REALL News - Vol 13 No 04 - 2005

Magazine Overview

The REALL News, Volume 13, Number 4, published in May 2005, is the official newsletter of the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land. This issue focuses on the scientific discovery of dinosaur soft tissues and the subsequent reactions from creationist groups and the media.

Dino-Blood Redux by Dr. Gary S. Hurd

Dr. Gary S. Hurd's article addresses the discovery of dinosaur soft tissues, including cell types comparable to modern ostrich cells, reported by Mary Higby Schweitzer and colleagues in the journal *Science* on March 24, 2005. The discovery, made from a T. rex femur, was immediately seized upon by creationist groups to support their claims of a young Earth. Hurd notes that unlike a similar 1990s discovery by Schweitzer, this time both Schweitzer and co-author Jack Horner made explicit statements that the find did not contradict established science or the age of the Earth.

Hurd expresses a lack of personal interest in dinosaurs but feels compelled to address the creationist distortion of this research, having previously written on the topic. He clarifies that the *Science* article itself is a straightforward report, but the mineral component of the femur was removed, leaving an organic mass with characteristics similar to ostrich bone. Schweitzer et al. identified potential osteocytes, blood cells, and vessels, stating they were similar to those found in extant ostrich bone. While they offered no alternative explanation, the article notes a comment about whether preservation is strictly morphological or extends to the subcellular and molecular levels.

The accompanying perspective article by Eric Stokstad in *Science* highlights the tantalizing prospects of the finding. Hurd points out that the advantage of scientific journals is the availability of extensive supplemental online details. He explains that the main article left many with the impression that the tissues were soft when first exposed, which is not true; the material was rehydrated and buffered. The press, however, created an impression of large, fresh-tissue-like structures, when in reality, the examined structures were only millimeters across.

A significant point of contention for Hurd is the press interviews given by Schweitzer, which repeatedly hinted at the recovery of DNA and even cloning. He cites a 2-minute Associated Press video that heavily featured *Jurassic Park* clips and Schweitzer's cautious statement, "No this does not mean that we are cloning dinosaurs in our lab, and we probably will not." This, coupled with the narrator's tone, suggested to Hurd that the public was being misled.

A better video from MSNBC, while still containing easily misinterpreted statements from Schweitzer, did not rely on *Jurassic Park* footage. However, Schweitzer's comment about the contents of vessels being readily "squeezed out" without context led to the impression that the remains were exceptionally fresh.

The print media, including the *Los Angeles Times*, were more measured but still referred to the recovered material as "fresh" while describing weeks of labor to recover it. Hurd criticizes a *Los Angeles Times* editorial that referred to paleontologists as "fossil geeks" and expressed dismay at the possibility of cloning a T. rex, indicating a lack of understanding of the scientific article.

The *New York Times* editorial, "An Unexpected Softness," is noted for its observation on the general tension between science and religion.

The REALL News - Purpose and Editorial Stance

The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rational thinking and the scientific method. REALL conducts research, convenes meetings, and publishes a newsletter to disseminate information. The organization adheres to the premise that the scientific method is the most reliable way to gain knowledge and does not reject paranormal claims a priori but insists on objective, critical inquiry. The REALL News is its official newsletter.

Membership rates are provided, along with the Board of Directors and Editorial Board members. The newsletter grants permission for other skeptic organizations to reprint articles, provided proper credit is given, and requests copies of such reprints. The views expressed in the articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent REALL's views.

From the Chairman - Wally Hartshorn

Chairman Wally Hartshorn addresses the recent dinosaur fossil discovery and the immediate creationist response, which declared it proof of recent dinosaur existence and thus a refutation of millions of years. He notes the exchange in the *Springfield's State Journal-Register* involving creationists and REALL members. Hartshorn states that REALL cares about the truth and has dedicated this expanded issue to an article by Gary S. Hurd, found on the pro-evolution website The Panda's Thumb, to provide a detailed look at the discovery and its implications.

Dino-Blood Redux (Continued)

Hurd continues by discussing the caution advised by Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University regarding the interpretation of such findings. Poinar notes that nucleated protozoan cells found in 225-million-year-old amber had their nuclei replaced by resin, and flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites, despite their appearance, did not retain their original material.

