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!

Newly Discovered Fossil Puts Another Hole In Tree

So DNA is not confirming horse evolution but rather showing variants within it’s own kind, but are dinosaurs any better? In PhysOrg it doesn’t appear the case…

“The description of the new species, named Tawa after the Hopi word for the Puebloan sun god, appears in the Dec. 10 issue of the journal Science in a paper lead-authored by Sterling Nesbitt, a postdoctoral researcher at The University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences.”

Latest depiction of the animal.

“The fossil bones of several individuals were recovered, but the type specimen is a nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile that stood about 28 inches (70 cm) tall at the hips and was about 6 feet (2 meters) long from snout to tail. Its body was about the size of a large dog, but with a much longer tail.”

“The firm placement of Herrerasaurus within the theropod lineage points up an interesting fact about dinosaur evolution: once they appeared, they very rapidly diversified into the three main dinosaur lineages that persisted for more than 170 million years. Herrerasaurus was found in a South American rock layer alongside the oldest members of two major lineages—the sauropods and the ornithischians.”

The fossil was discovered in New Mexico when hikers accidently stumbled upon the bones back in 2004, key words to consider, “appeared” and “very rapidly diversified” which is something they also said about their DNA research on horses.  In 2006, imaginary feathers were created on Tawa in the artwork even though there were no feathers found on the bones, rather they said, “it was likely” the creature had features. But newer artwork found in PhysOrg of the animal shows no feathers unlike Nature

The newly discovered fossil also presents a problem about its source location of the missing ancestor. Tawa was found next to two other theropod dinosaurs which were around the same period of time. The article goes on to say that these three dinosaurs were related to those in South America. How could have these dinosaurs migrate so far away?

More articles are being published recently that are anti-gradualistic in theme but support abrupt appearance. Creationists have been advocating this for years, the evidence doesn’t show slow and gradual evolution. Proponents of this hypothesis (a non-thinking process) generally want to replace God with it, evolution according to them can do all the things the Lord can do.

They focus primarily about gene loss and alterations in the regulation of existing genes – not the increases in genetic information that molecules-to-man evolution would require.

Scientists Decided To Avoid Testing The Dino In Dakota

It’s an incredible story, more so for evolutionists than creationists because scientists were able to identify organic molecules from soft tissue that supposedly died over 66 million years ago.

Back in December 2007, the remains of the animal which was discovered in 1999, was being displayed to the world as reported by National Geographic…

“The extraordinarily preserved hadrosaur, or duck-billed dino, still had much of its tissues and bones intact, encased in an envelope of skin.  Research into the dinosaur’s remains may further scientists’ understanding of how the ancient creatures’ skin appeared and how quickly they moved, said team leader Phillip Manning of the University of Manchester, a National Geographic Expeditions Council grantee.”

“We’re looking at a three-dimensional skin envelope,” Manning said. “In many places it’s complete and intact—around the tail, arms, and legs and part of the body.”

Scientists excited the fossil still contained cell-like structures, which is also great news for creationists as well. It’s amazing to observe amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present in a fossil. What’s make this even more amazing, is the fact that evolutionists calculated this animal to be 66 million years old!

Derek Briggs, a Yale paleontologist who studies exceptionally-preserved fossils, told BBC news though it’s possible for cell-like structures to be found in the Dino fossil from Dakota, he doesn’t believe this is out of the norm and more fossils like this one being discovered wouldn’t be a surprise to him. Then goes on to say, some have been overlooked. Do you see a pattern here?

Derek Briggs presumption about Dinosaur fossils being millions of years old, but yet he explains this incredible discovery as though it was routine, but it is not. Like his fellow evolutionists, nobody predicted the remains to be so well preserved! Of course creationists would expect to find such fossils because we believe these dinosaur fossils are only thousands of years old.

So what testing are scientists avoiding? I’ll give you an obvious hint. Do scientists know how to degrade organic material? We still have anoxic bacteria around after all. This Dino fossil found in Dakota was in rock, not in an oxygen free environment like in an underwater cave. So this is certainly a testable hypothesis, then why aren’t they not conducting an experiment with other animals that simulates various plausible burial environments, and then measure the outcome by observing the decay rates?

It seems it’s not even on the table, because they are not even discussing such an idea which one would think would be important on understanding how the soft tissue contained in the dinosaur fossil was preserved after so many years!  They are definitely avoiding such testing until perhaps they can come up with an explanation first, before the experiment possibly conflicts with their story on evolution.

McLeroy Under Fire Again By Special Interests

The process of revising the science standards in Texas has been a focus on major debate by many people. Since the chairmen of the education board is a creationist, we see many of the old arguments being displayed on such online publications like the American-Statesmen for example…

“McLeroy’s critics, who include many Texas scientists, accuse him of trying to undermine a multitude of scientific evidence that supports evolution and replace it with a discussion of the supernatural in public schools.”

This statement is false, firstly public schools are currently unable by law to mention God as the creator. Secondly, McLeroy’s discussion on some of the weaknesses in the fossil record concerning “gradualism” was about quoting well known defenders of evolution. In his presentation made available by podcast, McLeroy begins by pointing out in a book by Ernst Mayr which considers evolution as fact, says the earliest fossils we have to date around 3.5 billion years old, show no changes whatsoever.  Another point McLeroy makes in the same book concerning the human brain where proponent of evolution Ernst Mayr says has not  changed one bit over a course of about 150 million years.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, a book written by Stephen J. Gould in 2002 but was also republished in part back in 2007 was another author McLeroy used to show the weakness of “gradualism” in the fossil record.

