RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Schweitzer and soft tissue

Jump to: navigation, search

Please summarize the below thread in the editing box. You may use any wikitext in your summary. When you finish, click "Save page".

Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone.
To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account.
See our privacy policy for further information.

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:

I'm working on writing a serviceable article on Mary Schweitzer and intended to expand soft tissue material to specifically address CMI's persistent misrepresentations of her research, including claiming that she discovered intact protein, DNA, and various cells. I see that you've done a lot of research on ICR's responses. Mind seeing what you can adapt?

I've long been irked by CMI's approach because it's so transparently dishonest. It relies solely on Weiland's claim, based on a popular article that directly contradicts the paper Schweitzer published on this exact research, that she discovered intact blood vessels and blood cells in dinosaurian fossils. Weiland also misrepresents that the bone tissue Schweitzer examined was "unfossilized," when the research is clear that it was partly mineralized. CMI creationists typically trot out responses to objections to this claim based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's either 100% this or 100% that. Never what the researchers say it is when it's contrary to the "biblical worldview." Sarfati continues to claim Schweitzer's early research included finding blood cells by ... citing Weiland.

What do you think?

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg17:28, 23 December 2012

I think I can help. I'm guessing you've already seen Schweitzer's most recent paper in Bone, along with the creationist stuff about it?

Peter Subsisting on honey01:39, 24 December 2012