Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils

Otangelo · 01 February 2003

What are the oldest things that can be radiocarbon dated?

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material
https://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Research Institute
https://dstri.org/index.php/articles-updates/?fbclid=IwAR3q_hEuVvvf3RxHxTICO3ZWe38DhGlWzo_qhbCSrqXLUbFFBcM7iL2wAWM

Thomas and Nelson took pains to try to falsify their own results, but some evolutionists will undoubtedly remain unsatisfied with any paper published in a creationary journal. Now that the world’s leading secular science journal Naturehas reported that soft tissue in dinosaur bones appears to be common, the race is on to find more of it. Eventually, non-creationists are bound to run their own C-14 tests to remove all doubt.
In the opening editorial, Dr. Danny Faulkner says that “it is appropriate that creationists take the lead in the study of soft tissue in fossils” given that the scientific world only “begrudgingly has come to accept” the soft tissue evidence. More work remains for the iDINO project (investigation of Dinosaur Intact Natural Osteo-tissue), he says, and preliminary filming for a video has begun. The project is entirely funded by private donations.
Update 7/30/15: In the August issue of ’s Acts & Facts Magazine, Brian Thomas writes about how he and Nelson guarded against contamination of the samples they tested. “We also compared radiocarbon results acquired at five different laboratories, ruling out lab-induced contamination,” he says. Lab technicians know the procedures to remove contaminating carbon. The fact that radiocarbon showed up in samples from all over the world argues against localized contamination. will continue analyzing all possible sources of contamination, and will continue searching for radiocarbon in more samples.
Creation scientists take the lead! What will old-earth creationists and evolutionists do now? These findings basically collapse the entire geologic column, and destroy the evolutionary narrative of millions of years. Down go the national park signs, Hollywood movies and descriptions on museum gift shop dinosaur toys. Because so much is at stake, we can expect some evolutionists to react like velociraptors. No need to respond in kind; just hold up the results and say, “Here’s the scientific data; do you have a better theory?”
If an old-earther responds, “Yeah, but the dates don’t fit your Biblical timeline either,” stick to the point. Do the results falsify millions of years; yes or no? If the answer is yes, then the question has changed. It’s no longer about whetherdinosaur bones are young, but just how young they are. That’s an interesting and worthwhile question, but with everything from Cambrian fossils to Lucy collapsed into a timeline that is orders of magnitude younger than we have all been taught, it’s a whole new ball game now, with Charlie no longer umpiring.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

2 http://crev.info/2015/06/c14-dinosaur-bone/

Soft tissues and carbon in dinossaur fossils

Troy Lawrence Before the global flood, the canopy of water that once surrounded the atmosphere, shielded the atmosphere from UV and other high energy cosmic rays. Thus, the conversion of N2 to C14 was blocked, therefore, the atmosohere had trace amounts of C14 before the flood. And for this reason, C14 dating makes a dead creature that died with trace C14 appear much older than reality.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue#2011-PLoS

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue#research

http://kgov.com/2013-soft-tissue

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

http://crev.info/2015/06/dinosaur-soft-tissue-surprise/

http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee-F3SyEOgY&list=UU8YPqOakq2guu_DtJ-NHyXg

http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1001207/pg1#sthash.t3xWHD6r.dpuf

Of course since that time, many others have also dug up dinosaur soft tissue. At this point, more than thirty specimens have been discovered and tested, and the specimens have come from an impressive array of various dinosaurs…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOXNOBhlkPc

Carbon 14, which should last 100K years at the very most, has been found in dinosaur soft tissue. C 14 has also been found in coal, gas, diamonds and many other things which are supposed to be millions of years old. There’s no explanation other than these things are young.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIZLcoTEHYY

there is Carbon 14 in these dinosaur bones (and in oil, marble, diamonds, etc.)? Check out realsciencefriday com/dating-a-dinosaur 14c only lasts thousands (not millions) of years, and it's hard to imagine that the best labs in the world would contaminate their diamond samples by mixing their lunch carrots with the diamond carats. Also, see the link to learn why neutron capture can't explain all the modern carbon!

