Skip to comments.What Does It Take to Fossilize a Brain?
Posted on 03/11/2009 8:50:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Scientists have accidently discovered a rare and perhaps unique fossilized brain of an iniopterygian, an extinct kind of ratfish or chimaera that supposedly lived 300 million years ago. When the researchers scanned the fossilized skull of the iniopterygian with advanced imaging techniques at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, nobody expected to see a brain.1 British naturalist Charles Darwin predicted that “no organism wholly soft can be preserved.”2 Yet here was fossilized soft tissue. How could this be?
One hypothesis is that the environment in which the fish died was very rich in certain compounds. The skull portion of the fossil is “almost pure calcium carbonate,” and the fossilized brain is mostly calcium phosphate. The researchers surmised that this difference arose from the acidity of the brain tissues, which were more attractive to the dissolved calcium phosphate than to the calcium carbonate from the surrounding environment. In addition, there must have been a “lack of oxygen,” because oxygen readily reacts with delicate soft tissues and quickly disintegrates them. However, this fossil brain did not disintegrate. The scanned images revealed specific brain features: “the cerebellum, spinal cords or optic lobes and tracts, among others.”3
Even with the lack of oxygen, how did calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate replace the bone and brain tissues? The chemicals, dissolved in water, were transported across gaps and pores in the fish. It is possible that the chemical content of the water could have changed rapidly during the time that the different parts of the fish were decaying. Such fast-moving and chemical content-changing water is consistent with cataclysmic flood models based on the biblical account of the Flood.
The fish would have been rapidly buried by a mineral-laden soup and covered with tons of overburden (material that severely warped this specimen and flattened most others within its rock stratum), perhaps within hours. The initial phases of the global Flood very likely sealed off the fish remains from atmospheric oxygen, helping to preserve the extremely soft brain tissues. A similar scenario would have also fossilized jellyfish, which are soft-bodied animals made of 96 percent water and which decay on the beach in mere hours. Darwin would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that such fossils have been discovered in Wisconsin and elsewhere.4
Since the Bible’s historical data is usually ignored in most scientific investigations, it comes as no surprise that this recent discovery “all happened by chance.”3 The researchers would not expect to find fossilized soft brain tissues if today’s slow processes were all that was at work in the past. However, given the catastrophic formation indicated by most of earth’s geologic structures and the massive extermination of life represented in the fossil record—as well as the preservation of soft tissue from creatures supposedly millions of years old—the biblical Flood is a valid and relevant interpretive key to earth’s past. It can be expected that more soft tissue fossils, including brains and perhaps visceral organs, will be found.
Steny Hoyer can be seen employing a new technique he learned from speech coach Barney Fwank.
so much to - the world exists since 500 years.
In the original literature the theory is, that a certain type of bacteria supported the mineralization of the brain.
Now there’s a theory that ‘the flood’ was the reason the brain mineralized as Ca3(PO4)2 - beacause - it really happened - lmfao.
Seems like somebody took a random piece of research and inserted ‘the flood’ into it.
[[Spamming the same guff over and over seems to have done the trick for you.]]
Are you EVER goign to discuss ANY of the science GGG posts? Or are you simply goign to keep posting childish insults and whining about ‘spamming’ while ignoring hte science and spamming yourself?
[[It will be interesting to see if old-earth advocates are willing to adjust their understanding for how the sediments containing this fossil formed in the light of this evidence.]]
Nah- they’re just goign to keep ignoring the issues while attackign hte messenger, and pretending they are ‘defeating’ the message. Sad but true.
Both begin with a conclusion. Darwinistic Materialism assumes purely naturalistic causes to explain the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Creation Science assumes that Genesis is a true historical account of the unobservable, unrepeatable past. The question is, which approach explains the remnants of the past better. To my mind, Creation Science is the far better explanation.
There are reasonable assumptions and there are unreasonable assumptions. Naturalism (I’m not certain what you mean by “Darwinistic Materialism”) is a reasonable assumption. That a certain creation myth must be the true account of the origins of man, life, and the universe is an unreasonable assumption.
What’s more, science does not seek to prove or show evidence that naturalism is correct or true. Whereas christian creationism begins with it’s own conclusion, that a certain ancient creation myth is true, which it then it seeks to prove.
40 something years, unspecified amounts of cocaine, low-tar KOOLs, and wifey Michelle?
Are you EVER goign to discuss ANY of the science GGG posts? Or are you simply goign to keep posting childish insults and whining about spamming while ignoring hte science and spamming yourself?
When GGG actually posts science, then it would be of interest to discuss it. Until then, it is best to ignore such cretards. There is no point in discussing with someone who doesn't even know the subject.
That long, eh?
*Here’s the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?*
Sounds like evos starting with Darwin’s Origin of the Species. He comes up with the theory and people spend decades trying to find evidence to support it. And when they can’t they even try to fake it.
Why? For both claims.
Why is naturalism a reasonable assumption when there's simply no precedent for order, complexity, or life arising without an intelligence source?
Why is unreasonable to assume that order, complexity, and life have a intelligent source?
Then why did you post here?
If you think the threads lack science, contribute some. Explain the fossilized brain.
Pearls before swine? Dog training is easier than teaching the like of you and the other cretards science. At least dogs can be motivated to learn.
What a cop out as well. Just so you don’t have to answer a question you can’t.
Was that an example of Natural Selection?