Soft tissue in 65 million year old dinosaur bones?

[Achilles6129]

'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery'

That’s the title of an article in Discover magazine1 about Dr Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries of fresh dinosaur tissue (which we’ve earlier reported on—Dinosaur bone blood cells found, Creation 16(1):9, 1993; Sensational dinosaur blood report!19(4):42; 1997; Dino soft tissue find, 27(4):7, 2005).
Why ‘dangerous’? A sub-heading (our emphasis in bold font) explains: ‘When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.’

Pretty good evidence for a recent origin for dinosaur fossils, huh?

The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals.
‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’



‘If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,’ she says, adding, ‘So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?’

Dino DNA bone cells

As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:

“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”5
​

Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids.6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail.7,8]

Pretty interesting stuff, isn't it? This is very good evidence for the young-earth creationist worldview.

 

[mark kennedy]

'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery'

Pretty good evidence for a recent origin for dinosaur fossils, huh?

Dino DNA bone cells

Pretty interesting stuff, isn't it? This is very good evidence for the young-earth creationist worldview.

Interesting, I found an article about Archaeopteryx lithographica, only took an interest because it focused on the respiratory system and I maintain that the evolution of major organs is a myth. Anyway, there's a part of the article that discusses a fossilized heart some say is an artifact. 'A fossilized four-chambered heart with a fully partitioned ventricle', to be exact. (Respiratory and Reproductive Paleophysiology of Dinosaurs and Early Birds, 2003). It did not seem extraordinary to the evolutionists I was debating but I found it astonishing. It's so rare to find soft tissue samples but a fossilized heart from 150 million years ago, that should at least warrant some questions.

Invoke God as a cause and they go spastic but fossilized organs and soft tissue samples from bones 150 million years old don't really interest them at all. Kind of makes me think, maybe they could care less about actual evidence. Personally I think the most interesting stuff comes from the life sciences and something like a soft tissue sample gets you pretty close to a direct comparison of living DNA. Just don't understand the lack of interest.

Recently I happened upon a skull that was unearthed in Dmanisi (Russian Georgia), it was a perfectly preserved skull. For years they have been finding fragments and evolutionists claim it's some 800cc, a nearly perfect transitional in their minds. This one is unearthed and it's just over 500cc, very close to a modern Chimpanzee. Guess what, they lost all interest.

I could go on, just don't expect a stampede to discuss artifacts that suggest dinosaurs lived in the relatively recent past. They don't really do that very much.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’

It her findings weren't published in peer reviewed journals, then they must not have any validity, right? Ahh, science; the last bastion of truth in the world.

 

[Steve Petersen]

'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery'



Pretty good evidence for a recent origin for dinosaur fossils, huh?



Dino DNA bone cells



Pretty interesting stuff, isn't it? This is very good evidence for the young-earth creationist worldview.

This is very old news and has been rebutted.

Dino Blood Redux

 

[mark kennedy]

‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’

It her findings weren't published in peer reviewed journals, then they must not have any validity, right? Ahh, science; the last bastion of truth in the world.

It doesn't stop Fred Williams and Bob Enyart from having some fun with it.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

You really ought to check out the 60 Minutes report on it, it's way cool stuff.

Soft-tissue dinosaur biological material - YouTube

Jack Horner wants to have a pet dinosaur, I think he is being overly optimistic but it's a fun topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8

 

[Assyrian]

‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’

It her findings weren't published in peer reviewed journals, then they must not have any validity, right? Ahh, science; the last bastion of truth in the world.

Yet science has accepted her findings based on the evidence she presented hasn't it?

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote

Pretty interesting stuff, isn't it? This is very good evidence for the young-earth creationist worldview.

As Steve pointed out, this has been rebutted years ago.

The creationist articles are invariable riddled with distortions and outright falsehoods. Some examples - the material was only "elastic" after being soaked in solvent. another - the discovery was certainly not hushed up, but was trumpeted over and over, including a full length feature article in Scientific American, and others.

When fellow Christians bring this up as if it were new information (which they do regularly, such as here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7778671/), it makes it look like we are basing our ideas from a position of ignorance of the research going on.

mark wrote:

For years they have been finding fragments and evolutionists claim it's some 800cc,

Misleading. The skulls ranged from around 600 to the upper 700s.