Hurd reiterates that reworked material can mimic the appearance of "tissues." He emphasizes that the supplemental details available online provide crucial context often missed in popular reports. The main article's impression of pliable, fresh tissue is corrected; the material was rehydrated, buffered, and fixed. The press, however, focused on large features resembling fresh tissue, when the structures were only millimeters across.

Hurd strongly criticizes the press interviews, particularly a 2-minute AP video that sensationalized the discovery with *Jurassic Park* clips and Schweitzer's denial of cloning, framed in a way that implied the possibility. He contrasts this with a more sober MSNBC report, though still noting Schweitzer's potentially misleading statements.

The *Los Angeles Times* report, while more grounded, still referred to the material as "fresh" and was criticized for an editorial that dismissed paleontologists as "fossil geeks" and showed ignorance about the scientific implications.

The New Creationist Response: the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

This section details the immediate reaction from creationist websites and bulletin boards. Hurd received an email demanding he retract his previous writings. The creationist arguments are summarized into several themes:

1. The discovery was of "fresh" soft tissue, obvious to the naked eye.
2. Fresh tissue proves these bones are recent.
3. Scientists know this and deliberately lie to the public.
4. Evolutionary biology and related sciences are anti-God or demonic.

Hurd attributes these beliefs to professional creationists who profit from promoting ignorance. He contrasts this with a statement from the clergy endorsing an open letter concerning religion and science.

Carl Wieland, MD, of Answers in Genesis, is cited for his proclamation that the find is a "stunning rebuttal of 'millions of years.'" Hurd criticizes Wieland for treating a non-technical news item as a scientific paper and for asserting that organic molecules disprove independent dating methods, implying a young Earth.

Wieland's claim that the soft tissue is "obvious to the naked eye" is refuted by Hurd, who points out that the microphotographs associated with the announcement lacked scale bars, and the features were microscopic.

Hurd also debunks Wieland's assertion that the material is "unfossilized." He notes that Schweitzer's current statements acknowledge an unknown fossilization mechanism. The core creationist fallacy, according to Hurd, is assuming that organic remains found in ancient bones necessitate recent bone age. Wieland's argument is that the "overriding belief in 'millions of years'" blinded researchers to this possibility.

Hurd then delves into the scientific basis for dating fossils, explaining that the age is determined by the surrounding rock, not the tissue's appearance. He references radiometric dating methods and cites works like "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens and "Radiometric Dating Does Work!" by G. Brent Dalrymple, providing data for the Z-coal strata of the Hell Creek Formation. The MOR 1125 femur, he states, is one of the best-dated dinosaur bones, based on 86 chemical analyses and four radiometric decay series.

But, it gets even better!

Hurd introduces anatomist David Menton, Ph.D., a creationist who falsely claims that the "Lucy" fossils belong to an apelike creature. Menton's assessment of the Schweitzer results is criticized for repeating the falsehood that bone ages are determined by appearance, stating that burial conditions, not age, affect bone appearance.

Menton's primary obsession, according to Hurd, is the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs, a consensus view among paleontologists. Menton questions why researchers compared the dinosaur bone to an ostrich bone rather than a reptile. Hurd explains that this comparison is standard because evolutionary theory posits birds descended from dinosaurs, and a failure to match morphologically would challenge this theory. Menton's complaint about the lack of description for the ostrich bone is dismissed as a lack of familiarity with scientific publishing, where supplemental online material provides such details.

Hurd addresses Menton's criticism regarding the absence of nuclei in red blood cells, pointing out that the supplement describes nucleated blood cells and compares images from the T. rex bone with those from ostrich and chicken blood. He notes that the image used by Wieland and Menton is microscopic, not "obvious to the naked eye."

Hurd refutes Menton's claim that the material is "unfossilized" and criticizes his conclusion that the discovery supports a young Earth based on "common sense." He argues that Menton, like Wieland, ignores the established methods of dating rocks and chemistry.

Hurd criticizes Menton's statement about the bias and lack of scientific substance in evolutionary literature, calling it idiocy. He notes that Menton's own work is lacking in scientific merit.

What Next?

Horner and Schweitzer have indicated that more research will be published. Horner mentioned aspects he could not discuss due to another article under review at *Science*. Hurd anticipates more scientific findings and further creationist reactions.

