Saturday, June 1, 2019

How Common Are Soft Tissue Remnant Finds In Fossils? More Common Than What Most Are Led To Believe






The most widely known and publicized find of a soft tissue find has been that of Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist who discovered what appeared to be tissue matter preserved within the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Later, a scientist was fired for making known his discovery of organic matter within fossils belonging to a triceratops because he believed that the presence of organic matter was evidence of an extinction that took place thousands, not millions of years ago; a belief by which the University he worked for felt threatened. [1]

Young Earth Creationists have long been citing reports of discoveries within the fossil record that they insist are inconsistent with old earth doctrine including the presence of organic properties found within fossilized remains [2, 3]  since all organic material was expected to have lasted no more than perhaps a few million years at best, but now, evolutionists have begun to admit that the presence of soft tissue remains of various sorts are more common place than previously believed.  In their coverage of the latest research regarding the soft tissue finds by Mary Schweitzer, according to Fox News, the Tyrannosaurus leg bone in which the blood cells had been discovered was not the only fossil in which Schweitzer's team of researchers discovered the remains of organic matter:


The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic period...[4]


The reason as to why soft tissue presence had not been known until recently was that before Schweitzer's discovery, there was no reason to look for something within a fossil that was not expected to be there:



The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, “Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?”...[5]



Nature Communications also has cited numerous examples of reported discoveries of soft tissue found in prehistoric fossils:



The presence of vertebrate soft tissue has long been recognized and documented in exceptionally preserved fossils. 

Recent research has suggested that original components of soft tissues such as skin, feathers and other integumentary structures, and muscle fibers may be preserved in these exceptional fossils.  For example, still-soft flexible material was recovered after demineralization of well-preserved bones from late Cretaceous dinosaur Tyrannosaurus whereas proteinaceous material was found to be preserved in another dinosaur, Brachylophosaurus.  Haemoglobin fragments were found in the abdomen of a beautifully preserved Eocene misquito, and degraded eumelanin was recovered in the integument of an Eocene turtle.

Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule.  In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years.  Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of the original protein are preserved...[6]



But the research team who analyzed the organic material found in the different fossil samples reported in the Nature Communications article did not describe the fossils as being exceptionally preserved:




Here, we examined...different dinosaur bones from the Cretaceous period, none of which are exceptionally preserved.  We used electron microscopy and a focused ion beam (FIB), as part of a novel method to prepare samples for mass spectrometry...with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) we observed, in four different samples, structures resembling calcified collagen fibers from modern bone; in three other samples, structures enriched in carbon, and in two of our samples, structures that resemble erythrocytes from birds. [7]



It seems that perhaps the presence of organic material within fossils may turn out to be the rule rather than the exception as Creation Ministries International (CMI) also points out in stating that the information "that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiraling out of control.” [8]

The responses to the soft tissue discoveries that evolutionists have attempted to provide are far from convincing.  Even the proposed theory of iron acting as a preservative to explain the presence of the organic matter in fossils does not stand up to honest scientific or logical scrutiny; more information on this can be found in a previous post. 

If evolutionists have been hiding this knowledge that challenges their long held and precious doctrine, what else are they hiding from the public at large?  Another ramification to be considered is that where organic matter is found, there is also carbon which would pose inescapable problems for the radiometric dating methods upon which evolutionists have long relied to support their doctrine.

If someone were to test the tissue samples for carbon and attempt to date the fossils by dating the organic matter with the carbon dating method, the dates given by the carbon dating method would be far different from the dates given by the radiometric dating methods.  Which one could evolutionists rely on then?  Perhaps neither one.  The dates from both methods would both be wrong for several reasons.



End Notes:



1.  "Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil," CBS-Los Angeles, July, 24, 2014

2.  Brian Thomas, Ph.D, "Still Soft after Half a Billion Years?" Institute For Creation Research, May 5, 2014

3.  Brian Thomas, Ph.D, "Bloody Mosquito Fossil Supports Recent Creation," 
Institute For Creation Research, October 25, 2013

4.  Mark Hollis Armitage and Kevin Lee Anderson, "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus," Science Direct; Acta Histochemica, Vol. 115, Issue 6, Pages 603-608, July, 2013

5.  Live Science, "T. Rex flesh? Controversial  soft tissue finally explained," Fox News, November 27, 2013

6.  Sergio Bertazzo, Susannah C. R. Maidment, Charalambos Kallepitis, Sarah Fearn, Molly M. Stevens & Hai-nan Xie, "Fibers and cellular structures preserved in 75 million-year-old dinosaur specimens," Nature Communications 6, Article Number: 7352 (2015)

7.  Ibid

8.  Calvin Smith, "Dinosaur soft tissue," Creation Ministries International, January 28, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment