Scientists Discovering More Soft Tissue in Fossils

With an infrared analysis on the fossil, Roy Wogelius, a geochemist was able to find organic compounds and trace metals in the skin of a fossil assumed to be 50 million years old. Science Daily reports…

“This image had never been seen by the human eye, until a team led by Dr Roy Wogelius and Dr Phil Manning used state-of-the-art infrared technology at The University of Manchester to reveal and map the fossilized soft tissue of a beautifully-preserved reptile.”

“These infrared maps are backed up by the first ever element-specific maps of organic material in fossil skin generated using X-rays at the Stanford synchrotron in the USA, also by the Manchester researchers. Chemical details are clear enough that the scientists, from the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, are even able to propose how this exceptional preservation occurs.”

The amazing inventions of infrared and X-ray technologies opens up new doors for science in a  non-destructive exploration of fossilized material. The article failed to explain how it was possible for organic molecules being able to last for millions of years except to state that they are using “modern analytical chemistry and 21st century techniques to understand how such remarkable preservation occurs….” The dance around this explanation is because soft tissue in fossils does not last for millions of years which is why there was so much controversity over soft-tissues discovered with T-Rex back in 2005 which was later confirmed!

However, the BBC with their article and showing pictures of the data, they make an attempt to explain using a newly man-made invented bridging process that somehow miraculously preserved the fossil. The reporter failed to elaborate what causes bridging to occur in the first place, or why an assumed 50 million year old fossil closely resembles a modern gecko skin using the same analysis techniques.

Another interesting aspect to this story, it wasn’t  Wogeulius first analysis, him and his team tried to analyze fossilized dinosaur skin which was assumed to be 67 million years old but were unable to map any biological structure – not because the soft tissue was absent, but because it tended to fall apart too easily.

“The fossilized remains, discovered in 1999, included not just bones, but fossilized soft tissues like skin, tendons and ligaments. Most importantly, it was the first-ever find of a dinosaur where the skin “envelope” had not collapsed onto the skeleton. This has allowed scientists to calculate muscle volume and mass for the first time. The fact that the skin is mostly intact allows for the exciting possibility that some of its original chemistry is still present.”

Evolutionary paleontologists are aware that creationists are going to beat them over the head with any discovery of preserved soft tissue and biomolecules, so one has to wonder how hesitant they are to reveal what they discover. One thing is for sure, in order to put finding soft-tissue in what is deemed to be millions of years of rock, promising this is all leading to more understanding of evolution, but is it?

Basically it’s a bluff full of puff, what the evidence is pointing to is not millions of years but rather thousands of years like the Bible indicates! In a young earth framework, its not surprising to find soft-tissue in fossils, in fact that’s a confirmation of it!  That’s where the understanding is, not in the ever growing complexity of evolution due to falsifications.

5 thoughts on “Scientists Discovering More Soft Tissue in Fossils

  1. Michael, Michael, Michael, — How many times do I have to point out to you that “shock” of tissue being found in certain fossils is not such a shock anymore?

    I have pointed out to you in comments on several posts [1] that we have more understanding about how tissue can survive for many millions of years. I have also cited a new study that shows how biofilm bacterias can preserve tissue in fossils. [2]

    Also, I have pointed out to you that deep sandstone deposites seemingly have the right kind of environment to preserve tissue

    How many times do I have to tell you? And why in God’s name are you ignoring me unless you just wish to pretend that the explanations have not been found?

    For a good rebuttal:

    [1] Here, for example:

    [2] Peterson, Joseph E. Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs (2010) Available at:

  2. Evolutionary paleontologists are aware that creationists are going to beat them over the head with any discovery of preserved soft tissue and biomolecules, so one has to wonder how hesitant they are to reveal what they discover.

    Don’t worry, Michael. The time is long past when scientists were hesitant to publish because of fear of reprisals from the Church. Copernicus may have been the last.

    This is a major difference between science and religion. Unexpected scientific results are published and discussed. Uncomfortable religious views are routinely suppressed, by fatwa or by force.


    Here we notice yet again Michael’s curious selectivity in accepting findings by scientists. Any new result that seems to support his preconceived beliefs he accepts without question. However, any result that does not support him is reviled without question.

    This,of course, is not science, but apologetics. Michael seems unable to understand the difference, which frequently prompts laughter among his readers. As Jeremiah reminds us, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  3. @Michael,

    For someone who is advocating “absolute truth,” —truth seems to matter very little to you.

    If it did, you would have actually dealt with the evidence that shows that tissue CAN last for several millions of years under certain conditions.

  4. @Olorin,

    I think the fact Michael keeps ignoring the evidence here….is further confirmation he is only trying to convince himself…

    I stand by my hypothesis: Michael is a closet-evolutionist.

  5. And those ways that soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years are . . . how?

    Your source?

    Can this hypothetical means of preserving soft tissue for millions of years be duplicated in the lab, like a real scientific theory should?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s