Mysteriously Intact T. Rex Tissue Finally Explained

http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/mysteriously-intact-t-rex-tissue-finally-explained-131127.htm

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12243&p=160204

if you review the literature, you'll see that a number of dinosaur proteins have already been sequenced, including some by a team from Harvard. So far, the biological material found in fossils from dinosaur-layer strata down to pre-Cambrian include many various proteins such as the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton component actin, and hemoglobin. They've also recovered original [dinosaur] bone maintenance osteocyte cells, flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, and powerful evidence [multiple tests, including a double-helix test] for DNA [from a hadrosaur and a T. rex].

The dinosaurs and other Mesozoic creatures that have yielded endogenous biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaurs], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx.

http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.

Schweitzer and her collaborators detailed their findings in a paper released online October 16 in the journal Bone and in a talk given October 17 in Raleigh at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. “Here’s the data in support of a biofilm origin,” Schweitzer said in her presentation as she showed a blank slide. “We haven’t found any yet.”

Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:48 am; edited 7 times in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Understanding Why Dinosaurs are Young

CHRISTOPHER C M WARREN·THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2015

Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Understanding Why Dinosaurs are Young

Jurassic: Dinosaurs are proven young in now a vast variety of ways. Pretty much, any scientific angle you approach dinosaurs from you are going to find piles, and piles, and piles, and more piles on top of piles of evidence that dinosaurs are not just young…… but very, very, very young. All dinosaurs. In these journals, we are going to take a basic look at merely the tip-of-the-iceberg of that evidence. Though the top-spokespeople for the academic / evolution community assure me that all this evidence is “nonsense” and probably “stuff I shouldn’t be looking at”…… I disagree, and lay it in your hands to decide. In fact, the evidence for dinosaurs being young has built up to a point where many Christians and also those in Basic, Real-World, Practical Application Sciences call them, “Missionary Lizards.”
1) Dinosaur Soft Tissue, Blood, Blood Vessels, Veins….. and even DNA

First, and probably the most obvious, is dinosaur soft-tissue. Dinosaur soft-tissue is now found all over the globe…… and has been growing in finds for decades. In fact, even the Archaeopteryx (which many in the evolution circles claimed was the “absolute evidence dinosaurs turned into birds”) has now been discovered to have soft-tissue in it (meaning it’s young too). Beneath is the first find to have made national news, though certainly not the first time soft-tissue has been found in dinosaurs bones. These actual and real images of T-Rex soft tissue, blood and blood vessels shown above were discovered by a team in Montana led by Jack Horner (the original Jurassic Park movie’s technical advisor). And, Jack Horner is also the same man who promoted the idea that “dinosaurs turned into birds” to the evolution community. What is interesting about this is that Jack Horner, who himself believed (at least at that time) that dinosaurs were truly millions and millions of years old — received much heat and anger from the evolutionary academics…… This rage of angry letters and such appears based solely and entirely on the fact that he dared release the soft-tissue data to the public. Though, both Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer (who technically found the soft tissue, now contented that — and I quote — “soft tissue can apparently survive 68 million years……”
Even the new statements that “dinosaur tissue must be 68 million years old, because — well — we all know dinosaurs are 68 million years old, right?” is a bit hard to believe they even say it. None-the-less, Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer told LiveScience in the article beneath:

“The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rexfinally has a physical explanation. According to new research (what they mean and should state here for accuracy is a “theory” put forth by Mary Schweitzer herself), iron in the dinosaur’s body preserved the tissue before it could decay. The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana (which — added for the original article’s accuracy and complete transparency — disagrees entirely with both Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner’s previous theory that dinosaurs became birds).“What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible,” Schweitzer told LiveScience.
One would think they would abandon the old “Dinosaurs turned into birds” story for the bigger story and reality that’s in their hands. But, it doesn’t appear that is in the cards (continued below).

In the instance of Jack Horner and Bob Enyart: Jack Horner, Jurassic Park’s original technical guy,has refused even to this very day to accept Bob Enyart’s offer to pay Jack $25,000 plus all expenses to carbon date his famous “dino soft-tissue” T-Rex discovery in Montana…… simply letting the cards fall where they may. Jack Horner stated on a recorded audio — after Bob Enyart had increased the amount several times from $10,000 in order to get the basic C-14 testing done — Jack stated that it didn’t have anything to do with the amount of money, and that no amount of money would get the C-14 test done……. as doing the test (his words), “that wouldn’t help us.”

