her findings to
> suit the mainstrem view that dinosaurs were non-mammals.

What evidence do you have that you are right and everyone else is
wrong?

Where are your published and peer reviewed papers?

What do you see in those images that proves the cell-like structures
are biconcave and not biconvex?
Ken - 24 Jul 2009 20:49 GMT
> What evidence do you have that you are right and everyone else is
> wrong?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What do you see in those images that proves the cell-like structures
> are biconcave and not biconvex?

I'm probably stating the obvious but this wretched fool is Lin, one of
the internet's more notorious raving lunatics
Devils Advocaat - 24 Jul 2009 21:04 GMT
> > What evidence do you have that you are right and everyone else is
> > wrong?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I'm probably stating the obvious but this wretched fool is Lin, one of
> the internet's more notorious raving lunatics

Raving lunatic is a little strong, I prefer non compos mentis as a
descriptor.
Wretch Fossil - 26 Jul 2009 13:52 GMT
> > > > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > > > wide
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are abnormal when normal people see them as concave rather than
convex structures.
Devils Advocaat - 26 Jul 2009 16:24 GMT
> > > > > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > > > > wide
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
> You are abnormal when normal people see them as concave rather than
> convex structures.

It is clear from your comment you are unable to answer my questions.

But tell me this, are you implying also that Dr. Schweitzer is
abnormal as well?
Wretch Fossil - 31 Jul 2009 14:30 GMT
> > > > > > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > > > > > wide
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -

She is abnormal if she cannot see the concaveness of the following
RBC:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881274248&p=21

To prove my point, you show your students/friends the above figure and
ask them if the figure shows concave or convex object, they will
surely tell you "concave". For it is as concave as human RBC in this
figure:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881251765&p=33
Devils Advocaat - 31 Jul 2009 16:22 GMT
> > > > > > > Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer, an American paleontologist, received world-
> > > > > > > wide
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> She is abnormal if she cannot see the concaveness of the following
> RBC:http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881274248&p=21

So you are prepared to insult an experienced paleontologist are you?

> To prove my point, you show your students/friends the above figure and
> ask them if the figure shows concave or convex object, they will
> surely tell you "concave". For it is as concave as human RBC in this
> figure:http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=12&f=1881251765&p=33
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.