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.
It is a logical and mathematical fallacy to declare a statement untrue simply because of the source - you can look that up in any good logic textbook. It is the ad hominum fallacy.
“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.”
I must politely ask then: Why do you spend your limited and precious resources on this thread?
Check out post #27 and tell me the same.
It cuts both ways, and it occurs on both sides.
That is true. That’s my point.
NO ONE can discuss dispasionately an article from a journal with the world CREATION in its name.
And if you intention is to make a purely scientific criticism of another scientist’s work you shouldn’t come into the argument with the word “CREATIONIST” tatooed to your forehead.
Oh yes, one can. I have, and I have seen others do it on this very thread.
Your post displays your bias very clearly.
How one chooses to label themselves has no impact on the validity of their arguments. If one is unable to examine the argument fairly because they are distracted by the label (or the color of the skin, or the sexual appendages or the car they drive), that’s their issue...in this case, your’s.
Frankly, I would rather debate someone who has “CREATIONIST” or “EVOLUTIONIST” tattooed to their forehead (they exist too), than someone who claims to be a “pure scientist” but rejects evolution or creation out of hand.
Creationists reject evolution out of hand. Because of they think it defies their faith based on their interpretation of Genesis.
Deny that if you will bet we all know that is fact.
Did you mean “All creationists”? If you did, your claim is untrue. I know creationists that don’t. If you didn’t, then it is meaningless, because it adds nothing to the debate. There is also the possibility that one has rejected a theory based on evidence - which is not “out of hand”, but is the scientific method.
I find it interesting that you did not include this bit of information: Many evolutionists reject creation out of hand, because they think it defies their faith based on their interpretation of “The Origin of Species” and the fossil record.
“Deny that if you will but we all know that is fact.” Is not useful. Many of the things we have “all know(n) as fact” have been far from the truth - historically, scientifically, theologically...
I will warn you, I may be enticing you into deep waters. If I do, you may have to question some of your basic assumptions.
Yes please, explain my basic assumption.
I have no intention of explaining your basic assumptions. You evidently misread what I wrote. Like I said, I may entice you into deeper water, which may require you to examine your basic assumptions.
I don’t presume to know what they are, neither do I assume that you will examine them. It is that all-important use of the word “may” that you may have missed.
You may be deliberately speaking in vague generalities so as to avoid specific issues.
The idea that the universe must be < 10,000 years old is certainly not an essential doctrine of either the Jewish or Christian faiths.
In this instance, I not only may, but I am. I have not decided yet if I want to draw you into that discussion or not - so it is intentional.
Very true. I am not dogmatic regarding either extreme - but I do believe in creation.
Any dinosaur relics would have been found in soil/rock formations that are 65 million years old or older. If you opined on mechanisms on how tissue could be preserved for that length of time rather than immediately accepting the silly notion that it's proof of a deluvian age, you would command more respect from most people.
Go ahead with your PhD in ME and turn your nose up at sciences such as cosmology, geology, archeology, evolutionary morphology, and genetics that all support a consistent view of the age of the universe, evolutionary processes, and mechanisms for dating events. The Bible may be a useful resource for documenting human events but it sucks at basic science. there is not one formula in it or any principles of physical phenomena. It only has rules for people to follow. The biblical morality has some good commonsense beliefs.
Basing your belief in creation lends weight to the pervert communities as they point out the creation nonsense makes Bible follows suspect as they can't grasp ordinary science. Instead of wasting time on creation, your time would be better spent on researching moral habits and the dangers of perversion, that's what the Bible writes about.
In fact one can see the rudiments of evolution in Genesis. First, God makes matter and energy. Then comes light. then comes the consolidation of the earth. then comes land and sea. then comes plant life. then comes animal life. then we get mankind. This so parallels the modern notion of cosmology and evolution, that one has to extend great credit to the ancient Jews for being able to conceive of cosmolgy and evolution well before they had any means to measure what they saw.