These replies seem a bit odd as Jack Horner is holding a T-Rex chock-full of bloody soft tissues and stretchy blood vessels. Mary Schweitzer — who worked with Jack Horner on the T-Rex and technically made the soft tissue discovery — is reported to have privately done a C-14 test…….
Then, later reported she stated that she couldn’t remember the results.

The evolution segments of the academic community’s initial claims about the now global finds of dinosaur soft tissue were that: “Even though it looks like dinosaur blood veins, vessels and tissue…. It must be biofilm that developed after-the-fact.”
These arguments by Evolution supporters and the Darwin theological crowd lasted until about 2011………………..

Then, in 2011, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material, and I quote their findings, “it is indeedoriginal biological tissue from a dinosaur.”

So, following this finding, the evolution segments of the academic community, changed their story once again. Now apparently, if I understand them correctly, dinosaurs tissue can mysteriously survive millions and millions of years. And, they are working long and hard on a battery of theories and new ideas to support what they seem to need pretty badly to be true……… Have you ever been in one of those uncomfortable conversations with someone that just won’t admit the blatantly obvious despite being surrounded by their own evidence to the contrary……. Yep….. That is where this could easily seem to be at in regard to dinosaurs….. At evolution’s university level, no-less. If link above in image didn’t go to the donate page, please click here
Bottom-line: How do we know that soft tissue found in dinosaur bones now all around the globe is young?

– the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones – the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and – the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left handed if they were “Jurassic”, and – the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive.

2) Carbon 14 now found Everywhere…… Including Dinosaurs.

Accordingly, Carbon 14 used to seem as if it where the “evidence tool” for those who didn’t snap to and nod along with Charles Darwin’s theories, views, opinions…… and their updates, modern morphologies, and plastic monkey-men displays that came along with them. Now, at the point we are at today, many within the sciences of all flavors (even academia) seem to shy away from it (Carbon Dating) at greater and greater distances. It is true some do still sing the praises of the “precision of Carbon 14 Dating”, along with other dating methods such as radiometric dating — and, they are absolutely welcome to that opinion and view if it tickles them right — but, that certainly has not been the results and findings of my research. And, the other types of longer dating tests — such as Radiometric dating andPotassium–argon dating —- actually produce numbers that are more “off-target” than carbon dating could ever dream. Here is what I would encourage anyone to look into on their own, C-14 Dating seems to consistently spit out numbers and dates all over the place (a topic that certainly deserves more than I can give it in the context of this particular article)…….. None-the-less, here is the long and short of this, Carbon 14 may pump out numbers all over the map when dating something (like is seen in the C-14 dates of dinosaur bone below) — however — on the flip side of the coin, it absolutely demonstrates that something cannot be millions of years old simply by the sheer virtue of having C-14 in it at all.
Dinosaurs generally date in the rages of between 20 thousand and 40 thousand (C-14 test years) from present day…….. just like Mammoths and other claimed “ice-age” animals also date in these same ranges. This is generally thought to be because the atmosphere (including its carbon levels, such as C-14) were different prior to the global flood. Many of the plants and animals found underneath the ground — like a mixed bag of billions of dead things that ended in trauma as entire buried ecological systems intertwined with sea shells, clams and fish — many of the enormous creatures and massive plants buried right under our feet required an entirely different atmosphere and ecological systems to exist at all. Long story short, different atmosphere in the past equals giant numbers on your C-14 test for stuff you pull out of the ground. And, at this point, the C-14 data from Jack Horner’s T-Rex — though it would be nice — really isn’t terribly relevant at this point. As seen above, C-14 results are all over the place when it comes to dinosaur bones of nearly all types, shapes and sorts. The Evolution / Darwinism community initially claimed that “all dinosaur C-14 results come from Creationists!” A statement which, as a side note, not only turns out to be incorrect, but is an extremely hard to believe defense mechanism……. Are they actually telling me that all science finds and discoveries do NOT need to be examined from their view, especially of this nature and magnitude?
Summary on Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Whatever the case, the Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones “issue” for the evolution segments of the academic world seems to have spread any way that you look at it. It is no longer limited to an array of private organizations (many with vastly different views one from the other) who have carbon dated 100s and 100s of pieces of dinosaur bone at both university labs and private labs all across the United States, but in 2012 the Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore gave C-14 dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens.
All C-14 dates on this entire variety of tested dinosaurs ranged from 22,000 to 39,000 years, identical to the predictions made in advance of such tests by both private researchers in the U.S. and Creation Science Organizations.

http://creation.com/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet

Many dinosaur fossils include real bone—they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.

