Posted on 10/19/2009 1:40:13 PM PDT by lasereye
In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.
Since many think of a fossil as having had the original bone material replaced by minerals, the presence of actual bone--let alone pliable blood vessels, red blood cells, and proteins inside the bone--is quite extraordinary. These finds also present a dilemma. Given the fact that organic materials like blood vessels and blood cells rot, and the rates at which certain proteins decay, how could these soft tissues have been preserved for ten thousand, let alone 65 million or more, years?
These soft tissues have met with hard resistance from mainstream science, and some scientists have even discounted or ignored them. But fresh studies keep finding fresh tissue, making the issue difficult to dismiss. Either the vast evolutionary ages assigned to these finds are dramatically erroneous, or "we really don't understand decay" rates of the soft tissues and proteins.1
Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that something is fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates.2 In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeatable experiments show that the soft tissues should not be there after all this time. To try to get around the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce.3
This dilemma between the science of biochemistry and the belief in millions of years is not going away. In addition to the well-characterized tissues from a T. rex reported by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 1997,4 2005,5 and 2007,6 new soft tissue finds keep surfacing. Schweitzer published a report on another sample in Science in 2009,3 this time from a hadrosaur, in which the precise characteristics of dinosaur biochemicals were verified by a third party. This was necessary to confirm the reality of the soft tissues to an incredulous scientific community. (Similarly, Schweitzer's 2007 results have also been verified.7)
Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9
Schweitzer's team recently concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils."3 But biochemical decay rates showing that soft tissues would be dust after all this time are also thus far unfalsified (i.e., have not been disproved). Therefore, the millions-of-years age assignments must go.
However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand story of evolution that depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."8
References
1 Fields, H. 2006. Dinosaur Shocker. Smithsonian magazine online. Published May 2006, accessed July 20, 2009.
2 For example, see Bada, J. L., X. S. Wang and H. Hamilton. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 354 (1379): 77-87.
3 Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.
4 Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter. 1997. The Real Jurassic Park. Earth. 6 (3): 55-57.
5 Schweitzer, M. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.
6 Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.
7 Bern, M., B. S. Phinney and D. Goldberg. 2009. Reanalysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Mass Spectra. Journal of Proteome Research. Published online July 15, 2009.
8 Mummified dinosaur skin yields up new secrets. The University of Manchester press release, July 1, 2009.
9 Manning, P. L. et al. 2009. Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print, July 1, 2009.
I just wouldn’t be the same without the bi-weekly statement about the soft tissues. That story just won’t die the death it so deserves.
“soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.”
The number of lies in that statement is like a BJ CLinton statement. Creationists and philandering liberals, one and the same.
(And by the way, would you eat a “soft squishy fresh” piece of meat buried only a few thousand years ago? Even his lie is idiotic.)
The prevailing wisdom now is --- we don't know enough about how such soft tissue structures could be preserved ---not, like you say, "it's only been de-mineralized!" suggesting it had been fully fossilized like most other dinosaur bones, thus "nothing to see here folks" "just move along"...
What HAS been found in fossilized dinosaur bones is FOSSILIZED “soft tisssue structures” that are then de-mineralized.
That is simply wrong. You are lying or read something that's a lie.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
You award this way too soon, The other candidates haven’t even chimed in on this thread.
Sorry. I guess I was acting a bit like the Norwegian Nobel Committee..
Think of all the rock quarrying that has gone on since humans developed tools.
Now think of someone finding a large dinosaur skeleton of, say, brontosaurus.
How would they explain its presence? Legends...
Now, about the riddle of steel, let me tell you of the age of high adventure!
Isn’t the primary cause of decay the action of bacteria? If no bacteria get access to the marrow cavity in a bone, is it reasonable to suppose that decay will be retarded?
No agenda, just askin’ questions!
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
“Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
“Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
“Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”
If that was true then I assume the evos would have pointed that out by now. The soft tissues were first discovered in 1991. This is not something new. Here’s an article about that discovery.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1
“Though resilient, collagen fibers have been observed in laboratory settings to decay within a matter of weeks. Studies show that collagen should be unrecognizable after 30,000 years,2 a figure that is only 0.0375 percent of the standard age assigned to the hadrosaur.”
http://www.icr.org/article/hadrosaur-soft-tissues-another-blow/
Perhaps. Given the same premise in isolated cultures absent cross cultural influence, I'd be curious how you would explain the rendering by these cultures of similar creatures, with similar attributes.
Exactly what Earth shattering event within the last 6000 years made all dinosaurs extinct? ...and this whole line of thinking flies in the face of the YEC claim that all the dinosaurs died in the Great Flood.
I didn’t read anything in Genesis about animals being brought on board the Ark as fertilized eggs....”male and female” is the term used. What’s the difference between a male and female T. rex egg?
Another screed from the “You’re going to hell if you don’t agree with this article” people.
“Yes, soft tissue indications were found, mainly collagens, and were encased in rock themselves.”
Now, now, this is way too complex for “creation science”, and way too fact-laden.
I’ve tried explaining this on previous threads, and pointing out another in the unbroken series of lies that is “creation science” to no avail.
I wish you better luck, but these people are uncommonly stupid, and uncommonly stubborn. They take full advantage of their God-given ignorance.
There’s a difference between “not knowing how soft tissue structures were preserved” and the Brain Thomas MS* continuous false claim that they found soft-squishy tissues.
"You are simply wrong.....liar.....you're full of shi'ite.....or whoever you listen to is."
Guess you forgot to read AND COMPREHEND what YOU FREAKIN' POSTED.
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”
Thanks for making my task easier. They destroyed the samples by soaking it in a weak acid TO DEMINERALIZE the fossilized samples.
MAYBE you should rely on the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of the lyin Brian Thomas MS*.
Cortical and endosteal bone tissues were demineralized, and after 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation.
Hint: DE-MINERALIZED...in 0.5M EDTA, pH 8.0....EDTA is a chelating agent, something that can deal with mineral ions...you know...the stuff that makes up the "mineral" fossilized bones that need to be DE-mineralized.....soaked in EDTA for 7 days.
SOMEONE is lying and that would be Mr. Brian Thomas MS*......DO TELL, dear lyin' Brian MS*.....do tell all about those "soft, squishy tissues" that have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones as your lie claims.
Hell, even the image attached to the article is a lie I'll attribute to the ICR.....as in...THAT is not what was found, ICR.
At no time did they find a bone full of marrow and intact red blood cells.....but whatever....the ICR has their BS to peddle.
Lyin' Brian MS* is banking on you not knowing the difference.
I want to second (third, fourth) the suggestion that you check the original sources on any of Brian's articles, because he will lie to you. In this case, you only need to go to the footnote: "In bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." [emphasis added]
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.