He reflects on how early work by Schweitzer and Horner was distorted by creationists, particularly regarding "fresh-looking" tissue as proof of a young Earth. Schweitzer spent years refuting these distortions. Hurd's motivation for writing about dinosaurs stems from his interest in anthropology and his obligation to expose the manipulation of science by creationists. He believes that understanding human evolution requires a grasp of physical and biological sciences, enabling him to critically read scientific articles.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly advocates for the scientific method and rational thinking, directly confronting what it terms the "distortion of scientific research" by creationists. The editorial stance is clearly pro-evolution and critical of Young Earth Creationist interpretations. The newsletter aims to educate its readers on the scientific evidence, debunk creationist claims, and highlight the perceived biases and misrepresentations in media coverage of scientific discoveries. The recurring theme is the defense of established scientific consensus against what the authors view as religiously motivated pseudoscience.

The REALL News, May 2005 issue, is a publication from the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL). The issue is primarily concerned with the conflict between science and creationism, and also features a segment on the television show 'Mythbusters' and a satirical cartoon.

Article: Creationist Attacks on Science

The lead article discusses the challenges faced by paleontologists Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner. The author, Gary S. Hurd, notes that Schweitzer has been a favorite of young Earth creationists, who have largely distorted her work. Despite her protests, Schweitzer and Horner have inadvertently provided creationists with material for over a decade without publicly refuting the misrepresentations. Schweitzer has recently acknowledged the creationist distortions, stating in an interview with Catherine Clabby of the North Carolina “News & Observer” that she feels "caught in the middle of something. It feels ugly." Hurd expresses his hope that scientists like Horner and Schweitzer, whose work attracts global attention, will actively address the "creationist threat" rather than merely presenting results. He emphasizes the need to address the larger implications and anticipate creationist attacks.

This article originally appeared on the Panda's Thumb web site and is reproduced under a Creative Commons License. The original article can be viewed at http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000970.html. Dr. Gary S. Hurd can be reached by email at [email protected].

"Chairman" Continued from page 2

This section provides background on Gary S. Hurd, detailing his academic background and career. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine in 1976. He has held faculty positions at the California College of Medicine (UCIMC) and the Medical College of Georgia (Psychiatry), and has had numerous adjunct appointments. Since 1985, he has focused on archaeology, his early research interest. Hurd has received honors for his teaching and research and has over one hundred publications covering diverse fields such as psychiatry, mathematics, chemistry, fish digestion, prehistoric ceremonialism, and forensic taphonomy. He became involved in the creationist anti-science debate while serving as Curator of Anthropology and Director of Education for the Orange County Museum of Natural History. The text concludes by stating that while he may not be the world's foremost authority on evolution, he "surely knows more than the average SJ-R letter writer."

Our Next Meeting: More Mythbusters

This section announces the next meeting of the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL), which will be held on Tuesday, May 3, at 7:00 PM at the Lincoln Library (7th & Capitol) in Springfield, Illinois. The meeting will feature a video presentation and discussion of episodes from the Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters" program. The hosts, Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, are highlighted for their experience in special effects and their method of testing urban legends by directly experimenting with them. Examples of tested claims include whether a sinking ship pulls one down or if throwing a hammer can break the plane of water when falling from a bridge. The Mythbusters declare claims as confirmed, plausible, or busted. The meeting is free and open to the public. The REALL mailing address is P.O. Box 20302, Springfield IL 62708, and their website is www.reall.org.

Satirical Cartoon: Owen Twiddle

A cartoon by "Owen Twiddle, Transcendental Technician" presents a humorous take on pseudoscience. The character, Dr. Twiddle, offers to repair "weak discolored auras" for those under stress or associating with skeptics. A "before" and "after" illustration shows a faded aura becoming vibrant. The advertisement claims "AURAS REPAIRED WHILE U - WAIT IN BY NINE OUT BY FIVE."

In This Issue

A brief table of contents lists "Dino-Blood Redux" on page 1 and "Owen Twiddle" on page 11.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a pro-science, skeptical stance, particularly in opposition to creationism and pseudoscience. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of empirical evidence, rational inquiry, and addressing what it perceives as attacks on scientific understanding. The "Mythbusters" segment aligns with this by promoting critical thinking and the debunking of unfounded claims. The inclusion of the satirical cartoon further reinforces a critical and often humorous approach to non-scientific or pseudoscientific ideas.