Dino-blood and the Young Earth
Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D.
January 9, 2004
A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic molecules in ancient bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and that geological and radiometric data should be ignored. The ancient surviving materials they commonly refer to are fragments of hemoglobin and osteocalcin (a bone protein) extracted from dinosaur bone. There are many problems with their position, but ultimately it reduces to nothing other than they just don't think that organic molecules can last a long while. The "Creation Science" approach is to deny the independent results of geology, chemistry and astronomy because these molecules exist.
I will not take the time in this essay to address the problematic origins of "creation science" in the United States or elsewhere and instead refer the interested reader to The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ron Numbers (1992). Some YEC creation scientists promote their "evidences" for the modern, even contemporary existence of dinosaurs. The popular young earth ministry of "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind promotes videotapes of his talks that purport that there are recent dinosaurs. A similar ministry is by Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum, who claims to have excavated paleontological evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed throughout time. Publications by the Answers in Genesis Ministry (AiG) claim that evidence of recent dinosaurs refute both relative and absolute geological dating of the dinosaurs' extinction at ~65 million years ago which is many millions of years prior to the appearance of modern primates. Part of their argument is that fresh red blood cells, and hemoglobin have been recovered from dinosaur bone.
In the case of the dinosaur "red blood cell" argument aggressively promoted by Dr Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis Ministry, Australia there is an active denial of fact that is astounding. Wieland has particularly focused on popular magazine stories, and short news items concerning the graduate school research by Mary H. Schweitzer on the organic residues from a single Tyrannosaurus rex bone. However, his misrepresentations have gained wide dispersal, and presumably acceptance within creationism. They have even been presented publicly to school boards in the United States as "scientific proof" of a 6,000-year-old Earth, and reason to replace science education with supernaturalism. We will leave the dating issues for a future analysis where we may examine the related creationist claims that the survival of other biomolecules, such as the bone protein osteocalcin, demonstrate that the Universe is young. Instead, we focus below on the observation that creationists have not even correctly read or represented the scientific literature concerning the results from Schweitzer and colleagues' research.
The manipulation of Schweitzer's research by AiG predates the articles discussed below, as two minor anonymous mentions of dino-blood had been made earlier in Creation, one of the AiG house organs. Each of these early mentions of Schweitzer's work was prompted by a news interview around the time that a new episode of the Crichton/Spielberg "Jurassic Park" series was released. It is quite clear that Mary H. Schweitzer enjoyed presenting her on-going work to reporters in very speculative and even grandiose terms. A 1993 interview with Virginia Morell resulted in a news item published by Science (Morell 1993), and in 1995 Richard Monastersky wrote "Squeezing blood from a stone" for Science News (Monastersky 1995). Each of these news items was commented on by AiG. The AiG response to Monastersky's story was titled 'Blood Chemicals' found in dino bone (AiG 1996). This short piece is of some interest as it already exhibits every feature of the pattern we examined in detail below. It refers to a non-technical news item as if it were an actual scientific paper. It misrepresents the findings claiming that there were "obvious, fresh-looking blood cells" seen in dinosaur bone. It asserts that organic molecules found in ancient material disproves all independent dating methods and therefore implies the Earth is a scant thousands of years old.
Carl Wieland is the major creationist "dino-blood" source and has presented his distorted interpretations of dinosaur biomolecule research through the Answers in Genesis Ministry: Creation Ex Nihilo (Wieland 1997) Creation (Wieland 1999) and the Answers in Genesis Ministry Webpages (Wieland 2002). His first article we will consider in detail, Sensational dinosaur blood report, opens with the following:
ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.
It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old.
And he ends with
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]
These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland as shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. What possible basis for these wild claims could Wieland have had? His entire claim of cellular preservation in dinosaur age fossils originated from a selective misrepresentation of a popular magazine account of research by Mary Schweitzer titled "The Real Jurassic Park" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997). This article was published in 1997 by a magazine called Earth, a for-profit magazine focused on geology and paleontology for the general public. The magazine folded after three volumes. The former Editor, Josh Flishman, has personally acknowledged to me that Earth was a popularization, and not a scientific journal. But in 1997, the popularity of Steven Speilberg's film "Jurassic Park" prompted a tie-in theme at Earth magazine featuring Mary Schweitzer's preliminary analysis of an exceptionally well preserved portion of a bone from a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex. There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry.
