I have read many articles and papers on this find, and it seems their is a bit of confusion about what to call “fossiled” any more, seeing how they are finding so many “fossils” with soft-tissue still intact. The bottom line is, in the case of this supposedly 18 mya salamander, they have found “organically preserved” muscle tissue, which is not fossilized in the sense the fossilization has been traditionally understood. Do you consider organic muscle preservation, complete with blood vessels inflowed with blood to be “fossilized”???
To: SunkenCiv; MrB
What do you make of the finds of non-fossilized TISSUE in rocks, purported to be 18 million years old?
Maybe there are still living dinosaurs inside the hollow earth near the top of the world, just south of the North Pole.
WHAT could they possibly be finding????
Why do you continue to break one of God’s Commandments even after overwhelming proof to the contrary?
posted on 12/11/2009 9:11:08 AM PST
Here is an excerpt from the abstract in the original paper (underlining mine): The muscle is preserved organically, in three dimensions, and with the highest fidelity of morphological preservation yet documented from the fossil record. Preserved ultrastructural details include myofilaments, endomysium, layering within the sarcolemma, and endomysial circulatory vessels infilled with blood. Slight differences between the fossil tissues and their counterparts in extant amphibians reflect limited degradation during fossilization
This is a fossil with organic (carbon containing) materials, vs the normal minerals. Same situation occurs when fossils are found in coal.
Why do you and BTMS* continue to lie?
posted on 12/11/2009 9:27:33 AM PST
I have read many articles and papers on this find, and it seems their is a bit of confusion about what to call fossiled any more, seeing how they are finding so many fossils with soft-tissue still intact.
Is it painful going through the mental contortions to twist the original article so severely to reach what you (and ICR) do?
READ THE SOURCE ARTICLE. It's not intact soft-tissue; it's fossils with the soft-tissue detail preserved! Typically when most organic matter is fossilized, most of the fine, cellular-level details are obliterated. What's exciting is that we've found a few that had such details intact IN THE STONE OF THE FOSSIL.
Seriously, just go and read the source article; I even quoted AND BOLDED the relevant portion for you. It's a complete fossil, no soft-tissue at all, and never claimed.
Your whirlwind contortions notwithstanding...
posted on 12/11/2009 11:07:59 AM PST
(Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
To All To Whom These Presents Shall Come--Greetings
Please do not judge the intelligence or reasoning capability of Christians by the content of this post. We are not all this stupid. Nor are we all as intentionally deceptive.
posted on 12/11/2009 11:34:56 AM PST
by Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson