Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

[Calminian]

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

Found this on Drudge. I have no idea what impact such a find would have on current scientific thinking about fossils. Maybe some scientists here can help me out.

 

[gluadys]

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

Found this on Drudge. I have no idea what impact such a find would have on current scientific thinking about fossils. Maybe some scientists here can help me out.

That's exciting. It is so rare to get soft tissue preserved. No doubt some questions about dinosaurs will be answered for the first time. And some information may be surprising. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Calminian]

That's exciting. It is so rare to get soft tissue preserved. No doubt some questions about dinosaurs will be answered for the first time. And some information may be surprising. We'll have to wait and see.

70 million years seems like an awful long time for blood vessels and cells to be preserved. If this find turns out to be true, will this have any impact on current theories about the age of dinosaurs?

 

[gluadys]

70 million years seems like an awful long time for blood vessels and cells to be preserved. If this find turns out to be true, will this have any impact on current theories about the age of dinosaurs?

I doubt it. It will more likely revise estimates of how long soft tissues can be preserved.

 

[notto]

70 million years seems like an awful long time for blood vessels and cells to be preserved. If this find turns out to be true, will this have any impact on current theories about the age of dinosaurs?

The bone was well preserved and the supposed tissue was protected in the middle of the thickest bone available on the specimen. The tissue had to be 'demineralized' to show the soft part so it wasn't like it was fresh or unaffected completely. I'm guessing that in the end this tissue will be shown to have been preserved via some chemical interaction - much like we can preserve soft tissue with chemicals. This tissue is not as fresh as its description in the popular press makes out. Specific treatment and rehydration had to happen to expose it and there was relatively little to look at in the end.

If the fossils we find are not that old, the question would be why don't we find more soft tissues in them.

 

[Vance]

What will be most interesting is if they can extract some DNA. Then we can test the connection between dinosaurs and birds.

 

[TwinCrier]

I doubt it. It will more likely revise estimates of how long soft tissues can be preserved.

I totally agree with this statement.

 

[TwinCrier]

What will be most interesting is if they can extract some DNA. Then we can test the connection between dinosaurs and birds.

Visions of Jarassic Park running theough my head....

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I doubt it. It will more likely revise estimates of how long soft tissues can be preserved.

Precisely. Because the theory of evolution is not a falsifiable one. It is malleable enough to adapt to any set of evidence.

Soft tissue surviving 65millions of years, so its still elastic and springs back into shape? I don't think so.

 

[notto]

Precisely. Because the theory of evolution is not a falsifiable one. It is malleable enough to adapt to any set of evidence.

Soft tissue surviving 65millions of years, so its still elastic and springs back into shape? I don't think so.

Why? It was only elastic after it was rehydrated and demineralized, not when they found it. It was in poor shape but for being 65 million years old, it was preserved well. It was encased in rock inside the thickest bone. If it was protected from the outside elements, there is no reason it wouldn't be protected.

If fossils are not this old, why don't we find more tissue like this in fossils? Why do we find samples of things like man and mammoths but not dinosaurs? That is the real question if what you say is true.

We know the fossils age through several independent lines of evidence. This really has no effect on evolution or dating.

Claiming 'I don't see how it could have survived' doesn't really carry any weight. You need to show exactly why it couldn't survive if you want use it as evidence against dating or evolution. There is no reason to expect that it couldn't survive in extremely rare cases under the right circumstances such as this.

 

[Calminian]

AiG just posted an article on this today.


Still soft and stretchy
Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

This is getting interesting.

 

[notto]

suar bone

AiG just posted an article on this today.


Still soft and stretchy
Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

This is getting interesting.

Be sure to read how they butchered the last find by Schweitzer. They distorted it beyond recognition in their zeal to rebut 'millions of years'.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

I'm guessing they are making the same mistakes here and they seem to be jumping the gun a bit.

 

[Calminian]

I'm guessing they are making the same mistakes here and they seem to be jumping the gun a bit.

We'll see!

 

[notto]

We'll see!

If they can get beyond the whole 'we don't believe that material could survive this long even under the best and rarest conditions' I will be surprised.

As with the past case, they never really provide any reason why this stuff couldn't survive if preserved in the way it is (largest and thickest bone, low moisture content of surrounding soil, low oxygen exposure).

If the inside of the bone is protected from water, chemicals, and microbes, there is no reason this isn't possible. What creationists can't explain is why exactly is it so rare when we find unfossilzed specimens of extinct mammals all the time.

If these remains are only a few thousand years old, why wouldn't we find more of them unfossilzed and in better condition.