Typical of a science popularization, Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) are initially coy as to whether there are any fossilized cells, or not, and the short article refers twice to unidentified people who thought that they saw red blood cells in a thin section slide prepared from tabular bone from a T. rex. Secondly, there is also a photograph of the slide in question with the caption "Blood from Rock" that said -
Looking suspiciously like red blood cells, these mysterious spheres tucked into the blood vessel chambers of a 65-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil could contain fragments of DNA and proteins.
Nonetheless, Schweitzer and Staedter clearly stated in the very first print column -
Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes. [pg: 55]
However, they are categorically clear in the conclusion of the article where they state -
But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues." [Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 pg. 57]
They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as "not completely fossilized" in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as "unfossilized". [1997: pg. 42]
Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) is most charitably characterized as a dumbed down version of the scientific publications published the same year (Schweitzer, et al. 1997A, B, C). Schweitzer, et al., "Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" (1997A) gives us a straight forward data presentation, and concludes that there were heme, and hemoglobin protein fragments sufficiently well preserved in a small portion of a particularly well preserved bone from which they could produce an immunological response in rats. There is no indication that there were "blood cells" found in the bone. Further, from the discussion -
Geochemical interactions with biomolecules preserved in fossil bone over millions of years are to be expected, and the presence of additional, nonhemoglobin signals detected by the various physical methods is not unexpected given the highly degraded and diagenetically altered biological compounds in the bone. [references deleted] [pg. 6295]
Schweitzer, et al., "Blood from a Stone" (1997B), apart from a provocative title, is equally clear that neither hemoglobin nor red blood cells were discovered -
Additionally, we have not identified the origin of the small vascular microstructures, and have not linked them to the heme signals we detect to these structures. [pg. 104]
Schweitzer, et al., "Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex" (1997C) is just as clear, from the abstract -
An exceptionally well preserved specimen of the tyrantnosaurid dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn shows little evidence of permineralization or other diagenetic effects.
While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues. [pg. 349]
Permineralization is the infilling of the open structure (e.g. the marrow) of a bone with minerals, and "diagenetic effects" are postmortem changes to bone such as dissolving/remineralizing, cracking or crushing and may include biological alteration by scavengers, or microbes. That the fossil was not permineralized could at best have been misread by Wieland as "unfossilized". But there is no evidence that Wieland ever bothered to read the scientific literature concerning this research and instead relied on his poor comprehension of a single popular magazine article.
All the analysis published in the science literature by Mary H. Schweitzer and her colleagues through 1997 demonstrate that they have found a very well preserved bone that had little or no water penetration into the core area from where they drew their biomolecule samples. Schweitzer has told me that she was very surprised that the creationists would latch on to her work like this, as hers is not the oldest reported biomolecule data. In fact, there were prior publications of DNA extracted from samples twice as old as her T. rex sample (for example Polinar et al. 1994). There were also prior reports of immunological responses from biomolecules extracted from dinosaur bone, for example Muyzer et al. 1992.
Even had Wieland merely read the New York Times as of June 10, 1997 he could have learned that -
Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.
But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be identified as originating in a dinosaur. She and her colleagues had better luck in looking for heme, the oxygen carrying part of the hemoglobin molecule of the blood. [Wade 1997]
It is apparent that Wieland limited his reading to popular magazines and news items, and this is very poor scholarship. Equally clear is that Wieland grossly distorted that research. Contrary to the clear publication record, Wieland claimed that Schweitzer discovered "traces of real blood" and "traces of hemoglobin" in "unfossilized dinosaur bone". This was simply not true.
Two years later
Wieland returned to his misrepresentation of the Schweitzer research in Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really? (1999). One would hope that Wieland had taken the opportunity in the intervening years to have learned about the research he discussed. But one would hope in vain. We instead are confronted with this astounding distortion:
We have previously told you about the unfossilsed [sic] dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin. [reference to Wieland 1997]
The false, or out-of-context quote is a favorite tactic of professional young Earth creationists' efforts to undermine science and reason. This is so widely recognized among those who follow these efforts that it has come to be called "quote mining" and a compilation of many examples and their corrections has been published at The Quote Mine Project. The Answers in Genesis Ministries, formerly the Creation Science Foundation of Brisbane, Australia, even produced a book of quotes called "The Revised Quote Book (copyright 1990)" that has been debunked at Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3.