Couldn’t care less what you decide.
Thank you for your nice reply!
“If you opined on mechanisms on how tissue could be preserved for that length of time” ...
I did present an explanation: they were buried about 5000 years ago.
What is your explanation?
P.S. Do you have any “science” credentials?
(Not that I would be convinced “just because” someone has a degree - I’m not. See AGW for that error.....
I just mentioned my degree to show that I’ve done homework....
LOTS of it ..... in physics, engineering, math, statistics, logic, etc.
Lots of us got CONVINCED into creationism.
Convinced by evidence FOR creation,
and LACK of evidence for evolution // old earth.
Throw in the evo//old earth wiggle words to the typical NSA funded journal article, and you’ll see how we ended up with idiocies like AGW.
I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is God-breathed…). If you do call yourself a Christian (as opposed to Mormon or JW) and hold that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, then where do you begin and end? The Bible becomes a buffet table, where you choose what you like and leave what you don't like. This has happened in my country, where you have The United Church of Canada. This ‘church’ has performed homosexual marriages for years, has as its Moderator (head of the church), a homosexual who has been ‘in a committed relationship’ for 30 years with his ‘partner’. It is a ‘church’ which has maintained that the word ‘marriage’ in the Bible, actually means ‘a loving relationship’, whether sanctioned as a ‘marriage’ or not.
The Tanakh (Old Testament) was well established by the time of Jesus' Ministry . Several of the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1946-1956, and dated to the time of Jesus, or slightly earlier, confirm this. Included in the discoveries are portions of the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible. Sadly, I am not aware of any commentaries as to the Jewish belief for a date of creation from the time of Jesus. The closest that I am aware of is the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, which dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC. The later Seder Olam Zutta dates it to 4339 BC and the Hebrew Calendar has traditionally, since the 4th century AD by Hillel II, dated the creation to 3761 BC. As there is no record of an internal Jewish debate concerning the date of creation (young earth versus old earth), I will assume that this was the prevalent view in Jesus' time.
If a young earth assumption by the Rabbis of His time was incorrect and IF you accept Jesus as the God-man who is omniscient (Proverbs 3:19-20, Hebrews 4:13), would He not be fully aware of all errors in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and would He not correct such misinterpretations? He SURE corrected the Pharisees in what they taught!
As far as being ‘educated in science’, you must be familiar with the ‘abiogenic petroleum origin’ (APO) hypothesis? Almost 20 years ago, the University of Calgary was the only North American university that taught this hypothesis, alongside the fossil fuel theory. Russia has been qiute successful in drilling using this, rather than the latter hypothesis. Could they have just been ‘lucky’? Perhaps, but as I unstand it, percentage wise, there is no difference in drilling success rates versus the West. They do not claim this as proof of the age of the earth but the APO hypothesis does not require millions of years, as the fossil fuel hypothesis requires.
At the end of the day, it boils down to Faith. God provides us with glimpses of His Presence and Magnificence in all His creation. Satan has had several thousand years to spread doubt and spread faulty ‘reason’, to allow doubt to grow. Remember Peter walking on the water? When he looked away from Jesus, he sank (Matthew 14:22-33). Our doubts cause us to fall. If one part of the Bible is incorrect, then for me, it ALL has to be thrown out! If Darwin and his disciples are correct, then there should not be any soft tissue surviving. According to this theory, the Triceratops should be about 65 million years of age, as with the ‘biofilm’. Would not the ‘biofilm’ have evolved up, perhaps becoming small mammals or Democrats? The problem is that any observable evolution (by definition, micro-evolution) involves the LOSS of genetic diversity, not the GAIN! In other words, mutations!
We are to live by faith, not by sight. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:17-18, “And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” If you require proof of all things to believe them then where is the faith? In the end, you will get your proof… either at your death or at the end of the Age! At that time, it will be too late because we are saved by FAITH, not by having proof of each and every thing!
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.