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.
>What’s the difference between a male and female T. rex egg?
Many avians are determined sex by the temperature the egg is allowed to vary, IIRC. But, you’re also completely discounting the hatchling possibility.
>and this whole line of thinking flies in the face of the YEC claim that all the dinosaurs died in the Great Flood.
Why do you say that? And the question itself shows the assumption that dinosaurs weren’t extinct at the time of the Flood.
.....are you saying that T. rex is related to avians? If they brought all the dinosaurs on the Ark, even in the form of eggs......why'd they go extinct and all get deposited as fossils during the Flood? Every explanation just leads to another something to be explained away.
Yes, I discount the hatchling possibility for the flailing it is. I don't see any reasong in Genesis to believe that the animals on the Ark that were hatchlings or eggs just so happened to be the ones that are currently extinct......and why'd they go extinct if there were representatives on the Ark with which to rebuild their population. Some extinction event in known human history that only affected dinosaurs? Just a flail to attempt to claim that dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.
Why do you say that?
....because the notion that the dinosaurs were already extinct at the time of the Flood flies in the face of the YEC notion that the Flood killed all the dinosaurs......which also brings in the notion of the dinosaurs not being on the Ark as they should have been...yet another twist created that must be explained away.
BTW, if you think the dinosaurs were already extinct by the time of the Flood, you are, according to the YEC crowd.....not a "real" Christian. Just ask GGG.
And the question itself shows the assumption that dinosaurs weren’t extinct at the time of the Flood.
Since a male and female dinosaur of EACH kind were not on the Ark....and God said bring 2 of every sort/kind, male and female...not 2 eggs....and Noah did as God said.....then dinosaurs could not have been alive at the time of the Flood or they would have been on the Ark and not have gone extinct in the Flood.
The correct flail would be to claim that all the dinosaurs fall into the "kind" of something that is currently alive....but that's all it is.....a flail to continue believing the fary tale of Man walking the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.
>>Many avians are determined sex by the temperature the egg is allowed to vary, IIRC. But, you’re also completely discounting the hatchling possibility.
>
>.....are you saying that T. rex is related to avians?
No, it was merely an observation that egg-laying creatures can have sex determined by external conditions.
>If they brought all the dinosaurs on the Ark, even in the form of eggs......why’d they go extinct and all get deposited as fossils during the Flood?
Your reasoning is faulty here: you’re assuming that the ones that died in the flood (unless previously extinct) are influencing those not in the flood.
>Every explanation just leads to another something to be explained away.
Really? Let me ask you this then: why is the Dodo extinct? Because of pigs that ate all their eggs. The Dodo, however had to be on the Ark, right? Then why is it extinct? (See, just because one event can cause extinction doesn’t mean it DID... likewise a significant drop in a population followed by some other, usually less significant, catastrophe could easily drop a population below its sustainment level.)
>Yes, I discount the hatchling possibility for the flailing it is. I don’t see any reasong in Genesis to believe that the animals on the Ark that were hatchlings or eggs just so happened to be the ones that are currently extinct.
Actually just because some of those went extinct doesn’t mean all of them did. Take horses, lions, rhinos, and elephants for example; they’re all large and it would have taken less space to get them as young-animals. {Hatchlings would be little different in this regard, taking the young to save space.}
>Some extinction event in known human history that only affected dinosaurs? Just a flail to attempt to claim that dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.
You’re discounting the possibility that we humans WERE that “extinction event.” Take the legends of “dragons” and their slayings, for instance, those dragons could have been dinosaurs and the tales have a little truth in them... as I noted to someone else on this thread it was thought that the giant squid was a myth in modern history, but really-recent history has proven the old-sailor’s tale true [to some extent].
>>Why do you say that?
>
>....because the notion that the dinosaurs were already extinct at the time of the Flood flies in the face of the YEC notion that the Flood killed all the dinosaurs......
That doesn’t mean that they’re right about it; man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.
>which also brings in the notion of the dinosaurs not being on the Ark as they should have been...yet another twist created that must be explained away.
I’ve already said that, had they not been extinct they would have been on the ark; though perhaps not full-sized.
>BTW, if you think the dinosaurs were already extinct by the time of the Flood, you are, according to the YEC crowd.....not a “real” Christian. Just ask GGG.
Fortunately for me its Jesus that decides if I’m a “real” Christian or not; just ask St. John’s Revelation. (And somehow I think he’ll be a little forgiving on unorthodox viewpoints that don’t matter.)
Oh, since you brought up the numbering 2x2, there is also a a command to bring all the clean animals, and birds, in pairs of seven. (So, birds would obviously have a better chance of survival in the post-flood world considering their population was seven times that of a dino’s.)
I think man killed them AFTER the flood. Thus all the tales of "slaying dragons". BTW, what do you think of the description of leviathan in Job 41? That's a fire-breathing dragon.
Your reasoning is faulty here: you’re assuming that the ones that died in the flood (unless previously extinct) are influencing those not in the flood.
No, I'm assuming that those that were supposedly dinosaur eggs or hatchlings that were on the Ark......immediately died on the Ark because they most certainly were extinct after the supposed Flood. Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood. The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.
Actually just because some of those went extinct doesn’t mean all of them did. Take horses, lions, rhinos, and elephants for example; they’re all large and it would have taken less space to get them as young-animals. {Hatchlings would be little different in this regard, taking the young to save space.}
ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age. That's manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.
You’re discounting the possibility that we humans WERE that “extinction event.” Take the legends of “dragons” and their slayings, for instance, those dragons could have been dinosaurs and the tales have a little truth in them... as I noted to someone else on this thread it was thought that the giant squid was a myth in modern history, but really-recent history has proven the old-sailor’s tale true [to some extent].