Recently I happened upon a skull that was unearthed in Dmanisi (Russian Georgia), ....and it's just over 500cc,

Misleading. It was 546 cc, which can be compared to the the range of around 600 to the upper 700s in the other four skulls.

and it's just over 500cc, very close to a modern Chimpanzee.

misleading. Chimps average just under 400 ccs, 546 cc is outside the range of normal chimps, which is around 280 to 500.

And now mark is suggesting the Dmasi population are "very close" to chimps, while other creationists were arguing not that they were chimps, but that they were humans:

Item #2, here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/22/news-to-note-09222007

Why do some creationists argue one way, and others the other way? Because they fit right in the middle, straddling that transitional area between chimp and human - just as we'd expect for transitional fossils.

Plus, they fit quite well into the overall body of the many transitional pre-human fossils.

Guess what, they lost all interest.

Misleading (at best). There has been lots of research interest in Dmasi, especially since this last find. Should we go into how much work that has been?

In His light-

Papias

 

[Achilles6129]

This is very old news and has been rebutted.

Dino Blood Redux

I see. You might be interested to see CMI's rebuttal of such claims:

Squirming at the Squishosaur

Interestingly enough, the article you cited from was from 2005. The article I cited in my OP (Dino DNA bone cells) is from 2012! Seems your rebuttal is a bit out-of-date!

Squishosaur scepticism squashed

Because many evolutionists have been sceptical of the claims of organic residues found in T. rex fossils, the researchers went to great lengths to show that the organic material found in the fossil T. rex bones was actually from the T. rex bones. They conducted a series of tests to show that the protein found, collagen, was from the bone tissue of the T. rex.1

1. They imaged the bone using a number of different types of microscopy techniques after they had dissolved most of the minerals away, leaving the organic tissue (demineralized). They found, in two out of the three methods used, that the bone had a fibrous nature like modern ostrich bone. Further tests from the third method suggested that the material in the bone had changed little from the living state.
2. The elasticity of the demineralized T. rex bone was compared to a modern demineralized ostrich bone. They showed that the T. rex bone performed like the ostrich bone in how it reacted to mechanical loading and unloading.
3. Slices of the T. rex were tested to see if the bone would produce an immune reaction to collagen antibodies, which it did. To further show that the immune reaction of the antibodies was not an error, they also did the antibody test after the bone had been treated with enzymes that specifically degrade protein. The T. rex bone did not show any reaction to the collagen antibodies after it was treated.
4. The chemical composition of the demineralized bone was tested using mass spectrometry. They found that the results were consistent with collagen fibres being in the actual bone, but didn’t show any sign of the required amino acids in the rock that encased the fossil.

Moreover, they repeated the tests numerous times. The tests have been conducted independently in three different labs, all suggesting that the proteins come from the bone and are not due to contamination.1 However, such has been the level of scepticism among evolutionists that these tests needed to be done. This scepticism was originally well-founded from an evolutionary point of view as well—how could such biological molecules and structures survive for 68 million years? The maximum possible time assumed for collagen to be preserved under the most favourable preservation conditions at 0°C was 2.7 million years, at 10°C was 180,000 years and at 20°C was 15,000 years.3 Interestingly, they have noted that results from the most recent cuttings of the bone showed less collagen than earlier ones, suggesting bone degradation since 2003. But Schweitzer et al. have shown solid evidence that these structures do in fact belong to the original T. rex bone.

The discoveries clearly have profound implications for YEC and for evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

The creationist articles are invariable riddled with distortions and outright falsehoods. Some examples - the material was only "elastic" after being soaked in solvent.

This is true of all my freeze dried camping meals. So I agree
that elasticity is not a way to measure age. Creationists need
to STOP pretending that measuring the age of anything using
science, is anything other than Science-Fiction. We may, or
may not, be right about any such WAGS wild-as-guesses.

 

[mark kennedy]

Misleading. The skulls ranged from around 600 to the upper 700s.