This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:

“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”1
So entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published.
Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “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.’”

Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, “Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell.” But so ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses.3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries.

Last edited by Admin on Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating

According to elutionary scientists, radiocarbon dating (also known as carbon-14 dating) is totally ineffective in measuring time when dealing with millions of years. In his 2000 book, Genes, People, and Languages, renowned Stanford University geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a discussion on the theory of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon dating, stating: “The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years” (p. 61, emp. added). Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins also dealt with the limitations of radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind Watchmaker. He was even more critical of this dating method than was Cavalli-Sforza, saying:

Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (1986, p. 226 emp. added).

Both evolutionists and creationists stand in agreement that radiocarbon dating, which can be used only to date organic samples, is totally ineffective in measuring the alleged millions or billions of years of the evolutionary timetable. [In truth, even when dating things that are relatively young, carbon-14 dating is imperfect and based upon certain unprovable assumptions (see Major, 1993).] If radiocarbon dating can measure only items that are thousands of years old, why should evolutionists even consider using this dating method on anything that they already believe to be millions of years old? Creationists would like to see evolutionists apply this method to items believed to be millions of years old, because it might help convince evolutionists that coal, diamonds, fossils, etc. are not millions of years old, but only thousands of years old.
Consider that in recent years “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14” in materials evolutionists suppose are millions of years old “have been the rule rather than the exception” (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). When geophysicist John Baumgardner and colleagues obtained 10 coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces of carbon. The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method. If the coal were really many millions of years old (as evolutionists suggest), no traces of carbon-14 should have been found. “[A]ny carbon-containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 years should be ‘carbon-14 dead’ with C-14 levels below detection limits” (DeYoung, p. 49). But, in fact, traces of carbon-14 were found. “[A] residue of carbon-14 atoms was found in all ten samples.... The amounts of C-14 in coal are found to average 0.25 percent of that in the atmosphere today” (DeYoung, p. 53). Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in all. Once again, traces of C-14 were found in every sample (see DeYoung, pp. 45-62).
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).
What is C-14 doing in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils, if these objects are really many millions of years old? Richard Dawkins declared that C-14 dating “is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or afew thousands of years,” not millions of years (1986, p. 226, emp. added). Yet, “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14,” even in coal, diamonds, and various fossils, “have been the rule rather than the exception” in recent years (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). Why? Evolutionists assert that the specimens in every case must have been contaminated by outside carbon. After all, everyone “knows” coal is millions of years old, right? Using C-14 dating on specimens already believed to be only hundreds or a few thousands of years old is considered acceptable. Scientists expect to find carbon in samples they perceive as young. But, if specimens believed to be millions of years old are tested (e.g., coal), and found to have carbon traces, then they “must” have been contaminated. Or so we are told.
Informed creation scientists, like members of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) team, contend that the modern “AMS measurements carefully eliminate all possible sources of carbon contamination. These include any trace of C-14 which has possibly entered the samples in recent history, or C-14 introduction during sample preparation and analysis” (DeYoung, 2005, p. 50). Whereas “unexpected carbon-14 was initially assumed to be a result of contamination..., as this problem was aggressively explored, it was realized that most of the carbon-14 was inherent to the samples being measured” (p. 49).
The fact is, significant traces of carbon have been detected in samples that “should not” contain carbon. Since evolutionists are unwilling to adjust their million/billion-year timetable, they are forced to conclude that radiocarbon dating is always faulty when it comes up with young dates (measured in hundreds or thousands of years) for assumed old specimens (supposedly millions of years old). Do you see anything wrong with this picture? The fact is, coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils containing traces of carbon is no surprise. One would expect to find such if the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood are true.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=307

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

Last edited by Admin on Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

Otangelo · 5 Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:03 pm

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/iron-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue/

Stretching Back Through Deep Time
But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years? While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold9 increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could.

