Replies

Nice little article at psy.org too. An amazing find without doubt but it would fit equally well with what I believe the age of life on earth to be, in thousands not billions or millions of years.

It also gives some indication that many of the animals found died and were preserved immediately. I look forward to more details on this one coming out.

Thanks for ping!

You’re mistaken. The find was of FOSSILIZED soft tissue. You can read all about it direct from the scientists themselves right here:

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2009/11NOV09/051109_muscle.html

Okay, let's say for the moment that this "fossilized soft tissue," whatever that means exactly, is evidence that the salamander isn't as old as we thought. Brian writes, "Organic materials such as muscle tissue decay in days or hours under ambient conditions, as anyone can observe by leaving a piece of steak out in the open." Does that mean the salamander fossil must be only days or hours old? If not, what mechanism was able to preserve the tissue past days or hours for [however old Brian thinks it is], but not for millions of years?

It seems to me there's only two choices: either these soft-tissue fossils are as old as scientists think are but, as the original story says, "soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known." Or, they are so young that no extraordinary explanation is required for why soft tissue is preserved. If that's the case, why doesn't every fossil have soft tissue inside it? Why is it so rare--why does it require microscopes to find--if the simple explanation is that it's not very old?