Soft Tissue: A Dinosaur shocker!

Some real questions as to whether dinosaurs really went extinct 65 million years ago!

Scientists investigating the inner structure of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil discovered what appeared to be preserved soft tissues, perhaps including intact blood cells, as reported in the March 25, 2005 issue of Science…

 This find should have been making front page news over 10 years ago, after Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue inside a T-Rex bone in Montana in 1995. Ten years later, the article in Science was complete with pictures pointing out soft tissue including a red blood cell as well as  bone-making cells from a T-Rex leg bone. This was reported again in Smithsonian Magazine, March 2006. One of the pictures on the Smithsonian Magazine Website has the caption: “A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed.”

Other articles on the discovery mention the researchers noticed an awful smell in the bones, which is a sign of ongoing decay & cannot come from a fossilized bone over 100,000 years old, let alone after 65 million years.  Further investigation revealed round microscopic structures that appear to be cells inside the hollow vessels. Even to the untrained eye, the tissue samples look as if the animal died recently. Fibrous protein material was dissolved with an enzyme called collegenase, indicating that amino acid sequencing could probably be done (amino acids are the building blocks of protein).¹

 The fossil was entombed in porous sandstone, with the surety of penetration by groundwater. Since biological material is quickly broken down in the presence of water, it seems inconceivable that organic material could have avoided decomposition for so long, raising the possibility that the formation is misdated. The discovery is obviously much more compatible with recent rapid burial than with an age of millions of years, for soft tissue decays rather quickly under any condition.

Obviously, no one has a Polaroid picture of what the conditions were like at the time of burial. However, it is fact that the Ice Age came down near that section of the Hell Creek area. Also winter storms no doubt produced snow and rain in abundance that would have saturated that area. Organic materials decompose rapidly in the presence of water. If a bone is 65 million years old, it would either totally fossilize or decompose back into the ground well before even 1 million years passed by. Even evolutionists know this.

 Faced with the implications of this discovery, secular evolutionists are scrambling to suggest a way soft tissue can be completely preserved in pristine condition for millions of years.  They are beside themselves trying to explain the soft tissue, – soft meaning pliable and flexible.  And blood cells? Thats a bigger shocker! Since Evos cannot accept anything less than millions of years in their assumptions, their article just says well maybe we “stumbled upon a soft mineralization process by which the fossil retains some of the flexibility and detail of the original specimen, though this seems unlikely”.  Unlikely indeed. We would have to throw out everything we know about decay in living tissue and the fast decomposition of blood – just so we can hang on to  “millions of years”.

 This is big news. Biochemical kinetic laws say proteins can not last even 40,000 years. What do evolutionists make of this find?  They say that Schweitzer’s work is just showing us we really don’t understand decay.  That’s basically a cop-out – saying that the laws of biology don’t apply when we don’t want them to. Schweitzer’s tissues were NOT fossilized. She found real collagen. Any first-year biology student knows how to do the reagent test for proteins in a sample. It was easy, simple, first-year stuff … and consequently unassailable.

Since the discovery, she has found similar samples of soft tissue in two other fossils: a tyrannosaur and a hadrosaur.  Therefore, the burden of proof is on evolutionists to present evidence as to how dinosaur flesh and blood cells can still exist and be preserved for 65 million years.  They can (and do) speculate how this could be, but remember the 65 million year assumption is just that – an assumption. The bones and the sedimentary rock are not radiometrically dated.  They use index fossils to date the layers these bones are found in.  And the index fossil system was simply based on evolutionary assumptions without any recourse to C14 dating or otherwise.  Remember the porous rocks these samples are found in.  It rains and snows a lot in Montana.  Leached water regulalry passed through these bones  which should have fossilized them or rotted them  away easily within 100,000 years.  This is geologically sound science.  And Science indeed favors a young-earth T-Rex.

In April 2006, Discovery had an article about Dr. Schweitzer’s research.  She is quoted as saying: “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. I wrote back and said “Well what data would convince you?”  And he said “None.”  Such is the faith of evolutionists. Hard data (& soft tissue) staring them in the face just does not matter.

Schweitzer did try to disprove it was blood. Instead, there was evidence of  “heme in the bones” which is more data supporting that these were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color.  “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation”, she says.  “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization?”

Or maybe wrong about 65 million of years ?

It may be a shocker to some, but it is simply more likely that at least some T-Rexes lived in Montana less than 10,000 years ago. This is not a matter of faith or conjecture. It is science. Remember these bones were not C-14 dated, nor by any other direct method. Fossil evolutionary dates are always based on index fossils found in text books and cross-referenced to a pre-determined belief in millions of years. They are NOT based on observable, repeatable scientific facts. This is just one of the MANY hard scientific evidences blowing away the millions of years smoke-screen used to make evolution seem plausible. Now the obvious evidence is changing the game. In NO way are these bones 65 million years old.

1. Schweitzer, M. H., et al., Science, vol. 307, no. 5717, pp. 19521955, 25 March 2005.

For more Info on the Quad-City Creation Science Association

Contact:  [email protected]

Sources:

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html

 Dr. G. Charles Jackson, PhD. Science Education, Univ. of Virginia