Regardless of what anyone thinks is likely, the fact is it is impossible to scientifically test and observe the answer to this question. No scientist has ever observed the effects of millions of years on anything. The millions-of-years age assigned to the strata containing dinosaur fossils is derived from a number of worldview-based unverifiable assumptions. Therefore, the fact that dinosaur soft tissue is preserved in some fossils does not mean that iron or anything else has preserved it for millions of years. Iron chelation may be the (or a) key to preservation, a conclusion supported by Schweitzer’s work, but nothing in the discovery demonstrates how long such preservation could be effective.

When examined in light of the record of earth’s history recorded in God’s Word, much of the fossil record is easily understood as a record of the order of rapid catastrophic burial of billions of organisms during the year-long global Flood of Noah’s day about 4,350 years ago. Biology has never demonstrated any observable evolution of one kind of organism into a new, more complex one. Thus the fossil record is not a record of the evolution of life but much of it is the record of the order of burial as the global Flood overwhelmed the habitats of the world and sorted creatures in the deposition process.

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/

For some years creation scientists have been doing their own investigation of radiocarbon in fossils. Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years (Figures 3–5).5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (Creation geologists believe that with careful recalibration, even these extremely “young” time periods would be fewer than 10,000 years.)

Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years.12 Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years (Figure 5).13

Otangelo · 7 ichthyosaur-bonanza Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:53 pm

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://crev.info/2014/06/soft-tissue-found-in-chile-ichthyosaur-bonanza/

They were buried in the deep sea, but are becoming exposed under a glacier in southern Chile.
Forty-six exceptionally-preserved ichthyosaurs (extinct air-breathing marine reptiles) have been found in strata becoming exposed under a melting glacier in southern Chile, Live Science reported. The completely articulated (unseparated) fossils range from juveniles to adults.

Soft tissue and embryos were found, the abstract says from the GSA Bulletin:

After three field campaigns to the area, a total of 46 articulated and virtually complete ichthyosaur specimens, both adults and juveniles, were tentatively assigned to four different species of Ophthalmosauridae.

Preservation is excellent and occasionally includes soft tissue and embryos.

The skeletons are associated with ammonites, belemnites, inoceramid bivalves, and fishes as well as numerous plant remains. The enormous concentration of ichthyosaurs is unique for Chile and South America and places the Tyndall locality among the prime fossil Lagerstätten for Early Cretaceous marine reptiles worldwide.
Prior to this discovery, ichthyosaur fossils were rare in South America. Now, this site under the Tyndall Glacier in the Torres del Paine National Park of southern Chile is one of the best in the world. It was very difficult to reach; one of the team members told Live Science, “the team had to drive for five hours, hike for 10 to 12 hours to camp and then hike another two hours, sometimes in heavy rain, hail or snow.”

Based on the GSA Bulletin paper, PhysOrg presented an account of how the marine reptiles might have become fossilized:
The Tyndall ichthyosaurs were gregarious and likely hunted in packs in a submarine canyon near the east coast of this sea. Their potential prey, belemnites and small fishes, were abundant due to plankton blooms caused by cold water upwelling. Occasionally, high energy turbiditic mudflows sucked down everything in their reach, including ichthyosaurs. Inside the suspension flows, the air-breathing reptiles lost orientation and finally drowned. They were instantly buried in the abyss at the bottom of the canyon.

How the fossils got mixed with plants and uplifted to hundreds of feet above sea level (265′ according to Google Earth) without being disturbed was not explained. According to the evolutionary timeline, the burials occurred between 150 million and 100 million years old. This would require successive mudflows in the same submarine canyon hypothesized for the burial site over 50 million years. If that were true, it would seem there would be stratification separating the “episodic mass-mortality events”, rather than the uniform deposit described in the paper as “a monotonous bathyal to abyssal sequence of the Late Jurassic to late Early Cretaceous.”
It’s interesting to compare this spectacular burial site with that of the whales in another part of Chile (2/26/14). There, the evolutionists wove a tale about multiple burials over 16,000 years. Here, they fictionalize multiple burials over 50 million years. Both deposits yielded spectacularly-preserved specimens concentrated in a small area.

