0
   

Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Meteorite NWA 998

 
 
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 02:43 am
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Meteorite NWA 998
Abstract
Structures of skeletal muscle fibers are found in three micrographs, which were imaged by Tom Phillips from a thin section sliced out of Martian meteorite NWA 998. The morphology, organization, and context of the structures indicate they were the structures of muscle fibers. The micrographs show no cracks for the structures to move from outside the meteorite to their present locations. Therefore, the muscle fiber structures should be indigenous to meteorite NWA 998.

I. Introduction and Methods

Skeletal muscle fibers are a type of animal cells. In 2003, fossilized skeletal muscle fibers were reported to have been found in a dinosaur coprolite (Chin et al., 2003, ref. 1). Meteorite NWA 998 is a meteorite that originated on Mars (Meyer, C., 2006, ref. 2). A geological compendium on meteorite NWA 998 was compiled by NASA (ref. 2) and displayed at http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/mmc/XXV_NWA998.pdf

This article reports that structures of skeletal muscle fibers are found in meteorite NWA 998. The structures of muscle fibers are found in three micrographs, which were imaged by Tom Phillips from a single thin section cut from meteorite NWA 998. The three micrographs of meteorite NWA 998 are displayed below as Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 9:


Fig. 1: Micrograph from Martian meteorite NWA 998 (ref. 2). Image taken from The Tom Phillips Microscopic Meteorite Gallery (ref. 3), photo No. NWA998-400X-xpol-0013. cross polarized light at 400X.



Fig. 2: Another micrograph from Martian meteorite NWA 998 (ref. 2). Image taken from The Tom Phillips Microscopic Meteorite Gallery (ref. 3), photo No. NWA998-400X-xpol-0016. cross polarized light at 400X.

Figure 9 is the last figure in this article. No cause is found to doubt that the above micrographs show Martian structures. The methods used to identify the Martian material include comparison with micrographs of terrestrial muscle fibers, minerals and non-life material. This article describes those three micrographs (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 9) as showing structures of Martian skeletal muscle fibers, myofibrils and motor axons in the Results section, and explains why they are not minerals or non-life material in the Discussion section.

II. Results

Figure 1 above was enlarged, marked for muscle fiber structures, and is presented as Fig. 3 below:
Fig. 3: Structures of Martian muscle fibers. Circle A contains cross-striations on muscle fibers. Sixteen short green lines mark structures of Martian muscle fibers. Two green arrows mark nuclei structures of muscle fibers (cells). Three red arrows mark motor axon structures. The original micrograph (Fig. 1) was imaged from a thin section by Tom Phillips (ref. 3).

Figure 2 above was also enlarged and marked for the structures of myofibrils,motor axons,etc. As the figure was too wide, it was cut into two parts and presented below as Fig. 4a (right part of Fig. 2) and Fig. 4b (left part of Fig. 2):


Fig. 4a: Enlarged right part of Fig. 2. A, B: Red lines stand for diameters of muscle fibers; C: Red rectangle contains structures of striated myofibrils in one muscle fiber; H: structure of motor axon wrapped in myelin sheath.


Fig. 4b: Enlarged left part of Fig. 2. D, E, F, G: structures of motor axons wrapped in myelin sheath; I, J: structures of motor end plates. K: structure of blood vessel. The original micrograph (Fig. 2) was imaged from a thin section by Tom Phillips (ref. 3).

Figure 5 below is for comparison with Fig. 3 and Fig. 4b. Figure 5 shows terrestrial muscle fibers.


Fig. 5: Terrestrial skeletal mucle fibers, motor axons,and motor end plates. Image taken from Visuals Unlimited, displayed at http://www.visualsunlimited.com/image/I0000bsl9lRFHdmI
Figure 6 below is for comparison with Fig. 4a above. Figure 6 shows terrestrial myofibrils within two muscle fibers.


Fig. 6: Terrestrial myofibrils within two skeletal muscle fibers - LM X440. Image taken from Visuals Unlimited, displayed at http://www.visualsunlimited.com/image/I0000RHtWX0Y6Iy8

Figure 7 below illustrates the internal structure of muscle.



Fig. 7: Illustration of the internal structure of muscle. Image taken from TopVelocity.net, displayed at
http://topvelocity.net/why-some-pitchers-throw-harder-than-others/

Figure 8 below illustrates myelin sheath that wraps around motor axon.



Fig. 8: Illustration showing myelin sheath wrapping around motor axon. Image taken from The Free Dictionary, displayed at http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motor+unit

Fig. 9 below shows there is no crack for the muscle fiber structures to get in there from outside the meteorite.



