Soft Tissue Creates Wrinkle In Evolution

This is quite a fossil discovery, this amazing find contained original soft tissue in a mosasaur fossil. Mosasaurs are marine reptiles that lived when dinosaurs were fairly common. Evolutionists using their old age famework, dating the fossil at 70 million years old…


“The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation and occasionally labile and decay-prone tissues, such as skin and melanosomes (color-bearing organelles), are preserved as phosphatized remains or organic residues with a high degree of morphological fidelity [1], [2]. Yet, whether multimillion-year-old fossils harbor original organic components remains controversial [3], [4], and, if they do, a positive identification of these biomolecules is required.”

Recent attempts to detect type I collagen (the main structural protein in skeletal tissues) in fossil bones have relied largely on liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) [5], [6], which provides identification of the peptide sequences but has the drawback of being based on whole bone extracts rather than location-specific tissues (the localization of the collagenous peptides has instead been inferred largely from epitope data [6]). Questions have also been raised concerning the authenticy of the amino acid sequences obtained from this form of analysis [3], and whether or not it is possible to distinguish between a few peptides derived from animal collagens and collagen-like proteins from, e.g., bacteria.”

Why must evolutionary scientists fit these bones in a vast period of time? It defies logic! Let’s look at its environment. Marine fossils happen to be buried in marine sediments – wet, and full of what? Microbes! Is it plausible that there was no decay for 70 million years? It makes no sense! Bioturbation would have occurred, along with degradation by microbes, long before the strata was uplifted into dry chalk inland in Belgium!

Where is this evidence really pointing to? Well think about this, these bones are only a few thousand years old, buried rapidly under a load of sediment.  Wouldn’t this explanation fit the data perfectly?  Even though the original organic components remains controversial as did T-Rex when it was discovered with soft tissue back in 2005, the wrinkle becomes illogical, a whim of great faith in the story of evolution! But its quite an amazing discovery which fits perfectly in creationism!

5 thoughts on “Soft Tissue Creates Wrinkle In Evolution

  1. Oh no, not the “soft tissues” again.

    Michael, I have shown you many times that they have been able to explain how tissue can survive for so long, and I will not even bother to try explaining it again.

    Whenever you bring this up, I will simply link the paper that explains how biofilm bacteria preserves them:


    I have explained this to you so many times that I do not buy for a minute that you do not know. You are either willfully ignorant or a liar.

  2. Where is this evidence really pointing to? Well think about this, these bones are only a few thousand years old, buried rapidly under a load of sediment. Wouldn’t this explanation fit the data perfectly?

    Yes. In fact, I can look up into the sky and see the Sun moving across it every day from east to west. Therefore, the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    Wouldn’t this explanation fit the data perfectly?


    Kris, you can point to the evidence until Hector won’t have it. This will not dissuade Michael from his mission to subvert science in an ultimately futile effort to bolster his faith..

    The only thing that is even occasionally effective is ridicule.

    That’s reason #43 why people laugh at creationists.

  3. Kris has noted biofilms as preserving agents for proteinaceous materiel from deep time. The subject PLoS ONE paper lists several others—Michael’s brain apparently overheated before he reached the Discussion section (Hint: It’s at the end.)

    > Entombment in hydroxyapatite crystals of bone, which are highly resistant to degradation.
    > Small diameter of the fibrils, resulting in a high mineral-to-extrafibrillar ratio.
    > High levels of phosphate and carbonate in the surrounding chalk, which minimizes dissolution and re-precipitation of the bone mineral, limiting exposure to microorganisms..
    > Early intravascular mineralization blocked off internal surfaces, denying bacteria access to organic material in the bone matrix

    In opposing all this scientific evidence, Michael has this to say: “But I just don’t BELIEVE it!”

    Too bad, Michael. You can cover your eyes for a long time. But, eventually, the Earth does rotate around the Sun, demons do not cause disease, the Cosmic Microwave Background does exist, and species do evolve into other species.

  4. I noticed the “Possibly related post” linked beneath this particular blog post leads to another of Michael’s posts on the same subject. I clicked on it and noticed one of my older comments on this.

    I will quote it below since it is still a good observation:

    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.

    Oh well, Michael and no other Creationist ever disputed me here… And I am not holding my breath still.

  5. Poor Michael. He does not realize the irony of this post.

    Scientists used to be pretty certain that “soft tissue” could not be preserved over deep time—millions of years. Then, detection methods improved, certain geologic formations were analyzed, and evidence accumulated, and still accumulates, that this position was wrong.

    But Michael will have none of it. He clings to the old view, and disregards the evidence.

    That is, although Michael continually exhorts us to “follow the evidence wherever it leads,” he refuses to do so himself.

    Small wonder that scientists view creationism as faith-based apologetics, pure and simple.

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