Image from ICR article.
Posted on 04/02/2013 8:55:44 AM PDT by fishtank
Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Decades ago, when researchers began publishing their discoveries of transparent, floppy tissue with recognizable intact cells inside dinosaur bones, plenty of shocked evolutionists disputed their results. After all, nobody knew—and still nobody knows—a process whereby flesh and bones could persist over the eons that evolutionists insist dinosaur fossils have endured.
One popular pushback asserts that the soft tissues are not from the dinosaurs at all, but from bacteria that somehow infiltrated their bones and built biofilms in the same shapes as dinosaur tissues and cells. A new report of eight-inch long sheets of soft tissue inside a 22-inch long triceratops horn presents three difficult hurdles for the "bacterial biofilm" hypothesis, which suggests that certain species of bacteria manufactured a polysaccharide film that took the shape of each dinosaur tissue that they consumed millions of years ago, before the dino flesh decayed.
Two biology professors coauthored the report in Acta Histochemica.1 Their electron micrographs (below) show fine detail inside the bony triceratops "horn core." The authors obtained the horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, famous for its well-preserved dinosaur remains. The horn was damp when removed from rock, and it soon broke into several pieces, showing that it was already fractured. The researchers therefore suspected that bacteria could have penetrated the horn through these cracks and lived on the nearby liquid. Despite what promised to be a bacteria-friendly environment, the soft tissue they found looked nothing like bacterial biofilms.
The research pair demineralized part of the bone by soaking pieces of it in a mild acid bath for a month. Soft tissues emerged as some of the dinosaur bone's original minerals departed. The study authors found "large strips of thin, light brown, soft material (20 cm by 10 cm)." They also identified bone cells called osteocytes, "including internal nucleus-like spheres, primary and secondary filipodia, and cell to cell junctions."1
The first hurdle for the bacterial biofilm story to face is that no known biofilm looks just like bone cells, complete with their thin "filipodia" extensions. Second, wouldn't the supposed bacteria deposit their biofilms on the bone's outer surface even more readily than deep inside the bone? Yet the study authors found no biofilm there. And they described yet a third hurdle when they wrote, "What is also not clear is how such biofilm structures could themselves survive the ravages of time."1
This report of triceratops soft tissue adds to the long list of discoveries of original skin, blood vessel, blood and bone components found in tyrannosaurs, hadrosaurs, titanosaurs, psittacosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, and other animals.2 Bacterial biofilms neither match nor explain any of these finds. Is it time to interpret dinosaur fossils as recent sedimentary deposits from a global flood recorded in Genesis?3 The fossils say yes!
References
Armitage, M.H., and K. L. Anderson. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica. Published online before print, February 13, 2013.
Thomas, B. Published Reports of Original Soft Tissue Fossils. Posted on icr.org July 21, 2011, accessed March 6, 2013.
Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on March 18, 2013.
Image from ICR article.
Please, sir, stuff such as this really ruins the reputation of those of us who are educated in science and also consider ourselves to be believing Christians. That the world is older than the biblical history of it does not impinge at all on the things contained within.
Please take your stories to Coast-to-Coast.
Maybe you should reconsider your considerations.
They went extinct because because the Chinese kept harvesting them for their horns.
You question another professing Christian’s faith?
Struggling to find and distort information which supports your targeted/desired hypothesis, is quite unbecoming. It is also plainly dishonest.
I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M.
I’m gainfully employed.
I’ve done overseas missionary work with a major Christian missions agency.
I lead a small group Bible study in my local church, and I disciple my several children, and have been faithfully married for over 20 years.
I have not published in the creationist literature, but I’m on a first name basis with at least three other PhDs (earned degree holders from major PUBLIC universities) who are creationist authors.
If soft-tissue discoveries in dinosaurs presents a logical or rational dilemma, I welcome that.
Well, I’m not a Christian, nor a YEC, and I still think this is way kewl.
It is an interesting scientific question.
What is so objectionable is the attempt to make belief about it, one way or another, as a core Christian dogma.
Exactly. Resolving that dilemma will expand our understanding of the universe and our place in it.
“What is so objectionable is the attempt to make belief about it, one way or another, as a core Christian dogma”
Did you read a different article than I read? I don’t see anything of the kind in the article. Or is it your inference that the author or the poster is attempting “to make belief about it, one way or another, as a core Christian dogma”?
I don’t see it, but I might be missing something you are seeing. I somewhat agree with your statement - although I don’t see the attempt you assert - if this were presented as “core Christian dogma” I would find it objectionable. I do find it interesting, and if true, instructive as to the veracity of some “established science” dogma.
There is the closing sentance, below:
Is it time to interpret dinosaur fossils as recent sedimentary deposits from a global flood recorded in Genesis?3 The fossils say yes!
It seems to me that anybody either completely accepting, or completely rejecting the subject matter of this article has reached a conclusion before reading it.
I remain agnostic on the specifics of the article. I find the evidence presented interesting, and I acknowledge there may be different causes for the evidence described.
I don’t know enough about it to reach an independent conclusion - and I suspect that is true of almost everyone who reads this.
You characterize as assinine an idea that this evidence MIGHT support - which presents the obvious question: Did you read this article with your own foregone conclusions?
See #4 for insight into the poster’s motivation for posting.
We should at least agree that this statement goes both ways.
The idea that we are finding soft tissue that is 65 million years old is interesting and surprising. It might cause someone to ask, "Should we check our assumptions? Is there any reason to update any of our current theories?" To ask such questions is to engage in science.
I won't say that one side or another is correct, but I will observe that asking questions based on the newest discoveries is a respectable pastime. If each side sticks their fingers in their ears and says "Those guys are wrong! They're stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" then this is unfortunate. No one wants to be on the receiving end of such a closed-minded approach to science. I know I don't. And I'm sure you don't either.
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.