Misleading, the earlier fossils from the area grossly exaggerated the size of the cranial capacity:

The jaw associated with Skull 5 was found five years before the cranium was discovered but when the two pieces were put together, they formed the most massively built skull ever found at the Dmanisi site. For this reason, the team suggests that the individual to whom Skull 5 belonged was male.​

Dmanisi Human

The braincase of Skull 5 is 546 cubic centimeters, which is smaller than expected.

The biggest brain case found at Dmanisi is 75% larger than the smallest one, which is consistent with what is observed in modern humans, said study co-author Christoph Zollikofer of the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.​

Rare skull sparks human evolution controversy

Most of the skulls found previously were highly fragmentary and the Darwinian lust for human ancestors knows no bounds. A 75% differences in skull size and I'm the one being misleading.

Misleading. It was 546 cc, which can be compared to the the range of around 600 to the upper 700s in the other four skulls.

The speculative size approached 800cc and none of them were conclusive, until this one.

misleading. Chimps average just under 400 ccs, 546 cc is outside the range of normal chimps, which is around 280 to 500.

Misleading:

• Orangutans: 275–500 cc (16.8–31 cu in)
• Chimpanzees: 275–500 cc (16.8–31 cu in)
• Gorillas: 340–752 cc (21–45.9 cu in)
• Modern Human, Australian Aboriginals: 1,199 cubic centimetres (73.2 cu in)
• Modern Human, Japanese: 1,551.8 cubic centimetres (94.70 cu in) [4]
• Neanderthals: 1,500–1,800 cc (92–110 cu in)

Cranial capacity

Notice the Neanderthals had a cranial capacity roughly 10% larger then ours. Invariably you will find that fossils recovered from the oldest and deepest sites are larger versions of their modern counter parts. Chimpanzees would have had bigger cranial capacities.

And now mark is suggesting the Dmasi population are "very close" to chimps, while other creationists were arguing not that they were chimps, but that they were humans:

Item #2, here:
News to Note, September 22, 2007 - Answers in Genesis

A News item taken from a couple of paragraphs in 2007...seriously? The Creationists who follow this sometimes argue for Cretinism. That's because it's been classified as Homo Erectus and Creationists automatically assume a fully developed human. It's not surprising since the size of the early skulls were grossly exaggerated and they have been backpeddling ever since:

Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen D2280 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~775 cc, but latest study appears to indicate cranial capacity has been revised down to 730 cc.​

New Dmanisi skull threatens to bring the house down

which invariably leads me to wonder, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

Why do some creationists argue one way, and others the other way? Because they fit right in the middle, straddling that transitional area between chimp and human - just as we'd expect for transitional fossils.

Whatever they actually are they are anything but what we would expect.

Plus, they fit quite well into the overall body of the many transitional pre-human fossils.

Nonsense, it's an ape:

Skull 5, like its previously known jawbone, is far larger than any of the others from Dmanisi, suggesting that it belonged to a robustly built and relatively old male individual, with a long, projecting face, and large teeth. Yet it has the smallest brain capacity of the series, no larger than those of much more primitive African fossils and even living gorillas.​

Skull 5 team proposes a radical rethink, but there are doubts to be overcome

Misleading (at best). There has been lots of research interest in Dmasi, especially since this last find. Should we go into how much work that has been?

I've been following this for a couple of years now and you've grossly misrepresented the facts yet again. Who's misleading who here?

I just wish shernren were still posting, I'd love to have had a chance to make him eat this:

Ehh, last I checked, The Origin of Species was written by Charles Robert Darwin. (Or did he vanish along with the 800cc Dmanisi skulls?)

Evoltuon and Natural selection proven wrong

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Dinosaur bones are definitely causing a scramble to religious evolutionists.

This is true of all my freeze dried camping meals. So I agree
that elasticity is not a way to measure age. Creationists need
to STOP pretending that measuring the age of anything using
science, is anything other than Science-Fiction. We may, or
may not, be right about any such WAGS wild-as-guesses.

No, but Sky, we do know the Biblical record is true, and it very clearly supplies a sequence of events, and refutes the evolutionary/deeptime model.