Using this as an argument against the several independent lines of evidence that show us how old these fossils are is simply a poor argument. In the long run, take note if they don't back it up by more than 'we don't think it is possible'.

Let me know when they actually explain why it isn't possible.

 

[Calminian]

If they can get beyond the whole 'we don't believe that material could survive this long even under the best and rarest conditions' I will be surprised.

As with the past case, they never really provide any reason why this stuff couldn't survive if preserved in the way it is (largest and thickest bone, low moisture content of surrounding soil, low oxygen exposure).

If the inside of the bone is protected from water, chemicals, and microbes, there is no reason this isn't possible. What creationists can't explain is why exactly is it so rare when we find unfossilzed specimens of extinct mammals all the time.

If these remains are only a few thousand years old, why wouldn't we find more of them unfossilzed and in better condition.

Using this as an argument against the several independent lines of evidence that show us how old these fossils are is simply a poor argument. In the long run, take note if they don't back it up by more than 'we don't think it is possible'.

Let me know when they actually explain why it isn't possible.

It's going to be very interesting the way this plays out. Thanks for posting the article from talkorgins. I'll print it out and read it tonight. I'm also going to read AiG's article as well as two of their older articles on the previous "dino-blood" discovery. I'm curious what the objections were then and what they will be now and in the coming days.

 

[Calminian]

Well it looks like evolutionists will set this up as a win win situation. If it is truly soft tissue they will never drop their belief in long ages. Instead they'll simply say that soft tissue can survive for 70 millions years. What's their proof? Well hey they have it right here. But what I'm wondering is, would this have been predicted from the current knowledge (fossilization, chemistry) they have today. Certainly YECs would have predicted such a find was possible. Apparently there are some evolutionists that now want to start cracking open other fossils. Apparently such a thing never dawned on them before.

Personally I think most of the critiques of Weiland will owe him an apology. If this turns out to be true he is fully vindicated

 

[notto]

Well it looks like evolutionists will set this up as a win win situation. If it is truly soft tissue they will never drop their belief in long ages. Instead they'll simply say that soft tissue can survive for 70 millions years. What's their proof? Well hey they have it right here. But what I'm wondering is, would this have been predicted from the current knowledge (fossilization, chemistry) they have today. Certainly YECs would have predicted such a find was possible. Apparently there are some evolutionists that now want to start cracking open other fossils. Apparently such a thing never dawned on them before.

Personally I think most of the critiques of Weiland will owe him an apology. If this turns out to be true he is fully vindicated

Strange how if YECs would have predicted this that they never thought to do it themselves. I would chalk that up to the fact that they don't do much real science or spend much time in the labs. The spend more time distorting the work of scientists who do research and lab work instead of setting out to do original work of their own that would show their predictions.

You would think they could come up with an explanation of why this isn't found more often considering that we find unfossilized mammal bones that were supposedly of the same age as the dinosaurs and buried in the same flood.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Why? It was only elastic after it was rehydrated and demineralized, not when they found it. It was in poor shape but for being 65 million years old, it was preserved well. It was encased in rock inside the thickest bone. If it was protected from the outside elements, there is no reason it wouldn't be protected.

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.

If fossils are not this old, why don't we find more tissue like this in fossils?

We do, apparently.

Why do we find samples of things like man and mammoths but not dinosaurs? That is the real question if what you say is true.

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

We know the fossils age through several independent lines of evidence. This really has no effect on evolution or dating.

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. 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.

Claiming 'I don't see how it could have survived' doesn't really carry any weight. You need to show exactly why it couldn't survive if you want use it as evidence against dating or evolution. There is no reason to expect that it couldn't survive in extremely rare cases under the right circumstances such as this.

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

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.

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.

 

[TwinCrier]

Strange how if YECs would have predicted this that they never thought to do it themselves. I would chalk that up to the fact that they don't do much real science or spend much time in the labs. The spend more time distorting the work of scientists who do research and lab work instead of setting out to do original work of their own that would show their predictions.

You would think they could come up with an explanation of why this isn't found more often considering that we find unfossilized mammal bones that were supposedly of the same age as the dinosaurs and buried in the same flood.

Maybe YEC's don't spend much time in the lab, at least not trying to prove what they already know to be true. Unlike TEs who, to paraphrase your diatribe; spend more time distorting the work of God and the bible. In the end, the bible will be proven true.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Maybe YEC's don't spend much time in the lab, at least not trying to prove what they already know to be true. Unlike TEs who, to paraphrase your diatribe; spend more time distorting the work of God and the bible. In the end, the bible will be proven true.

Maybe they do: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

Even if we know from the Scriptures the age of the earth, there is still a lot to learn about His creation by being able to confirm that record.