Fig. 9: structures of 26 Martian muscle fibers. Short green lines mark 26 muscle fiber structures found in meteorite NWA998. Short red lines mark nine motor axon structures. The original micrograph was imaged from a thin section with cross polarized light at 160X by Tom Phillips. The original image is named NWA998-160X-27 and displayed at The Tom Phillips Microscopic Meteorite Gallery (ref. 3).

III. Discussion

Geology of Martian meteorite NWA 998 has been researched in details (Treiman et al., 2008, ref. 4). This article does not discuss geology of meteorite NWA 998. Instead, this article focuses on investigating the biotic or abiotic origin of structures marked in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 9.

No mineral or non-life material was ever reported to resemble integrated structures of skeletal muscle fibers. In examining numerous micrographs of minerals and non-life material on the nano and micron levels, no micrograph is found that shows morphology matching the set of details marked in Fig. 3,Fig. 4 and Fig. 9. Specifically, the set of details includes structures marked as myofibrils, cross-striations, motor axons,motor end plates, nuclei, myelin sheath, and 44 muscle fibers at three spots. Those details may not be biotic in origin if they are considered individually or separately. However, those details are uniquely biotic in origin when they are integrated in the morphology seen in Fig. 3,Fig. 4 and Fig.9. Those sets of details show the morphology of muscle fibers, instead of any other cells or minerals or non-life material.

Some of the “plagioclase” minerals might look vaguely like fossilized muscle fibers. For example, Wikipedia article on plagioclase includes a micrograph of plagioclase crystals that look somewhat like fossilized muscle fibers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plagioklas1.jpg . However, no micrograph of “plagioclase” mineral is found to exhibit all the characteristic structures of muscle fibers found in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

Also noteworthy are the structures of myelin sheath, especially F in Fig.4. Their irregular shape could have resulted from diagenesis or, more likely, from human preparation of the thin section of the sample material.

Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 9 show no cracks that could allow the 44 muscle fiber structures to move there from outside the meteorite. So, the muscle fiber structures should be indigenous to the meteorite.

IV. Conclusion

Characteristic cross-striations exist in the internal and external structures of skeletal muscle fibers. Motor axons cross over skeletal muscle fibers as a rule and terminate with motor end plates on the muscle fibers. The above two features are integrated and found only in skeletal muscle tissue. The two features are found in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The morphology, organization, and context of those structures indicate they were the structures of muscle fibers.

References:

Ref. 1: Chin K, Eberth DA, Schweitzer MH, Rando TA, Sloboda WJ, Horner JR. (2003) Remarkable preservation of undigested muscle tissue within a Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurid coprolite from Alberta, Canada. Palaios. 2003 Jun;18 (3):286-94.

Ref. 2: Meyer, C., (2006) Mars Meteorite Compendium http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/mmc/XXV_NWA998.pdf
Ref. 3: The Tom Phillips Microscopic Meteorite Gallery is located at http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm . The three micrographs are named NWA998-400X-xpol-0013 (Fig.1), NWA998-400X-xpol-0016 (Fig. 2), and NWA998-160X-27 (Fig. 9).

Ref. 4: Treiman, A.H., Irving, A.J. ( 2008) Petrology of Martian meteorite Northwest Africa 998, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 43 (5) P. 829–854

Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Mr. Tom Phillips for his micrographs displayed in his gallery; The Meteorite-Time Magazine and The Meteorite Exchange, Inc. for hosting The Tom Phillips Microscopic Meteorite Gallery;Visuals Unlimited for their micrographs in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6; TopVelocity.net for their illustration in Fig.7;The Free Dictionary for their illustration in Fig. 8.

General reference:

