DNA & SOFT TISSUE CONFIRMED IN 68 "MILLION" YEAR T-REX ! (page 2)

Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. Using the term "fossil" reinforces the notion of age. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality. However, when common folks do the same thing it is usually balked at.

So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?

Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh!

I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.

truthsearcher

It looks like something I plopped on my grill last weekend

lol, Perry!

Excellent points made. We all have the same evidence, and we will choose to interpret it based on our own worldview and presuppositions.

Perry

O.K. so I just read the report and they had to demineralize the bone for it to look like that so it did not look like that to begin with

A.C.

The below statement from the scholarly article confirms that the structures were not totally replaced by minerals. In other words, parts were still flesh and blood encased in mineralized portions.

When an animal dies, protein immediately begins to degrade and, in the case of fossils, is slowly replaced by mineral. This substitution process was thought to be complete by 1 million years. Researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and Harvard Medical School now know otherwise.

Above is a picture of a petrified (not fossilized mind you) dog that got caught in a tree while hunting.... probably chasing a coon. See how words guide your mind to swallow concepts of age?

Here is a stone boot made in the 1950's with the leg still in it .... all "fossilized".

ninja

a dinosaur and soft tissues linked?.....must be a tyrannosaurus andrex

LtCmd.Lore

This has already been answered here when they found dino blood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

And then covered again just recently when she found the flesh: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

Lore

Perry

And then covered again just recently

Lore, your link appears to be two years old and does not address the press release with the Havard Medical School analysis released a few weeks ago that I posted at the top of this thread.

Leolaia

This thread is filled with misinformation. There was no DNA extacted or sequenced as implied by the thread title. The soft tissue consists mainly of fibrous collagen proteins that made up the osteoid extracellular matrix. These molecules because of their structure have great tensile strength and are more durable than some other kinds of organic matter. Nor did the tissue come out of the ground looking like that. According to Jack Horner, it looked just like any other dinosaur fossil bone. The only reason why they took the sample was because they had to break a bone to remove the skeleton from its setting, and this afforded a rare opportunity to examine an uncontaminated interior section of bone (as paleontologists don't normally damage their specimens). Rather, the fossilized bone had to be demineralized in acid to reveal the preserved protein matrix and it was also stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate (again, paleontologists generally do not dissolve their specimens). Less than 1% of the total sample contained protein or protein-like material, so we are talking about a trace amount that was preserved in the mineralization process. What is more, according to Mary Schweitzer, organic tissue was preserved not IN SPITE OF mineralization but BECAUSE of it, as the latter included chemical reactions (thanks to all the iron in the bone from decomposed hemoglobin and myoglobin) that bonded the protein molecules to the mineral molecules -- producing the stable polymers that had to be demineralized in the recovery process. Once formed, these polymers would not have been vulnerable to the kind of organic degradation that the unbonded proteins would have faced without mineralization. And since the mineralization process took place at a molecular level, fine microstructures inside the bone were preserved in the mineralization process. Schweitzer also points out that this outcome would have depended greatly on the kind of mineral substrate in which the bone was deposited and other environmental conditions of preservation. She is absolutely correct that our knowledge of taphonomy is woefully incomplete and that we are only beginning to understand the fine details of how fossils are preserved. Because of this, it is quite rash to argue that all the other evidence pointing to the age of the fossil (e.g. geological strata, radioactive decay, etc.) must be wildly incorrect because of an assumption that such tissue could not possibly have been preserved for so long. And yet everyone knows of similarly ancient soft tissue being preserved in amber, a substrate that prevents decay by sealing the organism outside the reach of exogenous agents. Here the process of preservation makes all the difference. Since the soft tissue in the dinosaur bone was mineralized and bonded to inorganic molecules, it doesn't matter how many millions of years old the bone would eventually become; once the process took place and successfully cross-linked these compounds at the molecular level, the tissue was preserved tho in a form that would have be extracted via demineralization. Because this is one of the first discoveries of such material, no one knows how rare such preservation is.

kid-A

Professor Greendawn writes: The more likely possibility is that dinosaurs existed until very recent times, a very major problem for evolutionists.

Yabba-Dabba-Doooo!!! Its "The world according to Greendawn":

Kudra

Leolia,

That was great- thanks for putting that in there- very easy to understand and you gave a ton of info on why this discovery should have nothing to do with recalculating ages of fossils.

Thanks again for your clearheaded response- hopefully everyone will be able to read and understand it.

-K

DNA & SOFT TISSUE CONFIRMED IN 68 "MILLION" YEAR T-REX !

Share this