Fossils In China With Soft Tissue Discovered

In a 50-foot thick layer of limestone, a new graveyard which contains 20,000 fossils has been found!  The new discovery contains “dolphin-bodied ichthyosaurs”, reptiles, shellfish and many other ancient creatures. But what interesting is the preservation of these animals…

“The fossils are exceptionally well-preserved, with more than half of them completely intact, including soft tissues. Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death….Ninety percent of the fossils are bug-like creatures, such as crustaceans, millipedes and horseshoe crabs.  Fish make up 4 percent, including the “living fossil” known as the coelacanth, which is still alive today nearly 250 million years later.  Snails, bivalves (creatures including clams and oysters), squid-like belemnoids, nautilus-like ammonoids and other mollusks make up about 2 percent of the fossils.”

Once again, scientists find a fossil graveyard with indications of a rapid burial and exquisite preservation. There was an omission that they could have told the readers. Cretaceous which was thought to have been extinct 65 million years by the evolutionary time frame was found swimming in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. This raises some interesting questions and comments about how stretched-out chronology is becoming more common in evolution, this discovery suggests in the evolutionary time frame, coelacanths supposedly never left another fossil for 65 million years, and the soft tissues discovered in these fossils were never disturbed for 250 million years?

A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur fossils has been replicated for the first time. “The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies.  On page 626, however, Schweitzer and colleagues report finding an even larger number of protein fragments from an 80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaur, known as Brachylophosaurus canadensis.”

Evolutionists are trying to distract such a conflict which exists within the evolutionary theory model on what the bones are really telling us.  T-Rex was thought to be a rare exception when soft tissue was discovered, it became very controversial but that was only the beginning! Soft tissue found in these animals and future ones verifies creationism!

About these ads

7 thoughts on “Fossils In China With Soft Tissue Discovered

  1. Please note that Michael does not link the article..But that’s okay, because I know the article:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/cacheinchinesemountainreveals20000prehistoricfossils

    With the quoting that Michael does, he forgets to include this portion of the article which explains why the tissue were preserved. The article says the following:

    “Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death.”

    Michael, why didn’t you quote this part?!?!

    And about the T-Rex, new research has been able to test and somewhat confirm the hypothesis that Biofilm bacteria is responsible for long term preservation of the T-rex tissue:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013334

  2. Or rather, Michael, why don’t you even acknowledge the part of the article I quoted? As reading it over, you have it, but apparently ignore it!!!

    And again, certain bacterias are currently being shown to have a preservation affect on ancient tissue under various conditions, so why are you even citing this tissue as evidence?

  3. Michael continues to dredge up isolated bits of evidence that might be consistent with a young earth. A soft tissue here, a Titan plume there, a canyon or two. He entirely ignores anything that might make this evidence also consistent with a great age, even when the authors themselves offer explanations. And, of course, Michael entirely ignores all the evidence that is absolutely incompatible with a young age. It simply does not exist for him. He even lies about evidence that has been found—copper and calcium become “soft tissue.”

    What can we expect from creationists? Apparently not much in the way of objectivity, logic, or even honesty.

  4. @Michael,

    Fossils found with tissue are usually found in mudstone tend NOT to yield tissue remaining from the animal…That is because mudstone compacts and distorts the fossil…Fossils found in sandstone are, by comparison, better preserved and the compaction is much less. Mary Schweitzer’s hypothesis on the preservation in sandstone also has to do with the tissue being in equilibrium with the sandstone, and the fact that her specimens began to decay as soon as she removed them from their enviorment is itself a sort of a confirmation of her hypothesis..

    The fossils you are talking about were found in limestone…which, like sandstone, is good for preserving fossils… So I fail to see, given the circumstances, why anyone now should be surprised that tissue has been found in an enviroment that is known to preserve fossils in a good state.

    Your article even points out ““Apparently they [the fossil tissues] were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death.””

    Well, as I pointed out, new research has actually tested and somewhat confirmed the hypothesis that microbes and bacterias CAN contribute to the preservation of ancient tissue..

    Link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013334

    Have fun reading, though you probably do not care.

  5. @Olorin,

    No problem.

    I used it in my thread debate with Sean Pitman…to which he only called it an untested hypothesis.. All I had to do was quote the part of the abstract under methedology which said it was examined “experimentally.” Then he shifted ground and said he agreed that biofilms can preserve tissue in the “short term.” He then cited the Santana formation which had rapid burial with no tissue preserved..The problem there, as I pointed out to him, was that the Santana formation has lots of mudstone which (as i said in my last comment in this thread) tends to NOT produce fossils with tissue as it tends not to preserve the fossil as well…When I pointed that out, he dropped the subject.

  6. I do want to point out yet another observation that actually causes an inconsistency with the discovery of tissue in pre-historic animals and the Global flood:

    As mentioned before, the fossils that DO NOT produce tissue are found in layers of mudstone…Mudstone is EXACTLY THE SORT of layer that would be left behind in a flood… The fact that the animals that DO have tissue ARE NOT found in mudstone itself is problematic for the view that they died in Noah’s flood… If Noah’s flood did kill them off, we would actually expect to find even LESS tissue since the flood would have created an enviorment in which it is less likely to preserve the tissue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s