Further "quote-mine" information and examples dated as early as 1905 are found in Numbers (1992, pg. 50-53), and a large library of quotes are analyzed at Quotations and Misquotations.
Perhaps it should not be surprising that creationists even "quote mine" themselves! Perhaps the fact that Wieland is the CEO of Answers in Genesis, Australia is answer enough. In 1997, Wieland, in the space of two pages, distorted both Schweitzer, and himself, changing "not completely fossilized" (pg. 42) to "unfossilized" (pg. 43) but by 1999 he has outdone even himself. In just two years, traces of blood, and traces of hemoglobin (a misrepresentation of the results given common usage) in (falsely identified as) unfossilized bone became "unfossilised dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin [Wieland 1997]." He concluded with -
The Bible's account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.
One must consider if Wieland's reading of the Bible is as poor as his reading of not only the scientific literature he distorts, but even the words from his own hand.
The only reason that Schweitzer's work should be so corrupted by creationists is her news interviews that mentioned "cells". Cells, in the popular imagination, could be thought of as necessarily recent or "fresh" features. This false impression is compounded by Wieland's reference in the same article to other spurious AiG claims that "fresh" dinosaur bones have been discovered.
Schweitzer and Horner (1999) addresses this issue of cellular preservation directly. The observed structures are not red blood cells -
Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.
Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]
The basic lie that red blood cells had been observed in the bone of a T. rex now spread through the creationist literature, with the major vector coming within the Answers in Genesis publications. Jonathan Sarfati, a former chemist employed by Answers in Genesis, wrote in his 1999 book Refuting Evolution -
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think that the last dinosaur lived. [pg. 112, citing Wieland 1997]
This bizarre claim was presented as one of six evidences that the Earth was young. Three significant scientific publications in 1997 and one in 1999 by real scientists are ignored by Sarfati, who not only misrepresented this primary research, but incompetently paraphrased Wieland 1997 to boot. More interesting, the position is hardened that somehow the Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 publication now demonstrated that this fossil was less than a few thousand years old, and this was support for the YEC position. The illogic of this assertion is entirely contained in Sarfati's statement implying that he and his associates know how long organic molecules can survive. This is of course absurd.
The way Sarfati (1999) used Wieland (1997) illustrates the hermetic nature of all creationist scholarship as is detailed in Numbers 1992. A few misquoted scientific citations are magnified into "overwhelming evidence" that literalist biblical interpretations have empirical support and that "materialist evolution" is shown to be false. Then, other creationists lacking the ability or inclination to actually learn science take these "evidences" to be conclusive and parrot the empty assertions. Social psychology calls this process "reification," that is, to take an abstraction (one unsupported by fact in this instance) and to treat it as real.
Three more years, more repetitions
Don Batten, another AiG employee, edited The Revised and Expanded Answers Book (2000) which is an amalgam of several AiG books authored by Sarfati, Wieland, Ken Ham (AiG-USA CEO) and perhaps others. Falsehoods about Schweitzer's research are presented three separate times. The first is merely a repeat of the Sarfati item quoted above (pg. 86-87) and referenced to Wieland 1997. The second in a section titled "Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed", states that -
Unmineralized ("unfossilized") dinosaur bones. How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old. [pg. 193, referenced to Wieland 1999]
In Chapter 19, What happened to the dinosaurs? we find the following arguments:
There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. (29) Also, there should not be 'fresh' bone if it were really millions of years old. (30) A report by these scientists stated the following: ... [pg. 246-247. (Reference numbers refer to the print version of The Revised and Expanded Answers Book (25th printing 2002)]
It is worth pointing out that the claim that the presence of cells and hemoglobin disprove an ancient age for this fossil does not refer to the Schweitzer research but is referenced (#29) to Wieland 1997. Further, the "fresh bone" in reference #30, was not to Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) either, although it plainly reads as if the University of Montana team were somehow involved, but was instead to two AiG publications which used spurious modern or "recent" dinosaur bone claims. Finally, it also misleads by indicating that Staedter was associated with the University of Montana, or was involved in the research at all.
