Secular Paleontologists Addresses Most Tyrannosaurs

Dubbed as the children’s favorite pet monster, secular paleontologists write about what they know about these creatures…

In Science

“Tyrannosaurs, the group of dinosaurian carnivores that includes Tyrannosaurus rex and its closest relatives, are icons of prehistory.  They are also the most intensively studied extinct dinosaurs, and thanks to large sample sizes and an influx of new discoveries, have become ancient exemplar organisms used to study many themes in vertebrate paleontology.”

“A phylogeny that includes recently described species shows that tyrannosaurs originated by the Middle Jurassic but remained mostly small and ecologically marginal until the latest Cretaceous.  Anatomical, biomechanical, and histological studies of T. rex and other derived tyrannosaurs show that large tyrannosaurs could not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen senses, and underwent pronounced changes during ontogeny.  The biology and evolutionary history of tyrannosaurs provide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms.”

Indeed, what do that have to say about one of the biggest shockers in discovering dinosaur fossils for proponents in evolution?

Referring to the T-Rex discovery which went public back in 2005…

“Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive.”

Interesting enough, they didn’t do much bragging about this particular discovery other than the usual line of  increasing understanding in their particular framework. But back in 2008, they tried to undermine her research. Thomas Kaye from the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle with two colleagues concluded what they observed in the dinosaur bone was nothing more than a bacterial biofilm that grew in the hollow spaces inside the fossils!

New Scientist reported…

“We cracked open a lot of bones and spent hundreds of hours on an electron microscope examining them,” said Kaye. He concluded the soft material was not from dinosaurs, but from bacterial films which grew on cavities inside the bone long after the animal had died.”“More familiar biofilms are thin, sticky layers like dental plaque, but Kaye says the biofilms he found produced branching hollow filaments when they coated the inside of blood vessel cavities in the bone.”

Mary Schweitzer stood by her claims of the discovery and most likely was thrown back a bit by the opposition she was getting.  But this challenge to her study was highly questionable, why was biofilm inside fossilized bone discovered now after centuries of collecting fossils? How could these biofilms conform to original tissues and then persist after they decay away or fossilize and remain unaltered for 68 million years? Even Kaye’s team conclusion would suggest that these bones are not that old. In 2009, it was official, the soft tissue discovered was indeed, blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells and it wasn’t the only animal!

“A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur  fossils has been replicated for the first time.  Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago.

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.”

“This will either be nothing or the biggest revolution in paleontology ever,” says Tom Kaye, a paleontologist at the Burke Museum in Seattle, Washington, and a critic of the original T. rex study.”

Does it really increase understanding concerning the story of evolution? Supposedly 68 million years old with soft tissue and finding more with a supposed age of 80 million years old. Soft tissue degrades quickly, it’s not logical to conclude otherwise for any theory. So there is no increase in understanding evolution but a lot of back peddling which is why secular paleontologists danced around this discovery. Christians however, rejoice in findings because these soft tissues found in the fossil of T-Rex and another animal are not reformulating what the Bible says but rather confirms it!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Secular Paleontologists Addresses Most Tyrannosaurs

  1. Michael: “Christians however, rejoice in findings because these soft tissues found in the fossil of T-Rex and other animals are not reformulating what the Bible says but rather confirms it!”

    So what does your bible say about the T-rex ?

  2. That’s a lame question, What does your science say about soft tissue? Let’s see, it cannot degrade quickly because it goes against evolutionary theory, but it increases understanding about evolution…lol…Really? Or is it just another example how it doesn’t go by where the science leads?

  3. Michael,

    Does it really increase understanding concerning the story of evolution? Supposedly 68 million years old with soft tissue and finding more with a supposed age of 80 million years old. Soft tissue degrades quickly, it’s not logical to conclude otherwise for any theory.

    Michael, if tissue were to be found in a 68 million year old T-rex fossil, where would it be found? — I’ll tell you, it would be in the femur since the femure on a T-rex would be REALLY thick and large, and it would not be unthinkable for it to last so long, though not impossible at all..

    Well, it so happens that that tissue that you are talking about WAS discovered in the femur… I.e., this doesn’t count as evidence for a young earth at all:

    Link: http://answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

    Mary Schweitzer stood by her claims of the discovery and most likely was thrown back a bit by the opposition she was getting.

