More Soft Tissue Is Discovered

Soft tissue from ancient animals like dinosaurs have been controversial. Not for creationism because this confirms the biblical account of the earth and the rest of the universe of being thousands of years old, not billions. Scientists who believe in evolution have had a new challenge among them since the discovery in 2005, by Mary Schweitzer which she found by accident. Prior to that time, no researcher was looking for soft-tissue. However, the discoveries must be by a person who believes in evolution! California State University, Northridge scientist Mark Armitage who is a creationist was fired after his discovery of soft-tissue which was published in a peer-review paper in 2014! Socialism breeds no freedom outside its narrative likewise so does evolution! The two go hand in hand.

To date, 41 fossils and counting have been discovered containing their original soft-tissue in them. Researchers are not only looking for soft-tissue which has lead to more new discoveries within the fossils, but they are also are in an uphill losing battle about trying to explain material that rapidly decays in a short period of time and then turns that observation around as proof of vast long periods of time which would confirm their belief in evolution.

Yale’s press release caption

We will now take a look at one of the more recent explanations, then turn our attention to some cool new discoveries concerning soft-tissue!

Yale put out a new study in its press release

“We took on the challenge of understanding protein fossilization,” said Yale paleontologist Jasmina Wiemann, the study’s lead author. “We tested 35 samples of fossil bones, eggshells, and teeth to learn whether they preserve proteinaceous soft tissues, find out their chemical composition, and determine under what conditions they were able to survive for millions of years.”

While the study embraces long periods of time due to its Darwinian narrative, its estimate on “rapid decay” of organic material is massively overstated. They estimate organic material completely degrades in a span of four million years. Yet, even by their own estimation, it presents a major challenge for them. How do you explain fossils with organic material in them that is supposedly 65 to over 100 million years old that was able to survive in extreme environmental conditions for long periods of time as well.

Trying to defy the Law of Entropy is no easy task but some scientists are determined to come up with an explanation that just does that! If not, more people might start doubting evolution or it might even confirm doubts from those on the fence who were leaning toward evolution but not quite fully embracing it and perhaps some of their funding would also be affected as taxpayers find it more necessary to fund other things.

The Toaster Effect

In order to defy the Law of Entropy, you have to come up with an ideal environment which produces material that is resistant to decay. Sounds like rust inhibitor for your car which didn’t happen by accident but intelligently designed. They partly tested their theory in a lab, one problem and it’s a major problem, scientists do not believe soft-tissue can be found in reducing environments!


Decalcified vertebrate hard tissues (representing a total of 7 specimens). a Paleonisciform ganoid scale (Oxfordian (Jurassic), Xinjiang, China) showing articulated blood vessels (abv) of the dentine and organic matrix with peripheral aligned and ordered (otpn), or unordered (utnp), tubular nerve projections. The left scale bar equals 500 μm, the right one 250 μm.
The Toaster Effect (which I call it as) requires that this delicate material along with its fine details remain fully intact as a result of miraculously avoiding rapid decay over a period of 65 million to over 100 million years. It is quite a challenge in trying to convert something thousands of years old into many millions of years! This hypothesis fails to confirm evolution which is why we will see many more explanations about this particular issue in the future!

On to more exciting discoveries! Two more fossils have been discovered, one in Germany and another in China that contains soft-tissue. Mary Schweitzer who was previously mentioned at the beginning of this blog posted a press release about the new discovery…

“Both the body outline and remnants of internal organs are clearly visible,” says Lindgren. “Remarkably, the fossil is so well-preserved that it is possible to observe individual cellular layers within its skin.”

“Researchers identified cell-like microstructures that held pigment organelles within the fossil’s skin, as well as traces of an internal organ, thought to be the liver. They also observed material chemically consistent with vertebrate blubber, which is only found in animals capable of maintaining body temperatures independent of ambient conditions.”