Manufacturing humans making dinosaurs extinct is sooooo....YEC. SO of all the animals on the Ark, Man chose to make extinct the only ones that have been extinct for millions of years......how convenient...
There is zero evidence of dragons ever having actually existed....no, I don't believe in the spirit horse either.
man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.
Riiiiiiiight. Man killed 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs with rocks and sticks. Oops...forgot, Man just needed to throttle a few hatchlings.
Oh, since you brought up the numbering 2x2, there is also a a command to bring all the clean animals, and birds, in pairs of seven. (So, birds would obviously have a better chance of survival in the post-flood world considering their population was seven times that of a dino’s.)
BWAAAAAahahahahaha......birds surely would've killed off 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. 14 chickens against ONE T. rex....I'll take those odds.
THIS is the stuff one has to make up to ensure the belief that Man walked in the land of large meat eating dinosaurs until 4,351 years ago?
>ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age.
There’s only the phrase “the male and his female” to indicate that they WERE of breeding age; but that is ignoring the art of animal husbandry wherewhich humans assign the pairings.
>That’s manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.
And you’re stating that there was absolutely no way they were on the ark; even though the story gives TONS of leeway for such specifics, like the actual cosmetic-structure of the ark: we’re given dimensions and several design-requirements, but it could have looked more like a giant box or more like a modern freighter (hull-shape-wise).
But you’re also discounting that I have also acknowledged the possibility that dinosaurs were extinct PRIOR the flood.
>Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood.
Certainly DOES NOT preclude the possibility that dinosaurs died PRIOR to the flood, which I HAVE acknowledged as a possibility.
>The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.
Which is obviously just as ludicrous as man walking in the land of Lions, Hyena, and Alligators, right? {Oh, wait, we call that place Africa!}
That works great for domesticated livestock....how's that fit the dinosaur hatchling hypothesis? Whole lot of running in circles to explain how dinosaurs were alive 4,351 years ago.
And you’re stating that there was absolutely no way they were on the ark
That's EXACTLY what Im stating. Even taking into account the mental hoops needed to jump through to have dinosaurs living in the age of Man, the "leeway" in Genesis does not allow for 100+ species of large meating dinosaurs having been around.....or having been on the Ark. Not in egg form, not in hatchling form......in a form needed to reseed the Earth, as IS stated....reproductive age form. I know....to explain it all away, Man must've taken out some vengeance on ONLY the dinosaurs and killed off God's creation that God wanted reseeded onto the Earth as He demanded. Such hubris Man has...
Dinosaurs DID die off before the alleged Flood...millions of years before.
Lions, hyenas, and alligators......are not large meat eating dinosaurs.
The common error people make when talking about representative species on the ark is that Noah was not told to gather representatives of each land species but only to take on board the animals that would come to him at the site.
That’s the gist I get....just imagine Noah travelling the world collecting all the world’s species that didn’t live in the immediate area....all while building the massive ark.
Wonder how dinosaur eggs “arrive” for their seat on the Ark...
Why don't you try reading the article.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1
There has been exactly ZERO “soft, squishy tissues” found in dinosaur bones, Dr....er....Brian Thomas MS*....and if Brian Thomas MS* knew WTF he was talking about, he’d stop lying about it.....but the truth isn’t what B rian Thomas MS* is interested in.
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.
Well it's getting hard to know what to believe if I just listen to the evos alone. You guys need to argue this out amongst yourselves.
They destroyed the samples by soaking it in a weak acid TO DEMINERALIZE the fossilized samples.
First of all, there nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. The article does not say the blood cells were fossilized and then somehow de-fossilized. That's YOUR contention.
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.
It sounds like they're just saying the tissues were extracted by removing the surrounding minerals. I don't know how else to interpret that in light of what's in the article, unless you're suggesting that demineralizing actually restores blood cells after they were fossilized, obviously ridiculous. If anyone here is believing that they'd have to be as stupid as your type claims creationists are.
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1
See post 51.
See post 51
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
To quote Isaac Newton, "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.
By the way, Occam and Newton were both devout Christians.
“unless you’re suggesting that demineralizing actually restores blood cells after they were fossilized”
Actually, that’s a pretty close approximation of what happened. When the tissue mineralized, it wasn’t just encased in the mineral, as if it were dipped in concrete. It was actually chemically changed into another substance. When the chelating agent was applied, it broke the chemical bonds between the minerals and the organic tissue, thus restoring it to something like it was before becoming mineralized. The change is at the molecular level.
I don’t need to read an article in Science....that I’ve already read, posted to you.....and actually understand the science of. Something tells me you don’t understand what you’re reading one bit, but would rather believe Lyin’ BrianThomas MS* when he lies to you by saying they found soft/squishy-tissue in the fossilized bones.....complete with an provided image of a bone cross section with soft-squishy marrow in it.
Brian is lying to you and you’re unwilling to see it.
Why not dig around Brian’s lies and find the one about the prehistoric squid ink? Haven’t laughed at that one in a while...
OMG....there was evidence of HEME in the bones!!!!
You DO know what HEME is.....right? Would you know what "evidence of heme" is? Hint....they tested for and found one of 2 things.
1) Iron.
2) A short protein sequence specific to a heme protein.
Most likely, they WERE red blood cells millions of years ago and I have nor eason to believe they were anything else millions of years ago....but what was found was not "red blood cells" like Lyin' Brian wants you to think to get you to the conclusion that Man walked the land with meat eating T. rex.
They found mineralized red blood cell structures.......and while it's a great find, I am unsurprised.
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.