    This comment combined with the title of your post seems to imply to me that you think Mary Schweitzer is a “secular” paleontologist…. She is an evangelical Christian…. As such, she has no Atheistic, secular motivation to discredit Christianity or the Bible….. However, Young Earth Creatinists have religious, non-scientific motives to discredit her conclusions. — Whereas, Scheitzer is the more reliable one here.

    “Christians however, rejoice in findings because these soft tissues found in the fossil of T-Rex and other animals are not reformulating what the Bible says but rather confirms it!”

    Let me repete Eelco’s question to you… What does the Bible have to say about the T-Rex… I notice you actually avoide answering him and accuse him of making a “lame excuse” despite the fact he made no excuse, but simply posed a question to you…. So do yourself a favor and answer it.

  4. blockquote>
    Dubbed as [sic] the children’s favorite pet monster, secular paleontologists write about what they know about these creatures…

    Secular paleontologists may be the favorite pet monster of creationists’ children, but they rank way down the list for children in general.

    Michael prepends “secular” to the name of every science. In the case of paleontologists, however, it is totally redundant. If Michael were just a little less ignorant, he would know that “paleo” means “old.” A paleontologist is by definition one who studies old things. Since creationists do not believe in anything older than recorded history, there can be no such thing as a “creationist paleontologist.”

    But then Michael refuses to back up his claim from last February–February?!?—that he has a modicum of background to discuss any field of science. Oh, yes. While we’re at it, we have also been waiting more than a year for Michael’s promised review of Signature in the Cell. And then there is the matter of readership numbers, to back up Michael’s unsubstantiated claim as to readership numbers. How about it, Michael?

  5. The “soft tissue” in the dino bones was detected by new, high-tech instruments that have only recently acquired the power to detect the traces that have been found.[1] The results are so near the threshold of detectability that learned opinion is equally divided as to whether the material is ancient, from the original owner of the bones, or from modern invaders—and thus unexceptional.

    Since his object is faith rather then truth, Michael is forced to BELIEVE unquestioningly those scientists who opt for the original-owner hypothesis, and must DISBELIEVE those who hold to the microbial-mat hypothesis.

    Creationists pervasively accuse mainstream scientists of supporting their own views despite the evidence. But here, where the scientific evidence is ambiguous, we have—what?

    (a) Every creationist in the world latches onto the half of scientists who argue for one position.

    (b) The scientists themselves are divided among those who argue for the two positions, even though one of those position seems, superficially art least, may be unexplainable in terms of well-established theories of the age of the Earth.

    Now, let’s ask again which group, (a) or (b), is interested in finding the truth?

    ==================

    [1] This just might be the reason the tissue was only recently discovered, even though the bones have been known for a while. Just like the minerals in dino bones that Michael deceptively called “soft tissue” a couple of months ago. Duh.

  6. Upson Doownes raises a good question.

    Michael, if you are so certain that the material is indeed 80My old soft tissue, describe for your readers how this material is analyzed, and how it is determined to be tissue from the dinosaur, rather than from somewhere else?

  7. Michael references a current Science paper about T-rex, and then waxes rhapsodic about supposedly impossible soft tissue.

    It turns out that the soft-tissue discovery is mentioned only in a footnote to this paper, as an unresolved controversy.

    What the current Science paper is really about is the evolution and comparative anatomy of the T-rex family of theropods:

    Here we assess tyhe the current state of tyrannosaur research, with a focus on the phylogenetic relationships and large-scale evolutionary patterns exhibited by the group….

    If Michael was looking for a paper that disparaged or minimized evolution, he certainly stumbled across the wrong one this time.

  8. Michael :
    That’s a lame question, What does your science say about soft tissue? Let’s see, it cannot degrade quickly because it goes against evolutionary theory, but it increases understanding about evolution…lol…Really? Or is it just another example how it doesn’t go by where the science leads?

    Michael, what science says about soft tissues is already discussed above, in some of the other posts. My question, which was not lame at all, was what your bible says about T-rex (or soft tissues, if you like), as you are saying that these findings confirm what your bible says. So what does it say then ???

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