Because these animals haven’t been in the fossil record for millions of years, we can learn more about them because their bodies are more intact than they would have been otherwise. It’s awesome to find out that ichthyosaurs were warm-blooded and may have had camouflage! Interesting to note, a question for evolutionists, how could an animal fossil supposedly 180 million years old still have its original protein that is still stretchy and flexible? Caught up in their own narrative of evolution, they wait for someone to come up with a miraculous but impossible explanation to confirm it whereas observations are falsifying it.

“The team’s discoveries relied in part on an array of new technologies for studying fossils. But the German fossil is also unusual in that it appears to have fossilized very quickly, preserving soft tissues before they rotted away. It won’t be the only one of its kind, Lindgren says. “I expect there are other specimens out there, for sure.”

Yes, I agree with Lindgren on this issue, he’s right about other possible specimens who have been “fossilized very quickly” but what about a great flood that buried this animal and others like it? Creationists believe that is exactly what happened to this animal. It had been rapidly buried by Noah’s flood and since it’s not that old its original protein was preserved and now available for research! Since Lindgren is trapped into the narrative of evolution like so many others in his field, he calls the ichthyosaur a “reptile” despite the fact that this animal is warm-blooded and has no scales and looks like a toothed whale or dolphin. The narrative requires a belief that the sea made animals evolve alike! If this was a valid theory, one of the things we would be finding is less variety in the sea, not more, many creatures do not look alike in the sea! Since the evolution narrative says that reptiles were before mammals and these two fossils are before what they consider the mammal period, they clearly have to believe despite evidence to the contrary that this mammal (ichthyosaurs) is a reptile. Confusing isn’t it? This generally happens consistently in the explanations of evolution. 


Main slab of Pengornithid Enantiornithine, preserved in three-dimensions unlike most compression fossils from the Jehol Biota. Scale bar is one centimeter. Credit: Jingmai O’Connor

The second fossil discovered in China is a medullary bone commonly found in female birds today and some dinosaurs from the past. The bone itself contains a very fragile type of tissue which only exists during egg laying. A huge problem for those trying to explain millions of years but not a problem for a young earth. The medullary bone was also discovered in a T-Rex back in 2005, which shocked many evolutionists who are now working on an explanation, one of which we previously went over in this blog.

In conclusion, we don’t have to be trapped inside such a narrative that gets astoundingly confusing because of conflict with observations! There are surprises in science but not like this on a regular basis. We can think outside the box and get excited about new discoveries which confirm the Bible! Looking forward to more new discoveries in this area of science. Thanks for reading this article!

Advertisements

Fatty Oil Discovered In A Fossil

The earth is young, some of its processes are much quicker than evolutionists want to believe because their assumption is that the earth is billions of years old along with evolution moving at a very slow pace. If that is the case, why are scientists discovering soft tissue in fossils which they assume are many millions of years old? Prior to 2007, they didn’t even attempt to look for it. Soft tissue was discovered by accident in a T-Rex. Now a new discovery surfaces which have absolutely stunned them! 

“As a rule, soft parts do not withstand the ravages of time; hence, the majority of vertebrate fossils consist only of bones. Under these circumstances, a new discovery from the UNESCO World Heritage Site “Messel Pit” near Darmstadt in Germany comes as an even bigger surprise: a 48-million-year old skin gland from a bird, containing lipids of the same age.”

 Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum

“As shown by our detailed chemical analysis, the lipids have kept their original chemical composition, at least in part, over a span of 48 million years. The long-chain hydrocarbon compounds from the fossil remains of the uropygial gland can clearly be differentiated from the oil shale surrounding the fossil,”

Mayer claims this is a very rare occurrence, or really? They never tested the fossils for soft tissue prior to 2007, how does he know its rare? Oh, the age assumption! How can organic material which is known for decomposing within weeks, sometimes years last many millions of years? How is that possible? It takes a lot of faith and denial of what goes on in the real world to believe in evolution. Here comes an unproven invention of how…

“It is possible that hey hardened into nore [sic, more] decomposition-resistant waxes under exclusion of oxygen. In addition, the researchers assume that one of the properties of the preen oil played a role that is still shown by modern birds today – its antibacterial components. They may have been the reason that after the bird’s death only few bacteria were able to settle in, preventing the full-on decomposition.”