I think what we need to STOP is judging God's Word by wild-as-human-ideas, and read the text in a straightforward logical way. Then we'll start to understand why scientists were so surprised at what they found in these dinosaurs bones. It was no surprise to biblical creationists.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dinosaur bones are definitely causing a scramble to religious evolutionists.
No, but Sky, we do know the Biblical record is true, and it very clearly supplies a sequence of events, and refutes the evolutionary/deeptime model.
I think what we need to STOP is judging God's Word by wild-as-human-ideas, and read the text in a straightforward logical way. Then we'll start to understand why scientists were so surprised at what they found in these dinosaurs bones. It was no surprise to biblical creationists.

Christian logic dictates that we turn to the scriptures for deciding the age of the earth, and away from mans guesses on the math.

The deeptime model has the benefit of being useful for putting the past into a perspective. The Young Earth Model is flawed because it uses the time estimates of a Catholic Priest on what he believes to be the age of the earth.

It's a non-biblical estimation. Scripture does not DESCRIBE Adam as being created " a baby" crawling on hot cooling lava. Scripture is clear that man must "work the earth". Scripture says "earth" not hot lava. Have you ever created "earth" on your own? "earth" is takes a year or two to and is made up of decaying organic matter. Look CLOSE at the creation story and you will not find any evidence of a young earth. And that is the first week, when it is at it's "zero" age according to YEC. Clearly YEC's are mistaken. It's not a scriptural stand to take.

By saying the Young Earth model is wrong, I'm not saying the deep time model is right. I'm just saying the Young Earth model is not scripturally correct. If a young earth Creationist was transported to day 7 of Creation week, he would not find an earth that was, scientifically speaking, 7 days old. So to date Creation week as "zero years old" is not scriptural. No matter what a priest using his abacus comes up with using his guesses for the age of people.

 

[Calminian]

Christian logic dictates that we turn to the scriptures for deciding the age of the earth, and away from mans guesses on the math.

The deeptime model has the benefit of being useful for putting the past into a perspective. The Young Earth Model is flawed because it uses the time estimates of a Catholic Priest on what he believes to be the age of the earth.

But I'm a young earther and I've never relied on the estimates of a priest. This is a straw man. You're not doubting a priest, you're doubting the word of God, and using reinterpretation as a way to justify it.

Paul warned us not to go beyond what is written, but that's exactly what you are doing. Instead of starting your reasoning from the Bible you've started with man's ideas.

It's a non-biblical estimation. Scripture does not DESCRIBE Adam as being created " a baby" crawling on hot cooling lava. Scripture is clear that man must "work the earth". Scripture says "earth" not hot lava.

Actually the word is erets—the land.

Have you ever created "earth" on your own? "earth" is takes a year or two to and is made up of decaying organic matter. Look CLOSE at the creation story and you will not find any evidence of a young earth.

You're right, it's quite old, about 6.000 years. For that we have inerrant testimonial evidence, including chronological genealogies which give us very precise dating information.

By saying the Young Earth model is wrong, I'm not saying the deep time model is right. I'm just saying the Young Earth model is not scripturally correct. If a young earth Creationist was transported to day 7 of Creation week, he would not find an earth that was, scientifically speaking, 7 days old. So to date Creation week as "zero years old" is not scriptural. No matter what a priest using his abacus comes up with using his guesses for the age of people.

Sky I can only say you are terribly confused, and the reason for that is your reasoning does not start with God's Word. The above statement makes very little sense, and doesn't prove your assertion that the YEC model fails. But the fact that you call it a model, shows you're not reasoning from the foundational knowledge of God. God states explicitly how the world was made, and how long it took, as well as the number of years from creation to the flood, and from the flood to Terah, etc. This is not a model, this is recored history superintended by God. You've just chosen to believe man's ideas over it.

 

[SkyWriting]

But I'm a young earther and I've never relied on the estimates of a priest. This is a straw man. You're not doubting a priest, you're doubting the word of God, and using reinterpretation as a way to justify it. Paul warned us not to go beyond what is written, but that's exactly what you are doing. Instead of starting your reasoning from the Bible you've started with man's ideas.

That is incorrect. Please show where Jesus or the disciples clarified the date of Creation. Henry Morris illustrated the method for understanding scripture in his many books. The Creation week ended with an "old" earth. Show me otherwise.

You're right, it's quite old, about 6.000 years. For that we have inerrant testimonial evidence, including chronological genealogies which give us very precise dating information.

Again you fail to provide your sources.

