Skip to comments.Soft Muscle Tissue Found in Fossil Salamander (evos claim it is 18 million years old!)
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 dont 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 ...
Conclusions must never be reconsidered. All we can do is re-think how to portray the evidence in such a way as to continue to prop up the old established conclusions.
Note: Challenging a time scale or reconsidering the age of fossils would not (necessarily) be an attack Evolution, nor would it (necessarily) be a defense of Creationism. It would merely show that new evidence makes people re-check their old conclusions. That's all.
[[Were the scientists at University College Dublin surprised by their discovery of this fossil in southern Spain? Yes and no;]]
They are settign hte stage to later declare ‘We once thought that 50 million year old tissue coudl not be preseved, but after many discoveries, it is now clear that nature was somehow able to preserve soft tissue far logner than we ever dared dream it could- this is a fascinating discovery, and just proves how elastic science needs to be, and how scientists need to keep an open mind because hte evidences quite often conflict with current theories. we now know that what was ocne htought to be ‘extremely rare’, is now quite a normal occurance, and we now have the evidence to investigate further millions of years old soft tissue. We don’t know how nature was able to preserve the tissue, but we assure you that ‘one day’ we will discover hte answers IF we just keep an open mind”
You know, you guys are right.
Just the other day, I’d swear I saw a Dinosaur crossing the road. (Sarcasm)
Wow, that’s some well aged meat!
You're quoting from an editorial comment (for all we know, not even written by a scientist), not a scientific article.
I look at some of these “keywords” and it makes me chuckle:
antiscienceevos; atomsdonotexist; ...electricityisfire; ....ravityisahoax;
Soft tissue preservation is actually quite common. I have a twinkie that is almost as old as those fossils, and I’m pretty sure it’s still edible.
Yes, but WHY did the dinosaur cross the road? (Inquiring minds, etc., etc...)
“Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and proteins: have they been found, and how could they have survived the alleged millions of years?”
They survived because they’re FOSSILIZED! They’re rock. They’re not soft anymore, and haven’t been soft for 18 m years.
“We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago,
Ping (for obvious reasons)
To join the RINOs of course. They both are on the road to extinction.
I’ll keep my eye open for Dinosaurs - along with RINOs.
Do these look like rock to you?
PS The PhysOrg article specifically says that the “scientists have extracted *organically preserved* muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil.” Organically preserved muscle tissue is not rock.
The article goes on to state “According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood.”
One must marvel at the depth of the faith of these scientists.
Yes. Did you read the article linked to at your link.
“Previous examples of soft tissues fossilised in this way have been limited to samples extracted from amber or inside bone .
Dude. It’s called spell check. It’s free.
So, GGG - I’m curious - how long ago do you think dinosaurs roamed the earth (i.e., t-rex, etc..)?
if i gave a rip, i’d use it- but i don’t
I know the terminology they use can be confusing, but make no mistake, they are finding dino soft tissue, to enclude proteins, connective tissue, blood vessels and even blood cells:
Dinosaur soft tissue and proteineven more confirmation!
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteinsand the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before.
Dinos existed at least up to the time of (and a tiny number just after) the flood of Noah, which is why we are finding so many dinos with soft tissue still intact.
Yeeha!!! Saddle up and ride that T-Rex!
More FOSSILIZED “soft tissue structures” being passed off as “soft muscle tissue” , I see.
Move along folks, this is not the “soft tissue” you are being told it is....this is FOSSILIZED soft tissue STRUCTURE, nothing more.
....bet they don’t even know WTH “soft tissue” is....and it has nothing to do with being “soft.”
CLEARLY, the dinosaur crossed the road to eat the vegetables on the other side. Wait, did they even have roads pre-Fall?
So why do you assume soft tissue could last 6,000 years, but not 18,000,000 years?
Once the specimen is sealed and the decay process stops, the length of time becomes irrelevant.
Easy one....dinosaurs lived with Man until 4,351 years ago...when the Flood killed them all.
I’m heading over to read this link 3G, but here’s something I found on the dino “Dakota.”
“They believe the hippo-sized Dakota fell into a watery grave, with little oxygen present to speed along the decay process. Meanwhile, very fine sediments reacted with the soft tissues of the animal, forming a kind of cement.”
So have there ever been man and dino bones found in the same strata of earth?
I’m not poking fun by the way - just asking.
“the terminology they use can be confusing”
That’s for sure! One of the articles I read about “Dakota” referred to it as a “mummy” in one paragraph. If you just read that one sentence, you’d think one thing. But, in the following paragraph, it became clear the “mummification” was actually the fossilization of the whole body. Bones, soft tissue, and even the skin! They used a giant CT scanner to “cut” through the different layers of the fossilized “mummy.”
What they look like has no relevance. Can you provide an elemental analysis? The fossilization is a substitutional process in which the organic portion of the tissue is replaced in three steps; carbonization, premineralization, and petrification. The resulting fossil is stone that can look exactly like the original material.
“...a salamander said to be 18 million years old.”
The Medicare costs alone.....
I know it’s difficult for evos to swallow, but they are indeed finding dino soft tissue, and they are finding it on a fairly regular basis now:
Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
I know it's difficult for YEC's to swallow but National Geographic can be read by non-YEC's too. The following link is to an article in a subsequent issue of the National Geographic that casts doubt on many of the soft tissue finds.
Additionally, if the fossilization process can be interrupted such that carbonization is not permitted to happen (maintaining an anaerobic state and no exposure to heat above 100C) soft tissue elements such as proteins can be maintained as well as the fruit in your momma's canned preserves.
As usual your science is a wrong as your theological interpretations. No controversy has been resolved because one does not exist. You have not proved your young age assertion for the specimens you posted as satisfying neither of the conditions I stated. Without elemental analysis you haven't established that it is even organic or if it is organic the conditions of its anaerobic preservation.
There was indeed a controversy over whether the dino soft tissue was indeed soft tissue. That controversy has now been resolved in favor of dino soft tissue preservation, and, as mentioned above, such soft tissue finds are being discovered on a fairly regular basis now.
But, but, there is no mention of dinosaurs or giant reptiles in the bible, how can they even exist? There has never been a fossil found with butcher cut-marks indicating primitive (before the flood of course) ate them. Since Kosher laws didnât come into being until after the flood that canât be the reason.......Its all just too hard to comprehend.........LOL
How old does the Bible claim it to be?
There are indeed descriptions of what appear to be dinos in the Bible.
There has been man footprints and dinosaur footprints found side by side, in Glen Rose, TX.
Leviathans are ‘large sea creatures’.
Behemoths are ‘large land creatures’.
Every single story I have read on FR about soft tissue being found in ancient fossils comes from a Creationist site.
This means one of two things.
1. The creationists are the only ones willing to share raw data and let the chips fall where they may.
2. The creationist sites are batsh** crazy.
I’m honestly not sure which is true, but I am tending to lean towards number one at this point.
There is a third option: Other sources are just not being reported on FR.
Just a quickie - what is your opinion on the “fire breathing” description of leviathan?
I watched a program (one of an endless series, it seems) on the Science channel about the purported asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs.
According to the graphics within hours of the hit firestorms spread around the earth burning everything into a layer of charcoal found just above the KT layer.
But, But what happened to the birds and feathery things, and insects? No trees, no food, so what happened to them?
This didn’t seem to a question that merited consideration, unlike the supposed burrowing mammals.