• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is getting more interesting by the moment.

A couple of new articles:


Soft tissue is discovered inside a dinosaur fossil

The Boston Globe

Until now, scientist believed that bones fossilized when minerals gradually replaced all organic material. Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years.


''Our theories don't allow for this," Schweitzer said.

Of course as AiG predicted the age of the dinosaurs will never be questioned. Immediately we must question the fossilization process.


T Rex bones yield soft tissue, blood cells

Science Blog

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve -- the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.


Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.


In a paper published in the March 25 edition of the journal Science, Schweitzer describes the process by which she and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.


Schweitzer was interested in studying the microstructure and organic components of a dinosaur's bone. All bone is made up of a combination of protein (and other organic molecules) and minerals. In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is believed to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil.


But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.


Since current data indicates that living birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group, Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present, and many of the small microstructures present in the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample.


Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.


Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs' original molecular material may still be present.


"We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think," says Schweitzer. "Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place."


The research was funded by NC State, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences and the National Science Foundation.


From NC State

I think it's clear no OEer would have predicted this. It's they themselves that answer the question, "why can't something like this be preserved for millions of years?" Because it doesn't conform with current naturalistic theories!

So if they can be wrong about this, why can't they be wrong about their dating methods also?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All this tells me is that, indeed, scientist can be wrong, which is something that we already knew. What also must be kept in mind is that there are varieties of wrongness. It's one thing to be wrong about the ability of tissues to be preserved. But it's much harder to be wrong about the age of the geologic column. The former is an interesting new development, but that's about it. The latter would be in contradiction of a wide variety of lines of evidence in of biology, geology, and physics. And because scientists are wrong about one thing doesn't in the least imply that they're wrong about whatever other thing someone wants to claim. The creationists, oddly, want to claim that scientists were wrong about the big thing (age of rocks) and right about the little thing (inability of soft tissues to be preserved for millions of years). Go figure.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
tyreth said:
I don't believe that. You are wording it in such a way that the conditions do not sound all that bad for the survival of soft tissue. I do not think matters are that simple.

Leave a kitchen sponge on a sunny windowsill for a week, a month, a year...it's hard as a rock.

Pour some water on it, and it's soft and springy again.

What's so complicated?

We do, apparently.

We found one. Under the Creationist model, we should be up to our hips in them.


Because dinosaurs became extinct thousands of years ago, but mammoths and men have been alive more recently.

Thousands?


Dating methods that support evolution (because not all do) come under attack by creationists also. That is a separate issue. Dating methods that do not support the old age, must, of course, be innaccurate because we *know* the fossil has to be old. It's poor reasoning.

Good thing that it's not the only line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion...

In a world ruled by creationist philosophy you would find the same fallacy would be true in the reverse - dating methods that support a young age would be accepted, and those that support an old age rejected as "impossible"...not as falsifying evidence.

So the Creationists would be every bit as biased as you accuse the evolutionists of being...assuming they aren't already.

What's your point?

Right back at you. You haven't described how it could survive this long. You made some references to it being protected inside rock inside the thickest bone - but really you were just trying to make it sound protected.

Air and water cause decay. the less of those something is exposed to, the more preserved it is.

You didn't cite any real evidence. It just seems incredible to me. I don't have scientific reasons.

Then you don't have a scientific case.

I'd just like a demonstration of an environment like this - empirically tested - showing that soft tissue can survive indefinitely (upwards of 65million years) without decaying.

Seen any mummies lately?

You may have heard it said that you can't prove a negative, which is the unfortunate situation I'm in. However, I can say that claiming it lasted 65million years sounds incredible - and ask you to cite evidence to support the possibility of it lasting so long.

Well, incredulity alone doesn't disprove the claim.

And my previous comment stands - this, like any other piece of evidence, will not falsify evolution. The theory of evolution is so malleable that no piece of conceivable evidence will falsify it.

Because evolution is supported through not one, but several independent lines of evidence, all of which would have to be disproven almost simultaneously. All roads lead to Rome, as they say.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That this type of matter could not last more than 100,000 years is what the evolutionists have been saying for years. And now they're looking at us and saying, "duh, of course preservation is possible for billions of years!" Anyone noticing this elephant in the room?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not what the scientists are saying. It is more like "wow, it CAN survive this long under these particular conditions, we were wrong about that one! Pretty cool, actually." And being wrong about things is something scienists expect. But, as I said above, it is very different to be wrong about something like that, and a conclusion reached by multiple evidences from multiple fields of study.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Vance said:
No, that is not what the scientists are saying. It is more like "wow, it CAN survive this long under these particular conditions, we were wrong about that one! Pretty cool, actually." And being wrong about things is something scienists expect. But, as I said above, it is very different to be wrong about something like that, and a conclusion reached by multiple evidences from multiple fields of study.
'

Looks like what we have here is a genuine missing bellybutton!
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Does anybody here have / can anybody here get access to the original scientific papers? I'm not going to take popular press releases: they only so much column space to fill, and important facts can go suspiciously missing.

AiG's article is simply downright irresponsible. Let's go:

1. AiG refuses to admit the irresponsibility of its earlier article on "dino blood" or to answer the reputable refutations by talkorigins. It also alludes to "more dino blood" implying, of course, that some has been found already.
2. In the first place, there are conflicting accounts of the discovery. Major news organizations claim it as something "serendipitous", whereas at least two sites claim that the researchers were actively looking into the question of dino bone microstructure (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/11235873.htm, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm), which means that AiG should not have said things like
It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens!
hmm.
3. A lot of emotive and inexact imagery is used. For example,
These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels
whereas according to original accounts the vessels could be manipulated with a probe ... why not quote? Doesn't sound as pretty or simple for simple-minded people to understand?
4.
In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens!
Here we have the classic AiG sentence structure: no numbers, quantifiers that imply abundance, and the customary exclamation mark where a fullstop would have done. Note the science daily article: there were exactly two other dinos found to have this. "Two" is probably not best represented as "several", no?

There'll be more soon I bet. AiG oh AiG ...
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
shernren said:
Does anybody here have / can anybody here get access to the original scientific papers? I'm not going to take popular press releases: they only so much column space to fill, and important facts can go suspiciously missing.

It was published in the March 25 edition of Science. A local library will likely have a hard copy. There may well be an online version as well, but I don't know the URL. Also I believe they charge for recent publications.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think it's here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/current/ but you need to pay. Darn! I'll check with my library. Anyway, does anybody here want to hear more critiques of the AiG article? 'Cause I've come up with more. =)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.