It’s also interesting to see them gloss over the “soft tissue” aspect. How could soft tissue be preserved for up to 150 million years? In most freshly-buried deposits, a paleontologist would expect bioturbation by worms and other creatures to have disturbed the sediments and their fossil contents. The articles mention soft tissue and embryos, but provide no plausible mechanism in which it could be preserved for so long. We would like to know more details about said soft tissue, if anyone can find out: is it original tissue, or is it lithified?
When a scenario includes too many ad hoc elements, it loses plausibility: (1) the animals were concentrated by upwelling currents, (2) the animals lost their orientation gasping for air in the mudflow; (3) they were buried instantly in subsequent mudflows over 50 million years in the same canyon; (4) they were buried in the abyss, but later uplifted to above sea level without becoming disturbed; (5) they are just now becoming exposed in our lifetime under a melting glacier; (6) soft tissues were preserved because everybody knows marine reptiles (along with their terrestrial contemporaries, the dinosaurs and pterosaurs) went extinct in the Cretaceous.

Does this make sense? A single global Flood that buried the ichthyosaurs and the whales is a sufficient cause to account for the findings; no millions of years needed. Ockham’s Razor would favor a single cause over the convoluted string of improbable events proposed by the evolutionists.
Item: no ancestors are known for the sleek, well-designed ichthyosaurs, which resemble porpoises (mammals) in many respects (that’s supposed to be a remarkable case of “convergent evolution”). Item 2: other cases of instant burial of ichthyosaurs are known, including one found in China of a female in the process of giving birth (2/14/14) and another spectacular example (from Europe?) published in Creation Magazine.

Last edited by Admin on Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/lagerstatten/messel/fossils.html

Konservat-Lagerstatte means literally 'conservation warehouse' and is a term given by palaeontologists to a site of exceptional fossil preservation. Messel has yielded abundant fossils with soft tissue preservation, including hairs, feathers and stomach and intestine contents. This tells us something about the feeding habits, ecology and environment of the Messel floras and faunas.

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Bird

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Bird

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://go2add.com/paleo/birds.php

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Image010

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Image010

Fossil of a juvenile individual of Scipionyx samniticus. The fossil (to date the first of this species ever) preserves in an exceptional way clear traces of soft tissues - a rather rare event

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/two-those-not-so-dry-bones/

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Two_th10

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Two_th10

C. Nielsen-Marsh, “Biomolecules in Fossil Remains: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Endurance,” The Biochemist, June 2002, pp. 12–14

laboratory tests and theoretical research have shown that proteins similar to those seen in the T. rex fossil degrade too quickly—even in ideal laboratory conditions—to survive for more than a few thousand years

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Schweitzer: Yeah, it did sort of "blow my mind." Still does. I spent about three weeks saying that I couldn't be seeing what it looked like I was seeing. I kept looking at them over and over, and I would get goosebumps. I kept thinking that there had to be some kind of mistake, and I had my technician repeat the studies over and over and over with new chunks of bone to be sure we could get the same results.

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://phys.org/news95606831.html

Soft tissue taken from 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil yields original protein

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1422

Soft Dinosaur Tissue

Allegedly, “no human being has ever seen a live dinosaur” (“Age...,” 1993, 183[1]:142). Evolutionary scientists insist that dinosaurs became extinct 60+ million years ago, while humans evolved approximately 57 million years later. Regardless of ubiquitous, ancient stories and artifacts that indicate man once coexisted with dinosaurs (see Butt and Lyons, 2005; Lyons, 2007), evolutionists continue to put their confidence in assumption-based dating methods, declaring dinosaur fossils to be many millions of years older than man or monkey. More and more evidence is coming to light, however, which casts serious doubt on evolutionists’ claims.

In March 2005, “paleontologists were stunned to find that the soft tissue of a...dinosaur was preserved within a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex” (Boyle, 2007, emp. added). Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues reported the find in Science magazine, describing the demineralized T. rex femur and tibia fragments as “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and so “resilient” that “when stretched, returns to its original shape” (Schweitzer, et al., 2005, 307:1952,1953; Schweitzer, et al., 2007, 316:277). Amazingly, the researchers were even able to squeeze round, dark-red-to-deep-brown microscopic structures from the presumed T. rex blood vessels (Perkins, 2005, 167[13]:195). Scientists were shocked! “Such a thing had never been seen before” (Boyle, 2007). How could a “70-million-year-old” Tyrannosaurus rex bone still contain soft tissue?