Briggs, D. E. G. and A. J. Kear. 1994. Decay and mineralization of shrimps. PALAIOS v.9,:p.431–456.
Briggs, D. E. G., P. R. Wilby, B. P. Pérez-Moreno, J. L. Sanz, and M. Fregenal-Martínez. 1997. The mineralization of dinosaur soft tissue in the Lower Cretaceous of Las Hoyas, Spain. Journal of the Geological Society, London v.154,:p.587–588.
Changela, H. G. and Bridges, J. C. (2011) Alteration assemblages in the nakhlites: Variation with depth on Mars, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 45, Nr 12, 1847–1867
Chin, K., T. T. Tokaryk, G. M. Erickson, and L. C. Calk. 1998. A king-sized theropod coprolite. Nature v.393,:p.680–682. Curio, E. 1976. The Ethology of Predation. Springer-Verlag, New York, 250 p.
Dal Sasso, C. and M. Signore. 1998. Exceptional soft-tissue preservation in a theropod dinosaur from Italy. Nature v.392,:p.383–387.
Dean, B. 1902. The preservation of muscle-fibres in sharks of the Cleveland Shale. The American Geologist v.30,:p.273–278. Fisher, D. C. 1981a. Crocodilian scatology, microvertebrate concentrations, and enamel-less teeth. Paleobiology v.7,:p.262–275.
Hirschler, A., J. Lucas, and J-C. Hubert. 1990. Bacterial involvement in apatite genesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology v.73,:p.211–220.
Jope, E. M. 1980. Ancient bone and plant proteins. the molecular state of preservation: in Hare, P.E., Hoering, T.C., and King, K., eds., Biogeochemistry of Amino Acids: John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 23–33.
Kellner, A. W. A. 1996. Fossilized theropod soft tissue. Nature v.379,:p.32.
Kessel, R. G. and R. H. Kardon. 1979. Tissues and Organs. A Text-Atlas of Scanning Electron Microscopy: W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 317 p.
Maat, G. J. R. 1991. Ultrastructure of normal and pathological fossilized red blood cells compared with pseudo-pathological biological structures. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology v.1,:p.209–214.
Martill, D. M. 1988. Preservation of fish in the Cretaceous Santana Formation. Palaeontology v.31,:p.1–18. Martill, D. M. 1990. Macromolecular resolution of fossilized muscle tissue from an elopomorph fish. Nature v.346,:p.171–172.
Martill, D. M. and L. Harper. 1990. An application of critical point drying to the comparison of modern and fossilized soft tissues of fishes. Palaeontology v.33,:p.423–428.
Martill, D. M. and D. M. Unwin. 1989. Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil. Nature v.340,:p.138–140.
Martill, D. M. and D. M. Unwin. 1997. Small spheres in fossil bones: blood corpuscles or diagenetic products? Palaeontology v.40,:p.619–624.
Motta, P., P. M. Andrews, and K. R. Porter. 1977. Microanatomy of Cell and Tissue Surfaces. An Atlas of Scanning Electron Microscopy: Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 189 p.
Russell, S.S., Zipfel, J., Folco, L., Jones, R., Grady, M.M., McCoy,T., and Grossman, J.N. (2003) The Meteoritical Bulletin, No. 87, 2003 July, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 38, Nr 7, Supplement, A189–A248
Schultze, H-P. 1989. Three-dimensional muscle preservation in Jurassic fishes of Chile. Revista Geológica de Chile v.16,:p.183–215.
Schweitzer, M. H. and J. R. Horner. 1999. Intravascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie v.85,:p.179–192.
Schweitzer, M. H., C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, J. R. Horner, and J. R. Starkey. 1997a. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology v.17,:p.349–359.
Schweitzer, M. H., M. Marshall, K. Carron, D. S. Bohle, S. C. Busse, E. V. Arnold, D. Barnard, J. R. Horner, and J. R. Starkey. 1997b. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences v.94,:p.6291–6296.
Varricchio, D. J. 2001. Gut contents from a Cretaceous tyrannosaurid; implications for theropod dinosaur digestive tracts. Journal of Paleontology v.75,:p.401–406.
Voigt, E. 1939. Fossil red blood corpuscles found in a lizard from the Middle Eocene Lignite of the Geiseltal near Halle: Research and Progress. Quarterly Review of German Science v.5,:p.53–56.
Voigt, E. 1988. Preservation of soft tissues in the Eocene lignite of the Geiseltal near Halle/S. in Franzen, J.L., and Michaelis, W., eds., The Eocene at Lake Messel, An International Symposium: Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg v. 107, Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt, p. 325–343.
Willems, H. and M. Wuttke. 1987. Lithogenesis of lacustrine dolomites and “soft part preservation” of tetrapods by microbial replacement in the Lower Rotliegends (Permian, Saar-Nahe-Basin, SW-Germany). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen v.174,:p.213–238.
Wyckoff, R. W. G. 1980. Collagen in fossil bones. in Hare, P.E., Hoering, T.C., and King, K., eds., Biogeochemistry of Amino Acids: John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 17–22.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,960 • Replies: 74
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 07:53 am
Its interesting how youve coopted the literature articles to make them appear as if they support your bullshit when all they do is provide raw sata and examples of what you are trying to foist on the public as some kind of scientific discovery. You are one sick and fraudulent puppy.
Im tired of seeing your constant reports of stuff that is totally bogus. I have to admire your style of presentation, if we werent a bit more demanding , you could get away with this as a reasonable discovery when its nothing of the kind.

