Six Days Ping
Posted on 03/06/2006 11:42:50 AM PST by Tim Long
An update on the amazing T. rex bone discovery announced a year ago this month
Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1
At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2
Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
What did the researchers find? A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.
As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe”).
Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …
The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”
Her inferred answer was no.
Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)
The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
Six Days Ping
Imagine that. Scientists actually changing their theories to account for observations.
Please don't Larry Summers me, I'm just engaging in friendly debate.
How long does soft tissue survive?
Doesn't work that way.
If you are trying to bash science, the tiniest inconsistency is "proof" that all of science is wrong.
If you are trying to support a religious belief, on the other hand, the tiniest bit of data is "proof" that all of science is wrong.
But I guess soft tissue doesn't normally survive 65 millions years, right?
When are they going to clone it?
You mean, "doesn't work YOUR way".
"But I guess soft tissue doesn't normally survive 65 millions years, right?"
Judging from the state of other dinosaur fossils, usually not.
You might want to start your own experiment, I'd suggest heating some meat/bone in a sealed container to kill germs (this must have happened in the dino sample as well, and it stayed sterile somehow). Just break open your container after 65 million years and see what happened!
Check back to see if thread evolves or putrefies.
If it's like the miniature Doberman, that's ok. If not....
If it's like the miniature Doberman, that's ok. If not....
Think of a great white shark with the speed of a dirtbike, the agility of a scared chicken, and the size of a small house.
And the appetite of a black hole.
And the disposition of a rabid piranha.
(As a house pet they would leave something to be desired.)
"Evolutionists, they never learn."
Creationists, they never tell the truth.
Well, as usual, this evidence (if true, and not mis-interpreted) is being mis-applied (lied about?)....
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/06_02/026.htm
'“Now that we’ve seen the same structures preserved in all these different samples, we need to ask ourselves how they were preserved – what happened to essentially convert organic materials from the living state to what they are now – and if any original molecular components remain,” says Schweitzer.'
In other words, there is no "soft tissue" preserved - there are fossilized structures which mirror the form of the original soft tissue. The question is, how were these structures fossilized?
Here we see the fundamental difference between scientists and ID'ers, or creationists. The scientist observes a phenomenon not noticed before, and immediately begins to try to figure out the details of how this occurred. In the process, knowledge will be furthered in the sciences of chemistry, probably physics, certainly biology and paleontology. The creationist hears of a phenomenon not heretofore observed, and immediately leaps to the conclusion that the entire time scale is off, "the flood" obviously occurred, men and dinosaurs walked around together (etc, etc...).
The report by Dr. Schweitzer, et. al:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1952
Looks like the angels thought so, too:
"God's angels protected Noah's Ark from being damaged by any of the panicing dinosaurs that might have stampeded towards the Ark!"
-- Jim Pinkoski
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.