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Apolog10

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Apolog10

For those who may chalk this up as just some anomaly that should cast no doubt upon the multi-million-year evolutionary timetable, consider what MSNBC science editor Alan Boyle reported on July 24, 2007: “Today, paleontologists are still stunned—not only to find material that looks like dinosaur cartilage, blood vessels, blood cells and bone cells, but to see the stuff in so many different specimens” (emp. added). Paleontologist Kristi Rogers of Macalester College said: “It’s not just a fluke occurrence.... It’s something that’s more pervasive in the fossil record” (as quoted in Boyle). Scientists have excavated a Tyrannosaurus and a hadrosaur from Montana, a Titanosaurus from Madagascar, and more samples that the famous dinosaur fossil hunter Jack Horner has uncovered in Montana, as well as Mongolia. Regarding the hadrosaur specimen found in Montana, Dr. Mary Schweitzer stated: “It’s the ‘freshest,’ if you will, dinosaur bone that has ever had this analysis conducted on it” (as quoted in Boyle).

Although evolutionists continue to describe such dinosaur bones as “70 million years old,” “miraculously preserved soft tissue” (Gebel, 2007) in a “growing number of tissue samples” (Boyle, 2007) around the world demands a reasonable explanation. Suggesting that these bones sat around for at least 70 million years (or 25.55 billion days) in “porous sandstone” (Morris, n.d.) without completely fossilizing or decomposing literally is unbelievable. A much better, more logical explanation is that dinosaurs once lived on Earth in the not-too-distant past—only a few hundred or thousand years ago, not 60+ million years ago. If soft, flexible, resilient, highly fibrous dinosaur tissue in many different specimens will not convince the gainsayer, what would?

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Rescuing Dinosaur Soft Tissue from the Ravages of Time

http://crev.info/2014/03/dinosaur-soft-tissue/

To rule out other explanations, he points to (1) the reaction of the tissue to antibodies, (2) the peptide sequence data, and (3) the discovery of intact histone proteins.

Well, you have just observed something about “the scientific community.” They are willing to blast the world to hang on to their evolutionary notions. They will ignore evidence that stares them in the face. They don’t like the sound of anything that threatens their naturalistic religion with its obligatory moyboys. They believe in ghosts and children’s fairy tales (whatever happened to uniformity of nature, if Goldilocks is their savior?). They invent phrases that masquerade as explanations, that accomplish nothing more than hiding their biases. Give them contradictory evidence, and they will laugh you out of the room. When they can’t do that any longer, they will grasp at any straw and turn it into a pillar, then stand on it and proclaim how wonderful scientism is.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110130a

Others have begun to report similar findings, and not just from inside bones. Manning and Wogelius have reported finding amino acids in the claw and skin of Dakota, the 66-million-year-old Edmontosaurus mummy (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 276, p 3429). Meanwhile, Orr’s former student Maria McNamara, now splitting her time between Dublin and Yale, claims to have found marrow inside the fossilised bones of 10 million-year old frogs and salamanders preserved in lake-bed deposits from Spain (Geology, vol 34, p 641). Marrow is normally among the first tissues to decay, but she found organic residues preserved in three dimensions that retained the original colour and texture of the marrow.
“The fidelity of preservation on a morphological level is remarkable, though it’s very unlikely that the biochemistry would be completely original,” says [Patrick] Orr [University College Dublin]. Preservation of very decay-prone soft tissues is probably more common than we realise, he adds.

You can read Hecht’s article and think, if you are intellectually lazy, “Isn’t this nice; science marches on.” But it means that science was marching in the wrong direction for a long, long time. The facts are making evolutionary paleontologists and geologists turn about face, with red faces: they didn’t expect to find soft tissue; they weren’t looking for soft tissue; and they couldn’t believe it when it was shown to them. Schweitzer and Manning are having to act like drill sergeants, barking to the troops that they have been marching in lock step in the wrong direction.
There is only one group that is not surprised by these findings: the young-earth creationists. Yes, those despised, hated, expelled Henry Morris followers, relegated to the dregs of society by academia (both secular and theistic evolutionist camps), even shunned by many in the Intelligent Design community, are not at all surprised. Like their foes, they also cannot believe that DNA and protein can last for 80 to 150 million years – because they believe those long ages are a fiction. