quote:
Now, about the Plesiosaur... I have known of the Plesiosaur finding for a number of years now, and it's difficult to find an un-biased article or web page or anything about it. MOST, lean towards the "basking shark" theory. However, you make the claim that DNA tests were done to prove this... But I don't see that anywhere nor have I even once. It's easy for you to say things like this because here amongst your friends you can all make blanket statements and hope they won't get argued. And if they do, then you all jump to another explanation. More and more guessing. Then your friend goes on to mention some bologna about amino acids, but doesn't point out the rest of the findings.... The scientist giving these findings also finds them to be inconclusive, but I guess we'll take this other guys word for it because he read it on a biased web site somewhere, so he's much more of an expert than the scientists who actually studied it. Not to mention the carcass
s defined spinal column, lack of a dorsal fin, and it's not like it juste had a skull... It has a small HEAD. An actual head, not just a skull that could compare with a shark.
Sharks have a fairly small cranium and a large jaw. It is well known that the jaw drops away when they decompose while the skull remains attached to the neck. Now, in the pictures, the tissue is obviously very decomposed. If you insist on calling the lump in the front a "head," maybe you could point out the eyes and mouth.
quote:
If it were infact a basking shark.... Would your experts not have just compared the bones and said, there it is, it's a shark?
The carcass was thrown overboard! We can't do that! What we can do is look at the sketch and note that the flippers are as long as the neck. How does that say plesiosaur?
quote:
Why wasn't that done to prove you right. Not to mention... because it's amino acids "match" that of a shark, who's to say they don't match that of a Plesiosaur? Have you tested another Plesiosaur to find out. Again, you "Conclude", when infact you haven't proven.
You seem to be missing the fact that elastoidin is found only in sharks and not in any known reptiles or any other animals. Does that mean nothing to you? We have a plausible explanation (it's the body of a common animal alive by the millions today, verified by chemical analysis and biologists' knowledge of the typical decay process) and an insane one (it's the body of an animal known only from fossils and never seen alive) and you want them both given equal credence... just
because?
I fell for the creationist story about the "plesiosaur remains" when I was a little kid. I was badly disappointed when I learned the truth, and the truth is that anyone who thinks it was something other than a shark is fooling themselves.
™ Version 4.2