Stephen J. Gould helped develop a theory called; “Punctuated equilibrium” in 1980 to explain why the fossil record was showing abrupt appearances while showing a lack of major change in animals. Only a rare number of fossils have been interpreted as transitional forms. Punctuated equilibrium suggests little change (not very noticeable if at all) in the animals during their lifespan but when evolution does occur it’s a rapid change branching out into different species.

On page 749 in Stephen J. Gould’s book, “The last resemblance of a species looks pretty much like the first one.” Basically the same concept Richard Dawkins advocates where nature looks designed, but it’s an illusion, here Gould suggests basically the same thing, even though it’s appearance in the fossil record is the same through the many generations, the species still underwent major evolutionary changes not just small within it’s own kind like what we observe all the time. In other words, what we see in the fossil record as “abrupt” or showing animals looking the same  is another illusion because it’s not fitting with the theory of evolution.

Nothing in McLeroy’s presentation in front of the educational board in Texas has anything to do with discussing the supernatural as Laura Heinauer of the Statemen would like to have us believe. Being critical of “gradualism” is not advocating God. Although, one can conclude that way, and perhaps this is what the fear of many proponents of evolution have so they staunchly fight for no weaknesses in evolution, while attacking those who support teaching weaknesses along side so-called strengths in evolution and anything that may appear as a weakness, they claim is another “illusion” which will eventually disappear as explanations progress.

Examples of Storying Telling In Evolution

Evolutionary theory tends to explain one theory on top of another theory and in some cases the theory is quite the opposite of the original. For example, gradual accumulation of small variations was thrown right out the window when attempts were being made to explain the abrupt appearance of the flowering plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record.

Darwin considered this observation in the fossil record a serious “abominable mystery” which he had no answer for. But fast forward to the present time, and now it’s being explained in a particular way, which throws out the original theory and adding to it with an opposite theory…

In science daily, “Rapid Burst of Flowering Plants” described evolution of the flowers and plants as an “explosion” with a “burst of diversification” Gradualism which is very critical in evolution was nowhere to be seen, perhaps it must have gotten blown up as well…DNA analysis from living flowering plants studied by evolutionary scientists says ancestors of most modern trees diversified extremely rapidly.

Next example of story telling in evolution is a new law called; “survival of the weakess.” And who thought evolution was getting simplier to understand? Three species were tested as the story unfolds below…

“LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study.”

How does two opposite theories in evolution explain anything at all? It doesn’t make any logical sense perhaps this is why they didn’t explore the philosophical question.

A scientific paper written by Forterre and Gadelle discusses topoisomerases which are DNA-processing molecular machines and of course they were trying to explain how these highly complex and designed machines evolved with very little homology to hang a phylogeny.

They write, “Topoisomerases are essential enzymes that solve topological problems arising from the double-helical structure of DNA, as a consequence, one should have naively expected to find homologous topoisomerases in all cellular organisms, dating back to their last common ancestor. However, as observed for other enzymes working with DNA, this is not the case.”

What a major bombshell. The observational data is falsifying common ancestry. However, the power of story telling becomes a key component to save face what has been observed as conflicting with evolutionary theory.

In this example, something very rare happened, the paper mentioned “intelligent design” but it wasn’t much nor a conclusion. Generally scientific papers which are published avoid mentioning ID at all costs. Here is what they said, “An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists.”

Wow, I had to read that again, no doubt when other militant evolutionists see this, those two are going to get a lot of angry letters, and scorn to even consider such a proposal. Although, it wasn’t their conclusion. Of course they are not creationists, but really believed it had “evolved” despite the evidence, they begin to do some major story telling…

“Alternatively, they could have evolved from protein modules that were already working with DNA, if the first steps in the evolution of DNA genomes occurred in the absence of any topoisomerase activity, i.e. before the emergence of long double-stranded DNA genomes.”

“Two arguments favour the latter hypothesis: first, whereas RNA polymerases and RNA-binding proteins are obvious candidates to be direct ancestors of DNA polymerases and single-stranded DNA-binding proteins, ‘RNA topoisomerases’ that could be direct ancestor of DNA topoisomerases are unknown.”

“Secondly, it is likely that double-stranded DNA genomes with complex DNA-replication mechanisms (i.e. concurrent symmetric DNA replication) were preceded by single-stranded or even short double-stranded DNA genomes replicated by simpler mechanisms, such as asymmetric DNA replication, and/or rolling circle (RC) replication (75) (Figure 3).”

“These simple systems probably did not require topoisomerases, as it is still the case for their modern counterparts (the RC replication of some replicons require supercoiled DNA, hence gyrase activity, but only for the recognition step of the initiator protein).  If this scenario is correct, topoisomerases probably originated when more complex DNA genomes (long linear or circular DNA molecules) were selected in the course of evolution, together with more elaborate replication machineries.”

One thing you find when evolutionists are story telling, they generally want to come across as being sure of all what they just said. This hypothesis is no exception. Evolution likes to have it both ways, like survival of the strong and weak, from slow evolutionary changes to explosions of change, from claiming similarities disprove intelligent design to now differences disprove intelligent design as well, because they believe in their bias complex theory is suppose to be assumed to be true. Very bad science indeed!