What are the found remains of these monsters really talking about?
And these are not headlines from the "yellow press" and not an attempt to fool an inquisitive reader by foisting on him another human find, which is "millions of years old"! Not at all. Although many researchers shamelessly play in this direction, having fun with a "bolt of 300 million years ago in a solid rock" or other very valuable artifacts, which are worthless on a market day and which can be safely "hammered in" …
If only because a number of conditions are naturally capable of "overestimating" the data of radiocarbon analysis … No, let's talk "from the other end": are there (very numerous) remains of dinosaurs found in different parts of the globe, those same "millions years”(up to 65 and the fall of the meteorite in the Gulf of Mexico), which we used to count from a school textbook ?!
In recent decades, impressive advances have been made in the field of such an unusual scientific discipline as molecular paleontology. It turned out that in the fossilized and not quite fossilized bones of extinct animals, in the shells of ancient mollusks and in other fossil remains, one can find not only non-decomposed fragments of proteins, but even, sometimes, DNA fragments. Moreover, the age of the remnants in accordance with evolutionary approaches is without hesitation estimated up to hundreds of thousands - hundreds of millions of years.
Back in 1997, a group of scientists (led by Mary Schweitzer) published the results of a study of the “underfossilized” Tyrannosaurus rex bone, which was dug up in Montana in 1990 and which was attributed to the age of 67, in the leading interdisciplinary journal of the US Academy of Sciences. –65 million years.
At the same time, the authors conducted a number of complex physicochemical studies, which demonstrated that iron was identified in the composition of heme (porphyrin structure of hemoglobin) in areas of bone with characteristic staining for blood vessels.
Thus, in 1997, Dr. Mary Schweitzer et al. Showed that, despite “tens of millions of years,” the remains of labile (unstable) organic molecules remained in the bone of a tyrannosaurus. Moreover, the specificity of the reaction with antibodies unambiguously indicated the residues of the hemoglobin of Tyrannosaurus rex …
That is, for "65 million years", very labile molecules of a large and complex protein - hemoglobin, for some reason did not completely disintegrate in that Tyrannosaurus rex, although it is known from other sources in molecular paleontology and molecular archeology that the preservation of proteins during intervals the time shorter by several orders of magnitude is very short!
Promotional video:
Translated into simple language - the analysis data convincingly testify: this dinosaur did not live "millions of years ago", but much closer to our time …
People caught dinosaurs and saw them live
Thus, the study of the remains of a Tyrannosaurus (1997) fully confirmed the apparent "freshness" of this specimen. But perhaps it was an isolated case?.. Which can be considered the very exception to the rule? But no. Only one scientific group of the same mentioned M. Schweitzer by 2005 publishes the results of the study of the bones of dinosaurs: three tyrannosaurs and hadrosaurus. In ALL four cases, soft tissues were obtained from the bones, transparent, elastic, elastic and morphologically (in "shape, appearance") almost indistinguishable from modern vessels, as well as formations almost identical to erythrocytes and bone cells (osteocytes) with nuclei visible under a microscope … And this is ABSOLUTELY contrary to the theory of "million years"!..
Moreover, fragments of collagen and osteocalcin (a specific bone protein) were extracted from the bone of one of the tyrannosaurs (the remains of other dinosaurs in this format were not studied), which reacted with the corresponding antibodies.
Surprisingly, other studies of dinosaur remains conducted over the entire time of the finds give approximately similar results.
So, in the bones of dinosaurs, if you "dig" in them, then, as a rule, vessels, erythrocytes and osteocytes are found. And the remains of osteocalcin with collagen, not counting hemoglobin.
Academic scientists could not help but see this. Dr. Mary Schweitzer's own reaction: “When the fossil disintegrated, transparent vessels remained. “It was a complete shock,” Schweitzer said. - "I didn't believe it until we repeated the experiments 17 times."
But even 17 times of repeating the experiment in no way changed the result, which is typical. However, this did not prevent the same scientists from collecting their thoughts and … to estimate the age of the remains in "millions of years." Well, yes - do not destroy the well-established theory!
At the same time, scientists bypass the question of the "miracle-preservation" of organic structures by the tenth road. Either they refer to the age of the inorganic, but the samples of dinosaur remains in all cases were demineralized, i.e. free from inorganics.
It turns out that, in fact, there is nothing to argue with real facts and research results. Nevertheless, this issue continues to be hushed up by academic science in every possible way.
If we start from the results of studies of the remains of dinosaurs, then we should say: the catastrophe that happened 65 million years ago, most likely, did not lead to the complete extinction of dinosaurs, but only significantly reduced their population, including at the species level.
Some of the individuals found most likely lived about 20-100 thousand years ago. Accordingly, people caught dinosaurs, saw them and could capture them live, including on such amazing artifacts as Ica stones …