Your biggest error is the comingling of igneous structures and mineralogy with data that shows tissue and rbc in "SEDIMENTARY ROCKS". You need to make the connection of how you deduce that Impactites are actually sedimentary. Then Ill leave you go.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:35 am
@farmerman,
There could be a mistake in classifying nearly all of the Mars meteorites as igneous rocks, just as many "lunar meteorites" were mis-classified while the "lunar meteorites" actually originated on Mars.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 09:57 am
@bewildered,
yes but mineralogy doesnt lie. There are no sedimentary rocks with phenocrysts. That is pretty much a definition of igneous.
Yopu are casting doubts on something with no understandings of how the whole system works.
Sesdimentary rocks would at least show some evidence of cataclastic particles . These do not.
All of your citations of "fossil evidence" disagree with your conclusions, dont you even understand?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 02:59 pm
@bewildered,
You have a remarkable ability to misinterpret almost everything you have referenced, and then to twist it to your agenda and re-present it. I'm not sure whether to admire your efforts and your detailed (but specious) presentation, or to worry that you really believe your own propaganda.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 07:47 pm
@rosborne979,
Why are you not tired of your ignorance about anatomy?
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 07:53 pm
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Why are you not tired of your ignorance about anatomy?

What would you know about anatomy. You can't tell the difference between a mineral and a muscle.
bewildered
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:16 pm
@bewildered,
It's easier to read the original story here:
Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Martian Meteorite NWA 998
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:20 pm
@bewildered,
You are engaging in ipsedixitism, wherein you become the "authority" that you claim proves your assertions. At least find someon else who will underpin your stories


bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:41 pm
@farmerman,
You become better now. In fact, people who are not familiar with histology or anatomy are in no position to discredit my claim.
You can never identify the "minerals" marked in my figures, because they are not minerals in their origins. You never substantiate your identification of minerals with any micrographs. Talk is cheap.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 11:42 pm
@rosborne979,
You can do nothing good here.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 03:29 am
@bewildered,
Talk certainly is cheap, as you demonstrate time and again. You simply make a wild claim, and assert it to be established because it is not disproven.

Guys, this clown is totally delusional, i can't believe you still engage with him.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 04:37 am
@bewildered,
I certainly can discredit you. Ive done so in my first post by calling to the readers attentions how you use " references" to establish no correlation to your outrageous assertion.
I dont have to know a damn thing about histlogy because you show us slices of tissues from one paper and then show us examples of minerals from others. Then you xpect us to believe that the two are relatede.

DFurther, you havent even developed a mechanism for how tissue gets inside a meteorite

Then you seem to be claiming that "Oh its all right" the meteorites Ive been looking at are SEDIMENTARY


YOURE just plying us with bullshit and In getting concerned with your perecptions of reality.


Quote:
. In fact, people who are not familiar with histology or anatomy are in no position to discredit my claim.
Dont be ridiculous, I dont need to post anything original in my defense because Im not making any silly claims. Ive just debunked your claims that your reference mineral specimens and thin sections are "organic" or cataclastic and they are not. SO hw does that , in any way, support your claims that meteorite has tissue in it. I MA an expert on mineral assmeblages and use of thin sections. You are misrepresenting what those samples actually represent.
You should be ashamed of yourself (or are you so deluded that you dont even know what it is your claiming?)
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 04:53 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Guys, this clown is totally delusional, i can't believe you still engage with him.

But if we didn't engage him we wouldn't know that "God's Books" are written in chinese and only visible to certain special people (how great is that?). And every night when we sleep we all float off to Mars to be with God (but none of us remember this of course). And we wouldn't know that scientists were visiting Mars 3.5billion years ago.

If the alternative is to read an evolution thread and listen to people tell Spendi and Ionus that they are assholes, then I prefer this guy. At least this guy puts on an original show, and he isn't malicious and distasteful to read.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2011 10:30 am
@rosborne979,
Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 02:05 am
@farmerman,
You have no logic.:
1. This meteorite is basically a fossil, not a rock. So, I don't care how geologists classify this meteorite. This is a big problem for all geologists, not a problem for the finder of fossils in your testis or in any igneous rock or in any Martian meteorite. Wake up.
2. I did not use references to prove my findings. I proved my findings with figures, especially my labelled figures. I listed many "general references" simply because some journals require references. Some specific references (such as ref. 1,2,3,4) are simply to support some minor points in my article. You do not know what is disproof. How can you disprove my article when you cannot even identify the marked structures as minerals?

