Who can explain soft tissue found in fossils?

More evidence is being discovered of soft pliable tissue containing collagen, blood vessels, proteins, etc. inside of fossils of dinosaurs bones. All camps in the evolution vs. creation, old Earth vs. young Earth agree the tissue is present and is not fossilized as would be predicted if the animal died 100 million years ago.

So how can one explain this discovery and still believe the animal lived and died that long ago without 100% decay or fossilization? If the prediction of millions of years is destroyed, the whole hypothesis of evolution fails.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist

 

I liked this part of the article.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”



While perhaps it is simply as the article describes.


Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.”

 

Where are their Christian ethics in misrepresenting her work?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) YEAH! This literally means we can now clone mother (*)(*)(*)(*)ing triceratops and terror birds and Gigantasaurus and maybe even customize them. Imagine battle fields full of dinosaurs with laser beams battling against tanks.

 

More evidence is being discovered of soft pliable tissue containing collagen, blood vessels, proteins, etc. inside of fossils of dinosaurs bones.

Yes such tissue has been harvested from mammoth carcasses frozen in the permafrost and discovered with the Great Melt happening now.
However, dinosaur soft tissue
Please link a reference. I can't find any.
Gracias.


Moi

r > g

View attachment 32312 ​

 

What is interesting here is that science said that soft tissue could not survive in fossils millions of years old. And so no one looked for any. Then it was found. LOL..

So the lesson here, is to not see science as always knowing facts. Now this calls into question the science involved in fossilization. What we thought we absolutely knew turns out, once again to be false. I would imagine there is much of this involved in the theory of evolution. What we think we know may very well to turn out not to be true.

 

The link is on the bottom of the OP

 

Another prediction was proved false, was that it takes millions of years to fossilize organic material. Excavators have been finding recently buried fossilized materials foe quite a while now. One recently was a stack of fossilized pallets.

 

I never could get a good grasp on how fossils are formed. I mean, I know what the current knowledge says but just hard to imagine it happening. LOl.

But this soft tissue deal is simply amazing to me. For it should have been utterly impossible, given what we think we know about how fossils are formed and the time needed to form them.

While I do accept most science, I never was arrogant enough to draw truths from it as some of the science minded tend to do. Science has always been tentative in many areas just awaiting the next discovery or insight. And all it takes is one of those to turn accepted scieintific fact on its head. So the arrogance exhibited by some when they use science to back up their atheism just seems a bit over reaching for me. So One Mind, has a very Open Mind. And it has served me quite well in my long life. But I never was a guy that had to have a hard handle on what reality is, and can live in a state of not knowing quite easily.

 

We seem to agree.

 

If you want to see what garbage YEC make of this see https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/

Warning - reading this may damage intelligence. Or you might spill your coffee from laughter.

 

Great website................

 

bearing false witness is not a commandment all Christians follow

 

I don't think he read his source very carefully.

 

Ahhh the flat-earthers of the group have chimed in.

 

I bet Disney tries to corner that market.

- - - Updated - - -

Then what is "science"? I mean, in your view.

 

He's an idiot.

http://lancelet.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, a Creationist left some space for us.

 

Science is defined as knowledge, not as the religion of evolution.

 

It would be more accurate to say that he is telling lies. This is something you have to do if you want to promote a religious point of view, especially when it comes to science. Those who want to quote something from a religious point of view frequently quote from that website. You have given an example of how accurate it is.

 

If a dinosaur genome were harvested,
and one was going to try grow one,
what critter's "ovum" would you use to
grow the genetic material into a dinosaur.

We know better than a very cold blooded, dumbest of reptiles.
How about a Turtle or a Crocodile sort.
I know, some push for "da bird". A bit too warm blooded, don'tshythink?

My vote is the crocodile sort.
Their "three" chambered heart is capable of some tricks too.

Votes? Cast your votes. Write ins welcome


Moi
Komodo dragon ? ?
Just a big lizard. Big but primitive

r > g

View attachment 32354 ​

 

Schweitzer had to be very careful and walk on pins and needles. First she had to condemn "creationists". That was key. She quietly and with no fanfare continued her research. This type of thing wasn't a " missing link" after all. To call the press would be career suicide. It was in fact automatically controversal and under attack.

Research was done to discredit the find....that research was quietly debunked. The only way for Schweitzer to receive funding to continue the reseach was to come up with a plausible explaination for soft tissue preserving for 70 mil years. And they did that by soaking ostrich innards in blood for two years and comparing that to ostrich innards in water. So...the iron in blood will preserve tissue for 70 mil years.

Now the scientist can do the research.....quietly with no fanfare.

This was an exciting find. But the whole subject could be shut down in an instant if it threatens what is considered acceptable findings.

I might add, that the tissue was found when fossil bones were cut for transport in an act of desperation. Normally the bones are plastered and kept whole. Now scientists are cutting these bones and the tissue is plentiful.

 

This is exactly true. Scientists never looked for soft tissue in fossils since "soft tissue can not survive millions of years". Now the evidence is piling up as more fossils are explored for evidence of soft tissue proof for recent death and burial.

As I understood from reading about Sweitzer's research, complete DNA strands have not been found, yet. Steven Spielberg doesn't have to make a sequel any time soon.

 

"After carefully studying 11 fragments of collagen recovered from the T. rex bone and then comparing them to similar fragments in modern rat and human collagen, the team discovered that the found fragments all came from the same innermost part of the fibrils that make up microfibrils. San Antononio likens them to tiny fibers that sit at the very innermost part of a very thick strong rope.
In their paper, the research team suggests that because they were so tightly wound, the microfibrils could have survived over millions of years. They also note that the specimens also contained very few amino acids, which are very susceptible to decay."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html#jCp

Until whatever they are seeing can be proven as dinosaur tissue rather than contamination.....no one will be able to explain it.

Regardless....this in no way diminishes the data that shows the age as in the millions of years.

 

And calling a scientific theory a "religion" is just a little bit silly.

-

 

Did you mean to say it is soft tissue that can not possibly be millions of years old until someone can come up with a fairy tale to "prove" tissue will not somehow decay in tens of millions of years?