Posted on 11/09/2009 9:44:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Nov 6, 2009 — More soft tissue has been found in a fossil – this time in a salamander said to be 18 million years old. The article on PhysOrg called it “the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.”
Unlike the previous discoveries of fossil tissue inside bone or amber, the recognizable sinewy muscle tissue was found tucked inside the body of the animal. “The scientists claim that their discovery is unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely decay prone soft tissues is more common in the fossil record - the only physical record of the history of life on earth.”
Were the scientists at University College Dublin surprised by their discovery of this fossil in southern Spain? Yes and no; they acknowledge that soft-tissue preservation is extremely rare, but also think that more is to be found. A new treasure hunt is on. “Using the same sampling methods and high resolution imaging that led to this find, scientists will now begin to investigate existing fossils in national museums and elsewhere across the world, for similar types of soft tissue preservation.” This was not taken as a challenge to Darwinian time scales. The article ended, “further discoveries will help scientists paint a better picture of life on earth since the beginning of evolutionary time.”
Notice that the evolutionists don’t want to tell the truth; they want to paint a picture. Evolutionary time is dancing in the visions of their closed eyes. Instead of seeing the falsification of evolutionary time, they see its vindication – sketched out on the canvas of imagination. View their picture as abstract art of visions and dreams, not as the history of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
What part of demineralized and fossilized do you not understand?
So yes it is most definitely cherry picking since you fail to mention the demineralization of the fossilized bone.
Your blatant attempt to distort and deny history will not work.
I didn’t overlook anything. You can say those words all you want but if you don’t understand the process of what they did it really doesn’t matter.
Here is another quote “ In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is BELIEVED to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil. But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.”
IOW the bone was mineralized but the soft tissue was not. That is how the bone was demineralized to get to the soft tissue.
BTW, I never said that there was no amount of evidence that would cause me to accept the evolutionary theory. You have some uninformed belief that I do not look at the facts. I see the same facts you do, I just do not agree with your interpretation.
BTW I have no idea how this post is in response to the one you posted it to. I was actually agreeing with you.
I think it’s like mouflon bone. yeehaw! Right, Ira?
Remember the mouflon!
What CHMof3 said!!!
So then what evidence would it take for you to accept the evolutionary theory?
So then what evidence would it take for you to accept the evolutionary theory?
Similar learning curve, don’t you know.
So far I have examined the so called evidences for evolution and all they really are is biaed interpretation of the evidence. Show me something new and I will tell you if it convinces me. You have to remember that I don’t accept natural selection, speciation, and mutations as evidence of goo to you evolution.
Goodnight everyone. 6am workout comes at ya fast!
That’s not even a question anymore. Darwin’s fanciful creation myth has been thoroughly discredited by science. So much so, that even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship.
You’re crazy!
Then you lack a basic understanding of the evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life; it only shows how life has changed since its inception. Natural selection, speciation, and mutations are the basis of the evolutionary theory. To deny that fact is the same as denial of the roundness of the earth, or the speed of light..
You got a book out?
I mean something really, really meaningful? With scholarly references and such (so others may learn from your experiences and knowledge)?
If not, it can make you or it can break you; will it, can it stand the test of time - your ideas that is, can THEY stand the test of time?
No need to debate me (or others) if you've got 'that book' out there ... it's never too late to start, either.
Wrong again, Buck-o. An article that appeared in the November 1997 issue of Discover Magazine reported research into the mechanics of Apatosaurus tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft. Myhrvold carried out a computer simulation of the tail, which in diplodocids like Apatosaurus was a very long, tapering structure resembling a bullwhip. This computer modeling suggested that sauropods were capable of producing a whip-like cracking sound of over 200 decibels, comparable to the volume of a cannon.
Why do you suppose that is? Is it because God only revealed what was necessary and germane?
Notice any similarities between NL’s reply and the following? Also notice that Wikipedia considers the whiplike 200 decibel cracking sound as “dubious” (all of which NL cut out of his, shall we say, unoriginal post):
An article that appeared in the November 1997 issue of Discover Magazine reported research into the mechanics of Apatosaurus tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft. Myhrvold carried out a computer simulation of the tail, which in diplodocids like Apatosaurus was a very long, tapering structure resembling a bullwhip. This computer modeling suggested that sauropods were capable of producing a whip-like cracking sound of over 200 decibels,[dubious – discuss] comparable to the volume of a cannon.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus
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.