Soft Tissue Withstands Another Challenge

While analyzing a newly discovered dinosaur fossil,  Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon one of the greatest evidences for a young earth ever to be discovered! In evolution’s time frame, the fossil was a 68 million old Tyrannosaurus rex which was found in Montana and various fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

To her astonishment as well as her colleagues, Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone which was the first discovery of its kind and would not be the last!  They never imagined even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive such a long time because as various textbooks would tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.

It is quite possible that the soft tissue would have been discovered prior to Schweitzer’s discovery but paleontologists generally don’t dig their specimens out of the ground so they can destroy with acid like Schweitzer did!  She recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” She is right, not for millions of years they don’t!

As one can imagine, much controversy followed the discovery although it didn’t come creationists but rather evolutionists themselves which continues to challenge the soft tissue discovery. Creationists and Christians alike rejoiced around the world in such a discovery while evolutionists were on their heels, attacking creationists as “hijacking” the data,  that Schweitzer was evolutionist with no challenge from a creationist that she was not and trying to come up with a rescue explanation which would allow them to claim that soft tissue could survive for 68 million years.  Maybe the textbooks are wrong about fossilization they suggested or maybe it wasn’t soft tissue to begin with.

Mary Schweitzer decided to attend a meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology this month where she presented more compelling evidence that has soft tissue withstanding another challenge!

In Nature News

“Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests.”

“When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.”

The talking point about dinosaurs to birds is storytelling, but this latest evidence for soft tissue is a valid scientific discovery, and it will interesting to watch for more evidence to come out of this research. As long as the soft-tissue claims hold up, they argue strongly against the consensus view that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago!

In the creationist model, it has no problem with dinosaurs, or soft tissue being discovered, because we believe the earth is young! In the evolutionary story which distorts history with complex conjectures that takes more faith to believe than God himself. In the creationist model, dinosaurs co-existed with another animals, and the fossil record bares this out with discoveries like ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures that have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Soft Tissue Withstands Another Challenge

  1. This disproves stupid evolution, once and for all!!!!

    Michael has singlehandedly disproved evolution ten times in the past month alone.

    But, so far, no one has noticed.

    And it’s very unlikely that anyone will notice.

  2. Ken Ham’s (Answers In Genesis) response to the soft tissue…

    “Here is an interesting update on the soft tissue/cells etc finds in Dinosaur Bones said to be millions of years old. Many of you will recall that a few years ago, scientists were shocked to hear that soft tissue, blood cells, vessels etc were claimed to have been found in Dinosaur bones said to be 68 million years old or so. Of course, secularists did not want this to be so, as it would seem to confirm the bones can’t be that old.”

    “Many secular scientists claimed contamination. Research has continued on this matter, and here is yet another confirmation that the claim is valid. Of course, secularists would be happy to accept this–except for the implication that the bones can’t be millions of years old! But biblical creationists of course have no problem at all with such a find. Some scientists have suggested they have to rethink the chemical processes that fossilize bone–what most scientists won’t do is question the time (millions of years).”

    This is because they have to have–they NEED millions of years to postulate biological evolution. As I have said many times, millions of years is their religion–and they don’t want to give up their religion! What’s the alternative? That the Bible is true and all are sinners in need of salvation!! That marriage is a man and a woman! That abortion is killing a human being! Well–sadly–so many of the secularists don’t want to consider the Bible–they continue to ‘suppress the truth.’ They want to do ‘what is right in their own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).”

    Another blogger’s response to the soft tissue confirmation, this time in phys.org…

    “My own personal hope is that the ages which result from these dating techniques are not treated in a dogmatic way, as if they cannot possibly be wrong. A slight sidereal component has been observed to radioactive decay rates. That would seem to naturally open the door to the possibility that highly energetic events might dramatically alter these dates. There has to be room for those of us who believe in the scientific method to nevertheless question the accuracy and methodologies associated with the dating techniques.”

