Soft Tissue Discovered With No Evolution

Back in 2005, soft tissue from a dinosaur (T-Rex) was discovered within the fossil was a controversial subject because soft tissue degrades quickly so the media and other scientists tried to discredit the discovery which has been verified a few years later! Now we see reporting from these same secular science magazines with their poker faces as more soft tissue has been discovered.

Science Daily reports…

“Two ink sacs from 160-million-year-old giant cephalopod fossils discovered two years ago in England contain the pigment melanin, and that it is essentially identical to the melanin found in the ink sac of a modern-day cuttlefish.”

How does an organic ink sac from a fossilized Jurassic cephalopod which is identical from a living cuttlefish of today tell you anything about evolution? When organic material discovered within the T-Rex fossil was finally verified, this was supposed to be rare according to skeptics.  They use the same argument for the ink sac, they admit it’s “exceptional” soft tissue preservation and shows no signs of evolution which they say constitutes evidence for evolution or in other words, circular reasoning.

And because of the evolutionary time frame, we see the illogical happening as stated by the press release

Generally animal tissue, made up mostly of protein, degrades quickly. Over the course of millions of years all that is likely to be found from an animal is skeletal remains or an impression of the shape of the animal in surrounding rock. Scientists can learn much about an animal by its bones and impressions, but without organic matter they are left with many unanswered questions.”

“But melanin is an exception. Though organic, it is highly resilient to degradation over the course of vast amounts of time.”

Wouldn’t you like to see a test of this ridiculous assumption in a lab on how melanin could withstand degradation for many millions of years? For creationism, this is a tremendous discovery and quite interesting to say the least along with verifying a young earth which is the Biblical account! A young earth of course is inline with discoveries of soft tissue and how it degrades quickly.  A claim that organic  material that shows no evolution can last 160 million years because of the belief of slow and gradual through a mindless process  is circular reasoning and therefore not scientific!

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Soft Tissue Discovered With No Evolution

  1. Michael is conflicted. In order to disbelieve what scientists claim,. he must first believe what they claim.

    The secret, of course, is “selective belief,” in which one believes what pleases him and disbelieve what displeases him Michael believes that no soft tissue can endure for millions of years. In order to do this, he must believe that scientists were accurate in classifying this tissue as soft tissue. The he must believe that there can be no exceptions to whet he classifies as soft tissue will degrade quickly.

    Now it is true that in religion one can believe whatever one wishes to believe, and selectively disbelieve what one wishes to disbelieve. This is why we have Methodists and Mormons, Sunnis and Scientologists, each of them rock-solid in ossified tenets, and each convinced that the other guy is a perverse retard. The only test that has been developed involves great quantities of blood on the ground.

    Science is different. There is one science, and it is tested by evidence. Its theories change as new evidence accrues. Large parts of its subject matter may remain unknown, but they cannot—ultimate4ly—conflict with each other. One cannot believe that one set of atomic decay rates allows the Sun to shine, yet at the same time show that it is only a few thousand years old.

    .

    Oh, and science is certainly less violent than religion. There are no recorded incidents of quantum-loop theorists invading the campuses ofr string-theory theorists to burn their synchrotrons,kill their post-docs, or carry of their lab assistants as slaves.

    “The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” — H.L. Mencken

  2. Apropos the above—

    The 18 May issue of Science includes a 60-page special section on Human Conflict. Michael may be especially interested in reading “Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict.”(pp. 855-857).

    From the abstract—:

    Religion, in promoting outlandish beliefs and costly rituals, increases ingroup trust but also may increase mistraust and and conflict with outgroups. . . . Whether for conflict or cooperation, sacred values, like devotion to God or a collective cause, signal group identity and operate as moral imperatives that involve nonrational exertions independent of likely outcomes. In confluict situations, otherwise mundane sociopolitical preferences may become sacred values, acquiring immunity to materiaql incentives.

    For the present, the authors note that—

    Modern multiculturism and global expansion to multifarious values are increasingly challenged by fundamentalist movements to revive primary group loyalties through greater ritual commitment to ideological purity.”

    They also presebnt data that religious devoltion correlates positively with feelings of existaential insecurity.

  3. . . . . . . . . Soft Tissue Discovered With No Evolution

    Once more, Michael displays his ignorance of biology. Melanin is not “soft tissue.” It does not form biological tissue.. It is not a protein. It is an organic polymer. And, as Science Daily notes, is resistant to degradation, as are many polymers. The researchers did not recover the actual ink sac that had originally contained the pigment, but ony the pigment itself.[1]

    We have recovered amino acids from billion-year-old asteroids. Melanin is unusual, but certainly not any kind of evidence for a young earth.

    Sorry, Michael. Foiled again.

    .

    We have gone through the “no evolution” bit many times before. Some arachnids have persisted for hundreds of millions of years with little change. Some sharks are virtually unchanged over the same period.

    Need we repeat it yet again? Evolution carries the capability of change over time. Whether a species will change over time depends upon many factors, If its environment remains stable. natural selection will keep it where it is. Because it is already adapted.

    Michael, in order to argue against evolution, you must first know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, people just laugh.

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

    [1] This is clearly stated in another story..

  4. Although the carbon source evidently pre-dates any recently arrived bacteria or fungus, it dramatically post-dates the evolutionary age assigned to this fossil. If the source of the carbon was mosasaur tissue (and this is the most straightforward explanation), then the mosasaur’s carbon date would be in line with an age of thousands of years, as inferred by the integrity of its soft tissue.

  5. This is bizarre, Sugal. The fossil was dated at 160 million years. The maximum date measurable by carbon dating is about 50,000 years.

    So what is this “carbon source”? One might suspect that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

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