Sky I can only say you are terribly confused, and the reason for that is your reasoning does not start with God's Word. The above statement makes very little sense, and doesn't prove your assertion that the YEC model fails. But the fact that you call it a model, shows you're not reasoning from the foundational knowledge of God. God states explicitly how the world was made, and how long it took, as well as the number of years from creation to the flood, and from the flood to Terah, etc. This is not a model, this is recored history superintended by God. You've just chosen to believe man's ideas over it.

Thanks for your evaluation. I assure you, it was Henry Morris that changed my mind. Now, let's ignore the sermons you've heard and go to scripture. You claim the earth was age "zero" on day seven of creation week. (or 7 days old)
Let's see if scripture describes anything like that:

5.Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.

Here we find no plants. Yes, that sounds like day zero. But then, God notes that there is no one to "WORK THE GROUND". This "ground working" doesn't sound like prison work, breaking rocks. It sounds like farming. Farming suggest "dirt". Dirt is old decaying organic matter. Back to the story:

6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
"'Watering the ground" sounds like God has a plan. And we discover what:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Here we note "MAN" not child, baby, or fertilized egg. And "Garden". I know what MY garden looks like on day zero. It looks like zero. Not like a Garden.

9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Here we find trees growing and providing FOOD. I've planted fruit trees. On day zero, they do not produce food. Usually about 2 years before trees produce fruit.

skipping - 15
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

This ends our analysis for today. Genesis says VERY little suggesting that day zero was day zero. There was that one passage with no plants before anything got watered. But after that, Adam is an Adult, he speaks, Eve speaks, they walk in the garden.....most everything, especially the lack of volcanoes that God uses in Hawaii to create land, most everything points to a scientific analysis that Creation week was not Year ZERO as you claim. According to the scripture, everything formed for creation week was fully aged, mature, and ready for it's purpose.

The genealogies are not included in the scripture so you can measure time with them. Some are even different from each other because the purpose is to give the linage from different perspectives. No disciple ever uses them to date events. Historically, they are not used that way.

 

[Calminian]

...The Creation week ended with an "old" earth. Show me otherwise.

Sorry, creation of anything makes something new by definition. You're simply changing the definition of creation.

Now, let's ignore the sermons you've heard and go to scripture.

I'm not going to get into a spitting match with you. I don't think that will fair well for either of us. You've gone from dialog to attack mode, so I'm just going to focus on these points you're trying to make.

5.Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.

Here we find no plants.

Here you're quoting from a different account (toledoth), and it's not speaking of the wild plants made on day 3, but rather cultivated garden plants. You'll notice they are "plants of the field." When you read further, the account tells you exactly why these cultivated plants were not growing yet.

...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.​

That's the second part of the verse. I don't know how skeptics miss this. This second account is not a creation account, but an account of the Garden of Eden. On day 3 there were wild plants, but not gardens, as gardens by definition need gardeners! There's no contradiction.

But again, this is an issue of reading God's word carefully, and then believing it. You're struggle is with belief.

Here we note "MAN" not child, baby, or fertilized egg. And "Garden". I know what MY garden looks like on day zero. It looks like zero. Not like a Garden.

LOL! I should hope God could make a Garden faster than we can. God didn't have to wait for natural process to take place. Just as he made wine in an instant, so he can make a garden in an instance. God chose to make a garden on day 6, just prior to Eve's creation. Account to the creation account, Adam and Eve were both made on day 6. I believe it.

The genealogies are not included in the scripture so you can measure time with them. Some are even different from each other because the purpose is to give the linage from different perspectives. No disciple ever uses them to date events. Historically, they are not used that way.

You simply are not aware that there are several different kinds of genealogies. Some are chronological, and some are not. Some do have missing generations, and some don't. It all depends on what they used for.

This is why I mentioned the genealogies in Gen. 5 and Gen. 11. These are a particular kind of genealogy—chronological genealogies. These have specific data that others do not have—the age of the father at the time of the next patriarch's birth, and the total number of years lived. This extra information is specifically designed to provide chronological data. The question is, do you trust it? That's your basic struggle. You're having trouble reconciling God's word with man's ideas, and are choosing to judge the word over modern theories.

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

 

[Achilles6129]

FYI - here's a National Geographic link for further study:

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside