Original Soft-Tissue Found In Bird Fossils

The evolutionary time frame which requires massive amounts of time, tells us that original material is replaced by the rock…All we should be observing is the bone structure, right? A highly controversial fossil known as Archaeopteryx which is claimed to be a link from Dinosaurs to birds had contained something even more interesting. X-rays were used on nine known fossils of Archaeopteryx and to their amazement found original atoms of bones and feathers still in the rock!

“Using light source technology primarily utilized for advanced energy-related research in materials science, biology, and other fields, the scientists traced SSRL’s hair-thin X-ray beam across the Thermopolis Archaeopteryx fossil. By recording how the X-rays interacted with the fossil, the researchers were able to identify very precisely the locations of chemical elements hidden within.”


“The chemical maps, published today in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, show that portions of the feathers are not merely impressions of long-decomposed organic material — as was previously believed — but actual fossilized feathers that contain phosphorous and sulfur, elements that comprise modern bird feathers. Trace amounts of copper and zinc were also found in the dinobird’s bones; like birds today…”

Other media outlets like the BBC and New Scientist starting making conclusions outside of what the paper suggested in it’s research such these claims…“Copper and zinc are key nutrients for living birds…” or “‘missing link’ that documents a fabulous transition from dinosaur to bird,” and as you might have seen in this in science daily, “X-Rays Reveal Chemical Link Between Birds and Dinosaurs.” None of these hyped up claims were mentioned in the paper.

Also none of the articles addressed preservation of a fossil considered to be 150 million years old which still contains it’s original soft-tissue including part of it’s bones and feathers. It really takes a leap a faith to believe a fossil that old could even come close to retaining those elements. Marveling how well persevered the fossil is or getting goose bumps about it, is not explaining how this could have happened in the evolutionary time frame.

Observations show organic material from an animal as frail as a bird’s body, which usually decays completely within days or weeks not millions of years.  As a result, the old age should be called into question! This is actually evidence for a young earth, rather than an old one which might explain why their attempts for a detailed explanation doesn’t exist!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Original Soft-Tissue Found In Bird Fossils

  1. You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make them think.

    Good article Michael, but it will be ignored by those that do not want to know the truth.

  2. mcoville,

    Thanks! You made a valid point and nice newish blog, before one is a Christian, we were all hostile towards the evidence or the truth as well for some it was longer than others. A Christian does not look to please men but God…

    Tim,

    My point was not dating the fossil at 6,000 years old although I as you know from my other postings that I believe other evidence points to that estimated age and the existence of soft tissue in fossils is something that one would expect for a young earth being thousands of years old rather than many millions of years old. It is exciting we live in a day in age when these discoveries are being made!

  3. Michael has no evidence to refute that Neandertals are a separate species 400-700,000 years old. He has no evidence to refute that the human eye is a bad design as compared to the cephalopod eye.

    So he starts a new post, hoping that no one will notice the previous failures.

    And he needs yet another reminder of his refusal to back up claims that he made several months ago:

    (1) Blog readership numbers in response to Eelco’s February challenge that your readership asymptotically approaches zero’

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

  4. “Original Soft-Tissue Found In Bird Fossils”

    Michael! Yet another failure of basic reading comprehension?

    This is the problem when one does word searches without any knowledge of the basic concepts involved, or how they fit together.

    Michael bases his young-age claim on “preservation of a fossil considered to be 150 million years old which still contains it’s [sic] original soft-tissue including part of it’s [sic] bones and feathers.”

    Guess what, Michael. THE PAPER IN NAS PROCEEDINGS NEVER SAID THAT. You made it up all by yourself, and then used it as a strawman.

    .

    So what is the real news? With newer, more sensitive equipment, we can detect atoms[1] in fossils in such small numbers that they were previously below the threshold of detection. Ironically enough, the point of this paper is that the presence of these elements confirms that Archeopteryx was in fact an evolutionary transition between dinosaurs and birds. So once again, the discovery that Michael touts as evidence for creation turns out to be evidence for evolution.

    Another discovery was that feathers could fossilize like bones. The newer, more sensitive detectors employed in this research were able to identify a tiny amount of fossilized material that had previously been thought to be only a cast of where the feathers had been. Here again, was this material “soft tissue”? No. Was it actual feathers? No. It was inorganic material that does not decay, that had seeped out of the feathers and bones as they decayed or were mineralized into conventional fossils. Again, the discovery is that these minerals, phosphorus and sulfur, resemble the same minerals present in modern birds, even though Archeopteryx was a dinosaur. That is, the trace elements are evidence of an evolutionary transition.

    .

    Did you really think, Michael, that your readers are so easily hoodwinked by your failure to read this material properly? Well, maybe Dom. But not the rest of us.

    It’s humorous that what Michael proclaims as “actually evidence for a young earth, rather than an old one”[2] turns out to be just the opposite, merely by a failure of reading comprehension. I would invite any remaining readers to survey the materials themselves and draw their own conclusions as to the duplicity of Michael’s post.

    ===========

    [1] Not “tissue,” not even molecules in many cases, but elements of the periodic table, such as copper and zinc. When he says “atoms of bones and feathers,” (first graf), “soft tissue” (penultimate graf) or “organic material” (last graf) what Michael is actually referring to is bare atoms of copper just like the ones in your hot-water pipes, or phosphorus (fertilizer) or sulfur (car tires), not a bunch of organic molecules structured into a bone or a feather. Michael’s zeal has once again led him to lie to you. You can check the paper for yourself.

    [2] Last paragraph of post.

  5. Tim Cooley: “Ok, Michael, I concede to your points. The world is 6,000 years old. You win.”

    Don’t do it, Tim! Read Olorin’s comment first.

    .

    Actually, we could use your help here. You don’t even have to know a lot about the subject. Often as in this post, you can merely look at what the cited source says and what Michael says, and the odor of mendacity wisps up in a fetid plume.

    Try it. Yes, sarcasm has its place, but you will find that most creationists have congenitally atrophied sarcasm detectors. This is no doubt the etiology of Poe’s Law—that any possible parody of creationism is indistinguishable from creationism itself.

  6. mcoville: “Good article Michael, but it will be ignored by those that do not want to know the truth.”

    When you come to the point where God thinks exactly as you do, when your truth is God’s truth, then you have created God in your own image.

  7. Ah. The end of the last performance of the last concert of the season. The tuxedo goes into the closet, the patent leathers on the rack for next year. Yes, it went well, thank you for asking.

    .

    Well, Micvhael, it’s time to cut and run. You’ve made claims that aren’t true, by misreading the NAS article. You can’t support them with evidence in any case.

    It’s time to plod on to another topic, and hope that no one will notice your lies about imaginary soft tissue in Archaeopteryx fossils.

    What next? Previously unknown primate species disproves evolution? (Science Daily) Unexpected hole in space falsifies dark matter? (Physorg) Phylogenetic evidence of adaptive evolution in human ancestry vindicates creation? (PNAS) Unexpected winds on Venus shows young age of the solar system?: (Science) There are 2,000 papers per year on evolution, more than that on cosmology and planetary science, climate science, hot chicken soup If nothing else, you can throw a dart at any one of thousands of papers on computer architecture, and tell us how wonderful it is that nione of them mention evolution.

    Or, you might consider analyzing one of Stephen Meyer’s 12 predictions from Signature in the Cell. After all, you have been promising that review sine last August.

    What’s next, Michael? We wait with bated breath how you will escape from the Neandertal donnybrook into the next debacle. Because we’ll be waiting.

  8. Oops, sorry. The current donnybrook is the Archeopteryx. The last one was the colossal crash of the Neandertal nexus, and before that was the childish defense of the vertebrate eye as a good design. Before that, things start to get hazy.

    But they all have the same outcome. Vast creationist claims punctured with simple facts. You really should consider the Omphalist option, Michael.

    Or persuade your anonymous source to let you out of your contract. I could help. IAAL.

  9. BBC: “A new study of a 150-million-year-old fossil of an Archaeopteryx has shown that remnants of its feathers have been preserved.”

    Oh the irony.

  10. Remember, however, Tim, that the “remnants” are not the “soft tissue” that Michael claims could not be preserved over millions of years. The remnants were fossilized and mineralized stuff that does endure over geologic periods.

    See what I mean about how you have to read the sources? Michael will flim-flam you wherever he can by arguing something different from what the sources actually said.

  11. Michael, still waiting for those answers to the three questions (don’t play the ignorant) ….

  12. mcoville: “mcoville

    You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make them think.”

    No. What you can’t do is make a scientist see evidence that does not exist. This talent we leave to the creationists.

    ========

    Besides, mcoville, you are misquoting Dorothy Parker. What she actually said was “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.”

  13. Sorry, mcoville. You weren’t misquoting Dorothy Parker. You’ve never heard of Dorothy Parker.

    You were misquoting Roy Comfort “You can lead an atheist to evidence [but} you can’t make [him] think.”

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