Skip to comments.Just How Old is Dinosaur Soft Tissue?
Posted on 10/04/2013 7:15:37 AM PDT by kimtom
Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the mans overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.
Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolutions geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils dont appear to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with highly fibrous, flexible, and elastic bone tissue that when stretched, returns to its original shape? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments,.......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
Evolutionists will believe anything except the possibility that they could be wrong.
OMG, the Earth is flat!
Some folks look at the Grand Canyon and say, "It's old. How can you not see it?"
I look at dinosaur tissue and say, "It's not that old. How can you not see it?"
His name would be Lazarus Long.................. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long
Why does everyone believe that ALL dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago?
Isn’t it possible that since alligators and others of their type existed then, that some dinos may have actually survived up until near modern times, albeit several thousands of years ago? ...................
“Why does everyone believe ...... albeit several thousands of years ago?..”
a logical question.
but the answer is ; the fossil record does not support that theory.
unless, fossil record (age) is misunderstood...?
Proteins do not degrade all by themselves. They are degraded by the environment. There are bacteria that eat it, oxygen that oxidizes it, water that gets into its nooks and crannies and unfolds it, and a whole slew of natural enzymes that cut it into pieces just because that’s what the body has to do to keep such junk from clogging everything.
Likewise, bones do not become hard and brittle just from age. Over time, as you use them, the body puts calcium in the bones to make them hard and brittle so they’ll be able to support your weight. The body doesn’t have any mechanism of stopping this process, so it just keeps turning your bones into limestone. If you die young, your bones will not calcify in the grave. This is why you normally find bones and teeth as fossils - they were already mineralized at the time of death.
Additional mineralization can replace soft tissue when it rots and mineral-rich water evaporates from the resulting cavity. If the soft tissue is completely enclosed by calcified bone in an airtight and watertight fashion, then it will not decay with time. There would be nothing in there to degrade it.
So no, it is not really surprizing to find soft tissue 65 million years old. It is rare merely because soft tissue is never fully enclosed. Even bone marrow has blood vessels going into it. To preserve it you’d have to have these holes plugged quickly after death, before the decay sets in. This does not occur often, making soft tissue finds very rare.
“..I don’t think the author understands just ..”
How can the soft tissue survive 65 million years?
a fair question
Relying solely on fossils can be misleading.
Assume that some dinos did actually survive up until at least the paleolithic era. They may have been hunted to extinction and eaten by early humans and their bones left to turn to dust. Even small animal bones that were eaten by humans or other animals are only preserved in caves or burial sites. Those left to the open, decay and are never seen since they returned to the soil.
Fossils are very old, but assuming that the animals all died out because of that is not logical..............
Your right! Evolution is junk science and has too many flaws. Seen fossilized cowboy boots, fishing reel, other items that didn’t exist “millions” of years ago. Once again they will do anything to push their view on those that are to stupid to understand anything else.
“...So no, it is not really surprizing to find soft tissue 65 million years old....”
How about a few thousand..?
Read title and thought this was about Harry Reed.
It is a fair question - too bad Lyons didn’t look for any answers. Basically you are citing as a source a fellow with a degree in theology who apparently, because he can’t fathom the science, disagrees with the scientists who actually study and experiment with the material in question. Why didn’t he bother to ask Schweitzer about how old her discovery is? Why didn’t he explore the literature that seeks to answer the questions surround this material like “Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms” Kaye, et al, or Schweitzer’s own paper, “Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival”? Lyons is simply unqualified to intelligently comment on the subject - he doesn’t understand the processes involved and apparently hasn’t sought information that will counter his preconceived notions of Earth’s biological and geological history. Typical apologetics - long on rhetoric, short on fact.
For those convinced in the existence of God and every word in the Bible being completely true, that is fine as they have the faith to believe it with all their heart.
For those convinced in evolution as a scientific fact, that is also fine as they have the faith to believe it with all their heart.
Those that believe in God can also believe in evolution.
Or they can be atheist and believe in evolution.
When any of those above try to make their version the ONLY VERSION I can believe, that is when we split the blanket--
and you are???
attacking the author shows your colors......
not interested in truth
you made my day...
An old boot with a bunch of minerals precipitated on it is hardly “fossilized”, and the claim of a fossil fishing reel is just too stupid to even entertain.
I’m a guy with an advanced degree in a hard science who knows that when it comes to science, the information you get from people who have actually done the work is superior to those who have not.
no, you are a evolutionist whose pride is in his knowledge
and gets angry when your religion is threatened.
