Fossil Evidence Challenges Evolutionary Ideas

In an article, New Scientist tries to deal with an ever-growing problem of soft tissues being preserved with an assumption of many millions of years.  T-Rex which is a popular dinosaur became a very controversial figure back in 2005. For the first time, soft tissues was recovered from a fossil that was deemed to be 68 million years old! The research was met with a lot of opposition in Darwinian circles but it was a tremendous scientific discovery for creationism!  In an effort to control the damage to evolutionary ‘theory’ the Smithsonian magazine wrote this…

“Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists.

While the publication is playing with a poker face and elevating evolution to cult status in it’s attack,  young earth creationists were not the only ones who believe that soft tissues have a short life span.  Even the Smithsonian magazine point this out as well…

“The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.”

In another research paper it says…

“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.”

So with a high rate of degrading, it’s reasonable to conclude that soft tissues found in fossils are not millions of years old, the discovery is certainly contrary to the evolutionary framework.  This is why soft-tissues discovered in T-Rex were met with such opposition. Archaeopteryx  was a fossil that was discovered back in 2009, it contained melanosomes which was still intact in a bird feather said to be 108 million years old using a scanning electron microscope!  Also, copper atoms were also detected with the synchrotron machine.

While creationist scientists would be more prone to look for soft tissue in fossils because for one, they believe the earth is young (thousands of years) and also don’t believe in the unrealistic time frame put on various animals, evolutionists on the other hand, are now embracing the idea and are becoming more bold for looking for it rather than waiting for another accident to happen. Preservation of soft-tissue provides verification for a young earth, thousands of years old and gives some unique insight on these special animals created by God!

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Fossil Evidence Challenges Evolutionary Ideas

  1. The creationist dilemma.

    In order to disbelieve the mainstream scientists who have found that fossil soft tissue can survive for millions of years, creationists must believe other mainstream scientists who have in the past said that it does not. That is, they must believe some mainstream scientists, and disbelieve others.

    This is really why creationism is apologetics, not science. They believe some scientists and disbelieve others—not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of their faith. But at best it is a Pyrrhic victory, because all of these scientists accept that the earth is billions of years old, and all of them laugh at creationism.

  2. @Michael,

    You say “In an article, New Scientist tries to deal with an ever-growing problem of soft tissues being preserved with an assumption of many millions of years. “

    What do you mean by “an ever-growing problem?” The problem, as you put it, is well on it’s way to being solved. In fact, we now know the conditions that can possibly preserve tissue for extreme periods of time. – Schweitzer herself made observations for the types of conditions that fossils with tissue have been found in verses those that do not tend to produce tissue.

    1. The fossils with tissue tend to be found in in areas burried under lots of sandstone. (Some are also found in limestone). But fossils found in mudstone, however, do not produce them. This is because mudstone distorts the fossils much more than either sandstone or limestone.

    From this, Schweitzer herself hypothesised that the tissue was preserved because they were in equilibruim with the sandstone… Of course, this IS a testably hypothesis. She found that the tissue started to degrade as soon as she removed it from the place she found it… That itself is a validation of her hypothesis.

    New research has also shown that Biofilm bacterias can contribute to such long term preservation of tissue. [1]

    I have already pointed this out http://in former comments on your blog, and you have completely ignored it. — Since I have already proven to you that this is not a problem for an old earth, I fail to see how you can honestly say that it is a problem.

    This is hardly a problem for conventional science. All this did was provide a new puzzle for scientists to solve, and they have done a good job of it so far.

    Now, will you even read what I have said in this comment? Perhaps. Will you care? Perhaps. Will you pretend it doesn’t exist? I bet you will.

    But such blind persistence and willful ignorance on your part only convinces me all the more that you are only pushing forward because you are only trying to convince yourself.

    Michael, I am willing to bet that you are truly an evolutionist under the skin.

    ———–
    [1] Peterson JE, Lenczewski ME, Scherer RP (2010) Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13334. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013334

  3. “n an article, New Scientist tries to deal with an ever-growing problem of soft tissues being preserved with an assumption of many millions of years.”

    Assumption of years? Oh, right. Michael swallows whole the opinion of some scientists in older papers that soft tissue can never never never last more tha 6,000 yeas. But radiometric fossil dating, accepted by every scientist in the world for a century, is an “assumption.”

    Another instance of accepting scientific results only when they meet the requirements of his faith, and sweeping the rest under the rug..

    Michael didn’t read his own quote from Science (324:579, 1 may 2009). The result was not a new finding; rather it “replicated” previous work. Perhaps Michael should look up that word.
    .

    Toady, Hosni Mubarak sent a few supporters into Tahrir Square with Molotov cocktails, and said, see, we need to stop the chaos and reestablish order.

    Same deal.

  4. Yo, Michael—

    I seem to have been added to a subscription list for “Creation Revolution” newsletter, from Tolle Lege* Press in West Virginia. I wonder whether you make your address list available to others. If so, please send me a copy of your privacy policy. If not, I’m sorry to have bothered you.

    I do read creationist material, but I like to choose it myself. If you’d like my opinion of “Creation Revolution,” it is revolting indeed. Answers in Genesis can lie much more convincingly.

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

    *— Very high-brow, Latin name and all that.

  5. I notice that some creationists have been “liking” the posts on this blog lately. I would really like to know what they think warrants a “like.” After all, even by Creationist standards, the arguments Michael gives are really bad.

    Perhaps they would stop if they were to see that Michael is a closet evolutionist.

  6. Kris, I frequently accuse Michael of not thinking like a scientist. Now it’s your turn.

    You’re not thinking in the faith mode here. Creationists cannot not “like” this blog for its scientific merit; they vote for it because it affirms their beliefs.

    How could anyone become a creationist on scientific grounds in the first place? Not possible. Therefore the only reason is religious. Although that mocks their insistence that in face creationism is scientific, nevertheless, logic has never been important to them..

    ——————-

    Post Commentum: Something seems to have got comments stuck in italics mode. Originally I thought it might have been an unclosed tag in my earlier comment. But apparently something else needs fixing.

  7. @Olorin,
    I already figured. I mean, I could understand why a Creationist would “like” the ICR or the AiG.. But I said a while ago that the arguments Michael gives would eventually be posted on CMI’s “Arguments we think Creationists Should Not use” page.

    I already suspected, and I agree with you, that they only “like” his blog for the pure reason that he is ranting how they want him to.

    Michael, and his small group of followers, seem to think that there is no such thing as a bad argument against evolution….Even AiG and CMI do not fall into that category… But I guess that is because they want to maintain at least some credibility.

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