Nobody will be able to test such an explanation but from human experience, we all know that soft tissue degrades quickly! And even with the earth was billions of years old, evolutionists claim the earth went through extreme climate changes over a course of millions of years and if this was true, it would have affected the soft tissue.  

And there is another thing, this fossil doesn’t show any evolution because this ancient bird had a gland that is identical to modern birds of today. Overall the ancient bird is not that much different than we see today and yet it is assumed to be 48 million years old with fatty oil still present. Any common sense would tell you the remains indicate the bird did not fossilize very long ago! It confirms creationism, not evolution! Not long ago more soft tissue was discovered in a turtle claimed to be 54 million years old! The list continues to grow. 

We live in exciting times, a young earth will provide a lot of information from the past that normally evolutionists assume should have been gone a long time ago because of their view on materialism moving very slowly. 

Evolutionary Hypothesis Goes Into Reverse

Some scientists are exploring a part of their story which requires certain genetic instructions and changes to embryonic development. The question they are trying to explain about their story is, how did fish grow feet? They conceptualized it this way…

“A team of researchers identified two new genes that are important in fin development. They report in the journal Nature that the loss of these genes could have been an “important step” in the evolutionary transformation of fins into limbs.”

“Marie-Andree Akimenko, from the University of Ottawa in Canada, led the research. She and her colleagues began their study by looking at the development of zebrafish embryos. They discovered two genes that coded for proteins that were important in the structure of fins.”

Who gave this team of researchers a grant to come up with this? Marie should do her government and the people of Canada a great favor and give the money back! Subtracting genes from animals which are already complex and poof new information emerges in that vacated space which then affects the structure of the animal is total nonsense! Is this how evolution works?  Does anyone consider this a ‘theory’? Generally evolutionists proclaim theories are well-tested and a consensus emerges to validate it to a ‘theory’ status.

And lastly, she  continues with the nonsense by claiming “whether the fin genes were knocked out to help make the transition.” Knocked out, by what or who? Further work is needed to confirm this ‘theory’ they say. Well let me tell you something, building new skyscrapers doesn’t require bulldozers!

They are going to be knocking themselves out by removing genes from fish to see what emerges. The BBC is certain that this supposed clue was going to shed light on Darwinian evolution, then makes a promise to the public while being misleading, “A study has shed light on a key genetic step in the evolution of animals’ limbs from the fins of fish, scientists say.” Did it really “shed light on a key genetic step” in the evolutionary story?

The Problem of Research Fraud in Evolution

While there have been many accusations of fraud on both sides of the issue when it comes to Creationism and Evolution, but one thing is for sure, there is indeed a problem of fraud in the study of evolution.

Back in June 2008, Nature magazine publishes an article called; “Repairing research integrity.” In July 2008, researchers from all over the world wrote back in response to the article, sharing their experiences of research corruption in which there were no controls in place to help prevent such a problem.

Two researchers from America wrote a distrubing response, they said and I quote,  “The academic and financial rewards of calculated, cautious dishonesty on the part of some scientific leaders are, we believe, all too apparent to the junior scientists they supervise,” they said.  “No amount of tutoring, stricter supervision or courses in research ethics will fix this problem.”

What lacks with these types of researchers from top to bottom is the fear of God. This type of sinful conduct deludes research even more with the faulty conclusions about naturalism. The love for money is one of the reasons of why conducting solid and objective research is tainted.

This is not to say all evolutionary scientists are in it for the money because there are some who are wrong about their faith in evolution, but still conduct their research in an honest way.