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 ...
Ping!
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.”
http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html
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 .
“fossilized”
Dude. It’s called spell check. It’s free.
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.