There then followed a heavily redacted selection of material from Schweitzer and Staedter (1997), which spliced snippets from their first sentence to nearly their last and presented them as a "quote". This mishmash however did include their significant conclusion that -
So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".
It is this conclusion that has been totally ignored by creationists in a stunning example of "willful ignorance". Batten in reference # 31, pg. 260 to Wieland (1997), asserted that it "… describes the careful testing that showed that hemoglobin was present." Naturally, the Creation article could do no such thing as the Earth magazine article it is based on did no such thing. Either description lacked most significant details needed to evaluate the study, or that the results allowed the conclusion that "hemoglobin" was present. As a simple matter of fact, Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) did not even conclude that there was hemoglobin present. The relevant citations (quoted above) are to Schweitzer et al 1997A, and Schweitzer and Horner (1999) which provide both the data and the details necessary to support the only conclusion published or scientifically supported: that there was organic residue containing heme, not hemoglobin, probably of dinosaur origin preserved in the study material.
We next find Wieland expanding on his perversion of this research in his 2002 article posted to the Answers in Genesis webpage, Evolutionist questions AiG report- Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils??
Wieland was responding to an exchange between Tim Knapp, a young earth creationist, and Jack DeBaun, conducted by a sort of "dueling webpages". DeBaun had contacted Schweitzer and Horner concerning Wieland's distorted presentation of their work and posted portions of their reactions on his website. Knapp then brought this to the attention of the Answers in Genesis crowd which seemingly prompted Wieland to respond(1). The debate between Knapp and DeBaun ranged over many different features of the creationist "fresh dinos" claim, and Wieland's eight page response wandered in turn. I will try to limit this discussion to the "dino blood" claims to the extent possible.
Jack Horner, Schweitzer's major professor and co-author, explained to DeBaun that they had not found any blood cells. Horner has in fact had to explain this several times that I am aware of, for example in an email from Horner to student Adrian Crenshaw he states -
Hi Adrian,.....Young Earth Creationists are like the "Flat Earth" people of last century, they latch on to pieces of straw, ignoring the bale.
No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red bloodcells have been hypothesized on the basis of Heme, a kind of iron produced biologically. [Crenshaw 2001]
And more recently -
A remnant of a blood cell is not a blood cell, however. [Horner 2003]
Wieland claims that this is "... disingenuous, since they saw what appeared to be red blood cells under the microscope". We wonder that Wieland can use the word "disingenuous" without blushing. There are many times in our lives that we see things that "appear" to be what they are not. What is clear is that Wieland will not abandon his errors in spite of being directly contradicted by the scientists who actually conducted this research.
DeBaun's next comments related to his exchange with Schweitzer where she notes that the immunological study results are considered to be indicators of heme molecules with some small, attached chains of amino acids. Wieland's reaction is to refer to an anonymous molecular biologist associated with AiG who was -
... most sceptical about the notion that 3–4 amino acids, even with the heme, will be recognized by the antibody.
He continued -
Remember that the evolutionists cited may be experts in their field, but their field is not immunology or molecular biology. Above all, remember that this is their way to "explain away" the evidence.
The immunological data in Schweitzer, et al. (1997A, 1997B) were the product of Mark Marshall and his colleagues who are professional immunologists. This is in contrast to Wieland and his anonymous supporters who are not immunologists. Wieland is quite arrogantly mistaken and arrogant in his presumption that he is better qualified and more familiar with this area than the scientists who actually preformed the relevant research. Rather than "explain away" evidence, the entire relevant corpus of scientific publication (knowledge or understanding of which Wieland seems entirely ignorant) was attempting to demonstrate the existence of original organometalic residues from this ancient bone. It was not some secret they were trying to conceal, rather they took every possible opportunity to promote the notion that there were ancient molecules that had survived for over 65 million years. Horner and Schweitzer in any publication, email, statement or conversation that I am aware of, have correctly stated Marshall's (and his colleagues') results that a very few amino acids in side chains attached to a heme produced the immunological response observed, intact hemoglobin is not present or necessary. How do we know this? Because 1) prior research has independently established that small peptides complexed to heme, are immunogenic, 2) an immune response to the bone extracts in rats was observed, 3) the laboratory results which would have detected hemoglobin did not do so, but did produce results consistent with heme. In these articles, Schweitzer et al. (1997A and 1997B) are quite properly circumspect about the degree of preservation of the molecules in question and their identity, as there are no sequence data which could verify them beyond heme.