0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 02:48 am
@farmerman,
"DFurther, you havent even developed a mechanism for how tissue gets inside a meteorite"
You have no logic. Do you know how terrible illogical people can be? You are PRESUMING the meteorite is a rock, when it is not, when it is in fact a fossil. That is your basic mistake. From then no, you cannot turn back. The question should be "How mineals get into the fossil" rather than how the fossil got into the meteorite.

"I dont have to know a damn thing about histlogy because you show us slices of tissues from one paper and then show us examples of minerals from others. Then you xpect us to believe that the two are relatede." What are you referring to? Are you referring to the electron image in the press release of Leicester University? That image was imaged from meteorite Lafayette. I know that because I have read the research article written by the researcher at Leicester University. The third figure in that research article bears similarity to the image of the press release. I am not saying they are the same image, but that press release image surely was imaged from a nakhlite meteorite, very probably meteorite Lafayette. Or maybe you were referring to the article by Karen Chin about muscle tissue in dinosaur coprolite. That article is mentioned just to show it's not impossible to find fossils of muscle fibers. I did not say that article proved any of my points. You are reading things into my words. The mineals you mentioned are phyllosilicates claimed by the Leicester researchers. Those "phyllosilicates" are "structures of simple cuboidal epithelial cells" in my article. You can see from the Leicester researchers' article that the chemistry of cells can be mistaken as chemistry of phyllosilicates. Here you can understand that there is nearly no difference between cellular fossils and phyllosilicates as far as chemistry is concernd.

"Then you seem to be claiming that "Oh its all right" the meteorites Ive been looking at are SEDIMENTARY"
Who cares what kind of rocks the Martian meteorite is. It's no rock, rock guys. It's fossils. Fossils are not rocks, rock guys.









farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 06:30 am
@bewildered,
Quote:
the meteorite is a rock, when it is not, when it is in fact a fossil. That is your basic mistake.
Sorry, I am somehow forced to be rooted in things I know and things I can prove. You dont seem to be bound with those rules.

Evidence is always a way out for you. IF you can provide any evidence of the biological nature of your meteorites, maybe we can talk

Quote:
The third figure in that research article bears similarity to the image of the press release
Similarity in view is important to artists and poets, science may start with similarity or homology, but then attempts to prove that such similarity is more than a coincidental appearnace. Youve not done any of that. Besides, you are missing several major points of evidence

Quote:
I did not say that article proved any of my points.
We , at least, agree on this point

Quote:
Here you can understand that there is nearly no difference between cellular fossils and phyllosilicates as far as chemistry is concernd.

Here you are so full of **** that your eyes are brown. Phyllosilicates are silicate minerals with a specific structure visible under EDAX and thin section. YOU have only taken a dubious similarity in plan view that you conjured up in your head and then extended this to physical chemistry

Quote:
"Then you seem to be claiming that "Oh its all right" the meteorites Ive been looking at are SEDIMENTARY"
I said nothing of the sort. I said that ALL fossils are insedimentary ocks (with the exception of volcanic ash fossils, but even these are called "Cataclastic sediments" because they were layed down in layers. Your obvious fantasy has no model for propogation of a "fossil from deep space" You have no provenance nor any medium of deposit. Youve just taken a bunch of similar fotos and drawn some really bogus conclusions.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 08:07 am
@farmerman,
"IF you can provide any evidence of the biological nature of your meteorites, maybe we can talk"
Most meteorites and most asteroids contain organic molecules. For example, meteorite Murchison contains thousands of complex organic molecules. However, no one dares to check or claim that meteorite Murchison contains cellular fossils, not just organic molecules. The biological nature (organic molecules) is obvious in most meteorites. Organic molecules are not at all difficult to find in MOST meteorites.

"I said that ALL fossils are insedimentary ocks"
You are using Earthlings' experience on Earth to stiputlate unEarthly fossils to fall into your confinement for the locaton of fossils. It's a basic mistake to presume that Martian fossils must be formed in sedimentary layers. Mars animals could die in a different way in the last MASS EXTINCTION, not a usual way to die.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2011 09:14 am
@bewildered,
organic compounds in meteorites are called Carbonatites and crystalline carbon compounds. THIS does not imply that they are in any way biological in nature

The rest of your post was garbage and fantasy, why not write a sci-fi book like "Day of the Tryffids" (its an old one but still a goody).
Your imagination outruns your scientific skills
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Meteorite NWA 998
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 08:12:06