You are wrong, anyone (even you) can quote the work of other people. You do not need advanced degrees to see the truth. (even lies)
you do not need an advance degree to disagree, you do not need a degree to have knowledge.
you need only to read.
Therefore , I disagree with you, most emphatically
It is WHAT you read that makes you who/ what you are.
But alas! “the wisdom of men is Foolishness to God..”
Maybe if you reduced the temps to single degree Kelvin levels, otherwise the soft tissue should disappeared due to simple thermal degradation over 65 million years.
There are those of us who believe God's Word is not an engineering manual, and are open to scientific explanations of how human beings became what we are, but do not bitterly cling to unproven scientific theories.
Remember, the Ptolemaic Model of cosmology was considered a "fact" for more than a thousand years.
“...the information you get from people who have actually done the work is superior to those who have not....”
Not if they do not understand it.
I can see an “out” for them... maybe.
The earth is billions of years old,
but somehow, some dinosaurs continued to live up to a few thousand years ago.
Otzi, and many bog man and women. Also mummies found in deserts, like the Gobi and in Peru. The conditions are bad for decomposition.
A couple of questions.
1. Is 'highly fibrous, flexible, and elastic bone tissue that when stretched, returns to its original shape' and accurate description of what was really found?
2. If it's not, why are there conclusions being drawn based on the premise that it was?
And just which branch of science is your specialty?
Well, then I guess we need people like you to explain who is right in the global warmi - err - climate change science then too, ehh?!?!
Evolution has more lies, fraud, and abuse of science than global warming [as well as all other scientific disciplines] but it has had much longer for the stories to be concocted huh?
It’s due to man made global warming, Republican radical enviromental policy(s), effects of long dormant racism, and failure to support a wealth redistibution plan. Had these items been taken into account in our past then this soft tissue would have fossilized timely in their 80,000,000 year life span.
It is all very simple.
to answer both questions,
The material was not “expected” to remain flexible.
It was not fossilized.
It raises questions about age.
we know that fossilization does NOT take long. it begs the question, How long did it take, how old is this fossil.
Now to question standing evolutionary thought, is un thinkable!
Honestly is needed.
That seems to be a far cry from 'highly fibrous, flexible, and elastic bone tissue that when stretched, returns to its original shape'
Do you think implying that they found 'highly fibrous, flexible, and elastic bone tissue that when stretched, returns to its original shape' is providing that honesty?
So tactic, are you just trying to sow doubts about stuff that ‘s been reported for almost 10 years now?
“In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bonebut not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. [The chip] was curved so much, I couldnt get it in focus, Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it! Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.
In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vesselsthe tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls round microstructures in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.
No, the article does a pretty good job of that. I do wonder how it's been reported for almost 10 years, and keeps showing up as "News".
“..almost 10 years, and keeps showing up as “News”...”
anything not heard before becomes news!!!
(is that new news, or old news..??)
The article describes things that the account of the researchers does not say they found. That causes me to have doubts. It was an honest assesment.
I’m not surprised when the ptb [powers that be] decide to spike stories that don’t agree with their agenda or those that just plain embarrass them due to lack of scientific reasoning and logic.
Have not seen much on the 65 million year old coalecanthe and it’s living releative in South America fish markets lately either...
Below from creationscience.com
” 25. Out-of-Sequence Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years.c Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistand and Arizona.e Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.f Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.g Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.h Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocksrocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
Petrified trees in Arizonas Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later.l Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale. “
I believe the article is about the question , not the find. I think the author assumed knowledge of the fact.
They don't seem to be doing a very good job of spiking it if it's "been reported for almost 10 years".
Honest scientist like questions, and if shown inconsistencies will explore other hypotheses.
I have found even honest evolutionist will do this, however they refuse to except sometimes the obvious answer.
except those (scientist) that change and become Creationist.
Of course then, they (in the eyes of evolutionist)cease to be scientist.
What I’m getting at is how many other studies this one article must have spawned and yet I am hard-pressed to find much in the way of similar reports [prsumably b/c it does not fit the approved agnda of the ptb].
Just like so many creation questions and assertions go unanswered by the pro-evo crowd on these threads.
The author is attacking scientists for their reaction to a discovery that has never been made. How is that helping?
For the most part, the dinos began to die off about 1000 years ago, judging by the cultural evidence we have, both written and physical.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the presumtion is flawed?
Well, I would agree
How old is the sample in discussion?
How do you arrive at that?
Does the evidence support it?