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.
“Motivation of the source” — that’s ad hominem. You can discuss the evidence and the implications of the evidence OR you can say “Aha! I know what you’re on about! No sale! Won’t listen! You’re wrong! Your motivations betray you!”
Thank you for pointing out that line. I don’t agree with the emphatic answer given, but neither do I see it presented as “core Christian dogma”.
I think the existance (if this is not a hoax of some type) of the tissue described DOES re-open an interesting question. I don’t think the evidence resoundingly answers that question.
The most difficult task of any scientist is to fairly examine new information independent of the beliefs that shape his own world view. Witness the conclusion Ptolemy reached after observing and carefully recording the relative positions of heavenly bodies - had he not believed that the earth was at the center, it is unlikely he would have concluded the unlikely and complicated orbital paths associated with his name.
I believe in God the Creator, and I try to remain unafraid of any truth, because I believe that God and Truth are one. I also believe what Galileo reportedly said, that mathematics is the language of God.
Sometimes my own reasoning may take me away from truth - but truth cannot shatter truth, truth can only destroy my assumptions - and in the eternal scheme of things, my assumptions have no bearing on truth. Therefore, my quest should be for truth, wherever it leads; and if I am honestly pursuing truth, I must be always willing to re-examine my assumptions.
The post I reference had nothing to do with science.
Excuse me, I thought you were replying to my #18.
It is prudent to consider the source unless you have unlimited time to waste.
That may be - but your apparent outright rejection of the information seems as indicative of your own bias as the examples you point to are indicative of the source’s. I find that ironic, don’t you?
Regarding post #4 - I’m not ready to attribute motivation to the statement...but I will say that it is excellent advice when one is in pursuit of truth.
———Institute for Creation Research———
scientist wannabe’s with closed minds concerned only with maintaining certainty
He is responding specifically to this - consider ourselves to be believing Christians
with - Maybe you should reconsider your considerations
.
This is clearly a questioning the faith of the poster he's respoinding to. And that you think is excellent advice?
Check out #26 and tell me if this person is interested in the science of the issue.
The QUESTIONING another’s Christianity is your own imputation of the motivation of the poster.
Regardless of the motivation, the advice is excellent - we should always examine our “considerations” or our assumptions when honestly in pursuit of truth. Otherwise, our assumptions can easily lead us astray.
No. IT is clear what he meant. If you are not a creationist and consider yourself a Christian you should reconsider your faith.
That poster’s interest has exactly ZERO impact on the presented evidence.
It illustrates that it is impossible to discuss anything from “The Institute For Creation Research” without draging religion into it.
New information ALWAYS causes me to re-examine my assumptions. Often my assumptions about my faith need examination also.
I refuse to assume a motive - because the motive doesn’t change the wisdom of the advice.
If you want to reject the advice because you believe you understand the motive, that’s your choice. Don’t try to make it mine.
In general it is good advice. Misapplied in this case.
You are wrong. I have discussed this topic here without “dragging religion into it”. My posts have steered clear of demanding any religious belief - although I have been open and honest about my own. Consideration of my posts do not require a certain religious starting point.
This information from The Institute for Creation Research is worthy of examination. You appear to reject it because of the source - and that is a logical fallacy.
What someone else tries to do with the information should not influence the consideration of its import. Your eagerness to reject it shows the same impulse you claim to deplore.
I know the source from experience. That informs my decision to disregard stories from it.
The logical falacy is that one needs to consider everything printed to be able to come to any, even tentative, conclusion.
But time is limited and the production of science stories is, virtually, unlimited so you must make informed choices about your source of information.
How is it misapplied?
I don’t find misapplication in the statement or the context. You are inferring a deeper meaning and/or motivation than can clearly and honestly be assumed.
The advice is apt - and the advice was very appropriate in context. What motive was in the heart of the advice giver, I don’t presume to know. The advice giver has to answer for that, not you or me.
So should I conclude that you would reject the statement: “Two plus two equals four” if it came from this source?
Or would I more accurately conclude that you reject only information from this source that conflicts with your world view?
Let’s be honest here - you have displayed as much of a bias as anybody regarding this information.
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.