    “If science decides to abandon those who believe in the methodology of science, but who nevertheless remain open-minded on the accuracy of the dating techniques, it is very possible that a reckoning is simply being pushed off to a later date. It’s truly a matter of how many assumptions that a person is comfortable with making. And that is a shade of gray which exists *within* the boundaries of scientific discourse.”

    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-dinosaur-bone-cells-ancient.html

  3. Olorin,

    Your building a strawman…It’s the soft tissue and you know that! :) There is no evidence in which you can postulate which has blood vessels lasting over 60 million years in a bone! In fact, the textbooks that teach evolution agree with this also! The reason why soft tissue remains is because the earth is less than 10,000 years old!

    Schweitzer who is an evolutionist along with being the discoverer puts it this way while thinking in terms of millions of years…

    “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”

  4. Schweitzer who is an evolutionist along with being the discoverer puts it this way while thinking in terms of millions of years…

    “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”

    The thing about science is that it changes constantly. I notice, for example, that you did not complain when the ENCODE project found less “junk DNA.” For decades, scientists thought that at most 20% of the human genome was functional. Then ENCODE comes along and says as much as 80% is functional.

    AND YET, when scientists said that soft tissue could not survive fr millions of years, and then fond evidence that it could survive—then all of a sudden, you and the other creationists deny the results.

    Here’s the only difference:
    (a) Any change in scientific evidence is accepted without critical thought if creationists like it.
    (a) Any change in scientific evidence is rejected summarily if creationists do not like it.

    Religion may operate that way, but science does not. All evidence is relevant.

    Here’s another difference: the different creeds of religion are under no constraints for consistency. In science, however, all fields must be consistent with each other—if, for example, evolution should require more time than that allowed by the age of the earth, then one or the other must be modified.[1]

    .

    In this case, Michael’s claim that the soft tissue is recent may be true by itself. However, it contradicts all of the other methods of dating the fossils. Michael merely disregards the inconsistent data. If all the doctors in his state told Michael tha he has cancer of the eyelid, but one said, no, he just needs some eye drops, than he would, of course, believe the eye-drop guy—because, hey, who likes cancer?

    All the papers claiming old soft tissue are thorough in dating the fossils, almost always by several independent methods. That’s why none of the surprise that Michael cites even mentions that the age might be in question. They only express astonishment that the tissue could last that long.

    Now, Michael’s own ICR has thoughtfully provided a list of 42 journal papers documenting “soft tissue” finds that they think are too old.[2] The first thing to notice is that all of these papers (except one) came out within the past 20 years, and most of them are less than 10 years old. This means that Michael’s “science textbooks” are seriously out of date. A lot can happen in two decades. For example, 20 years ago, no exosolar planets had been detected—none. Now there are 843, and even Michael grudgingly admits their existence. But—advances in analyzing fossils?? Can’t happen!

    Advances have been made in several areas.

    To begin with, new analyses have sussed out organic compounds from non-organic matrices that everyone has always known to be preserved. Melanin found in amber is an example—melann is an organic compound but it is not tissue, although Michael ignorantly claimed that it was. Patterns of zinc and copper have shown the outlines of soft tissue,[3] because these metals combine and mineralize with bone.

    Second, material tat was once thought to be modern contamination has been identified as original tissue, or traces thereof. These discoveries result from improvements in mass spectrometry that can identify smaller and smaller samples of larger and larger molecules. Forensics uses this technique to analyze tiny bits of material in criminal cases..

    Third, taphonomic conditions have been identified which promote preservation. Most fossils are found in sandstone, which breaks down organic compounds within a short time. Anoxic burial, and alkaline environments can significantly limit degradation over long periods of time.[4].

    Fourth, one of the most important advances in the past decade is the “shotgun” technique which allowed Craig Ventner to sequence the human genome for the first time. Serendipitously, this technique is also a great advance in decoding ancient DNA. When DNA degrades, it breaks into small stretches of base pairs —but this is what Ventner’s technique does on purpose. It breaks DNA into short snippets, decodes the snippets, then figures out how to glue them back together in the correct order. This was a godsend for paleontology. This method was used to reconfigure small degraded Denisovan DNA samples into sequences long enough to comp\are with modern human DNA. Ten years ago, Denisovan DNA reconstruction would have been impossible.