Wieland, rather than actually reading the scientific literature, for years trolled through superficial news items and "pop-science" magazines to concoct a fantasy of modern dinosaurs. Even when his errors are directly pointed out to him, he engages in nothing but denial and repetition. If anything he exaggerated his previous statements as seen in his dismissal of Schweitzer's and Horner's comments below -
... there is no reason for a scrap of retreat from my statements above that a) the evidence is consistent with morphologically intact red blood cells having been discovered, as strongly suggested by the histological appearance, and as reinforced by the hemoglobin immune response. b) The evidence is overwhelmingly more consistent with the belief that the fossils are not millions of years old than with the converse. [Wieland 2002, pg. 4]
Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact five gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.
Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis. Wieland wrote -
Such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. [Wieland 2002]
The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you "own" the truth, you apparently needn't stint at falsehood.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank the following for their assistance (alphabetized): Jack DeBaun, Pete Dunkelberg, Ian M. Ferguson, Jordan Helin, Michael Hopkins, Mark Isaak, David Reid, Mary H. Schweitzer, John Stear, Roy Thearle, John Wilkins. Of course, all remaining errors of fact or interpretation are the author's very own.
(1) The Knapp/DeBaun exchange can be read from the viewpoint of Mr. DeBaun here:
http://www.televar.com/~jnj/ with the material specifically relevant to Wieland's dino-blood claims here:
Mr. DeBaun has written his response to Wieland 2002 that I found quite interesting and helpful:
And, not to leave anyone out, Mr. Knapp's viewpoint is available as well:
and here: http://www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/debaun2.htm
Answers in Genesis Ministry 1996 "Blood Chemicals" found in dino bone, More Focus Articles from:
Creation 18(4):7–9, September–November 1996
Batten, Don (ed.) 2000 The Revised and Expanded Answers Book (25th printing 2002) Green Forest AR: Master Books
An online version is also available:
Crenshaw, Adrian 2001 Email from Jack Horner to Adrian Crenshaw Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 6:41 PM Manuscript in the possession of the author.
Horner, Jack 2002 Email from Jack Horner to "outtawork" Jan. 17, 2003 Manuscript in the possession of the author.
Monastersky, Richard, 1995 Squeezing blood from a stone, Science News Vol. 148, November 11, 1995 (p. 314).
Morell, Virginia, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science, July 9, 1993, v. 261, p. 160-162
Muyzer, Gerard, Philip Sandberg, Marjijo H.J. Knapen, Cees Vermeer, Matthew Collins, Peter Westbroek1992 Preservatation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs Geology, Vol 20: 871- 74
Numbers, Ron 1992 The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Berkeley: The University of California Press
Polinar, G. O., Poinar, H. N., and Cano, R. J. 1994 DNA from Amber Inclusions, in B. Herrman and S. Hummmel (ed.s), Ancient DNA. Recovery and Analysis of Genetic Material from Paleontological, Archaeological, Museum, Medical and Forensic Specimens, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp92-103.
Sarfati, Jonathan 1999 Refuting Evolution, Green Forrest AK: Master Books pg. 112
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57.
Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey 1997A Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 6291-6296, June
Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Darlene Barnard, Scott Bohle, Keith Carron, Ernst V. Arnold, Jean R. Starkey 1997B Blood from a Stone, Dinofest International 101-104
Schweitzer, M.H., Johnson, C., Zocco, T.G., Horner, J.H., Starkey, J.R.,
1997C Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Volume 17, No. 2, June 19. 349-359
Schweitzer, Mary Higby, John R. Horner 1999 Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex, Annales de Paléontologie Volume 85, Issue 3, July-September , pg.179-192.
Wade, Nicholas 1997 Blood of Tyrannosaur Recovered From Montana Fossil, New York Times, June 10,
Wieland, Carl 1997 Sensational dinosaur blood report, Creation Ex Nihilo 19(4): 42–43 September–November
Wieland, Carl 1999 Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really?, Creation 21(1): 54-55, December 1998-February 1999
Wieland, Carl 2002 Evolutionist questions AiG report — Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils?, First Posted 25 March, 2002 and last accessed January, 2004.