#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth

www.answersingenesis.org ^ | September 11, 2012 | David Menton

[kimtom]

"... A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)

Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. ....."

[kimtom]

Dr. David Menton holds a PhD in cell biology from Brown University and is a well-respected author and teacher. He is Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Menton has many published works and is one of the most popular speakers for Answers in Genesis.

[fishtank]

Good article.

Good evidence.

Good logic.

[kimtom]

This is very compelling to me. My Atheist (evolution) buddy had nothing to say.

Other than, ..” ...I guess soft tissue can survive...millions of years....”

The possibility that fossils could be younger cannot be allowed. yet fossilization (mineralization) does not take long at all (decades) (longer for more complete).

[youngidiot]

I don’t think that we (Christians) have any business trying to guess the age of the Earth. Scripture simply doesn’t say, and why would it? But the other side has many problems. Science and Christianity are compatable. Sadly, many use one as a way to “disprove” the other.

There’s some things we don’t know. And there is a God. Deal with it.

[count-your-change]

That evidence might well argue for a younger or more recent age of dinosaurs without making a case for a younger or more recent earth.

[John Valentine]

A: None of the above.

[OneVike]

Until the heart softens and accepts Christ as the one triune God and Creator of the universe, those who hold to the theory of evilution will always dismiss the facts. They will never even read what we offer, even if it is written by well respected scientist.

I have offered to buy and ship at my expense the book, "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome"? Yet they only claim that I am trying to prosletyse lies and that I am only giving them my opinion, presented as self-evident truth. They claim it is dogma, who's only purpose is to a refusal to engage in debate.

Yet they are the ones who refuse to read the evidence we offer, even if it is free.

I really like this book, and I wish they would get past their hard hearted denial of the facts. Take this book. It does an excellent job of laying out the scientific case against mutations resulting in the origin of species. It's a great read for anyone who is serious about understanding the science and facts about how mutations can never advance to a better species as Darwin and evolutionists claim.

It seems like a difficult read, but the author, Dr. John Sanford, did a great job of bringing the sometimes difficult to grasp scientific discussions on DNA and biology down to a layman's lever of understanding.

[OneVike]

Wrong, the Bible does tell us. Only those who refuse to look at the evidence in Scriptures refuse to admit it.

Christians who refuse to accept what the Scriptures say are only worried about being ridiculed by those who already been proven wrong.

[central_va]

I believe evolution thru natural selection is fact and changes species over time. But these species evolve as a subset of that original species. I see no evidence where one species begets another different. There are no crossover croca-horse fossils.

[FourtySeven]

Just as a point of fact, red blood cells do not have a nucleus.

Just something to consider when/if a question of the scientific knowledge of the author(s) of this piece comes up.

That soft tissue has been found in fossilized bone is not in dispute, for the record. (Actually, to be precise, from what I’ve read, it’s not “tissue” rather some proteins typically found in bone marrow, but not the marrow itself.)

I just HAD to say something about that “red blood cells with nuclei” comment though.

[FourtySeven]

Whoops I commented too quickly. “and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals)”.

[MrB]

..” ...I guess soft tissue can survive...millions of years....”

Reminds me of the punchline "frog with no legs can't hear".

[central_va]

I guess encased in solid rock, which is what a fossil is, moisture and soft tissue will not dry and harden. The question is why didn’t all the tissue calcify? That is the miracle.

[Iron Munro]

“Appear to be” or variations used 5 times.

This appears to be nothing too substantial.

[HamiltonJay]

Science and Religion are not incompatible, the only folks that find them incompatible are the folks who subscribe to literal reading of every line of the old testament, particularly the pre-history parts, which of course flies in the face of all serious Theology.

The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.

This very article is a bit silly, the evidence suggest tissue was found in the fossil, great, the supposition by the young earth theory is the fossile can’t possibly be millions of years old because of this, without any real evidence to support that, other than a theory, the opposite proposition is that soft tissue under the right circumstances could indeed survive millions of years.

Its not suprising the young earth theory folks are arguing a non bending proposal, and the sceintific folks are arguing hmmm perhaps there are things we don’t quite know... Yet, the “religious” and I do use that term very loosely here, are claiming that the other side is being unyeilding and absolute.

According to first mover theory, change in and of itself is proof of God’s existance, yet there are so many incredibly ignorant folks claiming that theories around change are an attack or affront to God that its nonsense.

ANyone so utterly ignorant of theological teachings, then trying to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to them is foolhearty on both fronts.

The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.

[PapaBear3625]

Dr Schweitzer’s research (as distinct from the Young Earth Creationists interpretation of it) is at Scientific American:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

[MeganC]

As a Christian I’ve never understood why it is an article of faith to some people that the theory of evolution be proved wrong. For myself I really don’t care what science does or does not prove, it has no effect on my faith.

[DManA]

Until the heart softens and accepts Christ as the one triune God and Creator of the universe, those who hold to the theory of evilution will always dismiss the facts

You claim the Holy Spirit will not enter the heart of a person that does not share your peculiar interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis.

You are very close to comitting the unfogivable sin. The Holy Spirit will go where the Holy Spirit will go.

[RinaseaofDs]

You can allow that is a possibility to your friend. The wonderful thing about science is that you can follow the evidence, and you can design and construct experiments that prove or disprove a theory.

You can simply insist that both of those possibilities are likely, but if you were assigning PROBABILITIES, which would have a higher probability?

Fact is that this is one more evidentiary element.

I had a thought the other day that it should be a law of ethical conduct within the scientific community that if one was stating a theory, or postulating some sort of guess, that you should be required to say something along the lines of, “It is our belief, based on the best evidence we have that . . . “

This is how global warming became a fact. It was a lie repeated sufficiently that billions and billions of dollars and many careers have been wasted.

Science is in very bad shape at the moment. Stating something definitive about a theory or belief should be a career-ender.

[PapaBear3625]

As a Christian I’ve never understood why it is an article of faith to some people that the theory of evolution be proved wrong. For myself I really don’t care what science does or does not prove, it has no effect on my faith.

Christ used many parables to illustrate His points. It doesn't diminish Christian faith to realize that the parables were stories. I think of Genesis the same way.