    There is no evidence in which you can postulate which has blood vessels lasting over 60 million years in a bone! In fact, the textbooks that teach evolution agree with this also!

    .

    Michael is so far behind the curve in paleontology that we wonder how he can pretend to discuss it with a straight face.
    You just cited the evidence, Michael. And, since it is science, not religion, you can’t merely wave it away.

    The reason why soft tissue remains is because the earth is less than 10,000 years old!

    I see. The evidence for a young earth is that blood vessels can;’t last for 60 million years. And your evidence that blood vessels ca’t last for 60 million years is that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Does anyone else see a problem here? Our rabid first commenter would not see it, of course.[5]

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

    [1] This was actually the greatest objection to evolution when Darwin proposed his theory—The then-accepted age of the earth did not allow enough time. Lord Kelvin himself sniffed that, if the sun were made entirely of coal, it would burn to a cinder in only 30 million years.
    .
    [2] “Published Reports of Original Soft Tissue Fossils,” July 21, 2011.

    [3] Not too long ago, Michael claimed that zinc was “a complex organic compound,” thus putting is ignorance of high-school chemistry on public display.

    [4] Anderson, et al., “Taphonomic study of Ediacaran organic-walled fossils confirms the importance of clay minerals and pyrite in Burgess Shale-type preservation,” Geology, 39:643-646 (July 1, 2011) outlines certain of these conditions. Also cf. Schiffbauer & Laflamme, “LAGERSTATTEN THROUGH TIME: A COLLECTION OF EXCEPTIONAL PRESERVATIONAL PATHWAYS FROM THE TERMINAL NEOPROTEROZOIC THROUGH TODAY,” PALAIOS, 27:275-278 (May 1, 2012). If Michael believes these papers to be incorrect, he may conduct his own tests, or cite other references (although not from AiG, because they are dishonest).

    [5] But hold! Michael has apparently removed that comment, and consigned it to the howling ether. Embarrassed, by the foaming at the mouth, Michael?

  5. Another blogger’s response to the soft tissue confirmation, this time in phys.org…

    “My own personal hope is that the ages which result from these dating techniques are not treated in a dogmatic way, as if they cannot possibly be wrong. A slight sidereal component has been observed to radioactive decay rates.

    BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHHAAAAAAAA

    Michael is so desperate that he clings to an idle “hope” in phys.org blog by J. Random Crank who gives no sources, no evidence, nothing to suggest that his suggestion is any more than an idle flatulence..

    Michael, where DO you dig this trash up?

    Do you have any idea what “sidereal” means? Of course not. It refers to keeping time by the stars, instead of the earth. Thus, for example, the sidereal day differs by about 4 minutes from the solar day.

    NOW, tell us what that signifies in the context of atomic decay rates.

    I thought not. Pure horse puckey.

  6. Olorin,

    Is that all the evidence you can come up with…lol Even the textbooks that are based on evolution agree…That is why the soft tissue is on trial with evolutionists, too much of an indictment of the evidence failing evolutionary expectations. It is a great blessing for the earth being only thousands of years old, we will see more discoveries of soft tissue in the future as a result of this discovery because scientists will be more aware of it but can only happen as a result of the earth being much younger.

  7. Is that all the evidence you can come up with…lol

    If the fifty papers in peer-reviewed journals are not stronger than your delusion, then 500 papers would not suffice either. This is not a measure of the evidence—It is a measure of fear that your faith is based upon a lie.

    Even the textbooks that are based on evolution agree

    And the astronomy textbooks all agreed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down — 20 years ago. (That’s when the textbooks said that soft tissue does not preserve.)

  8. . . . . Soft Tissue Withstands Another Challenge

    Not all that difficult, when the challenge is from a creationist who is 20 years behind the curve.

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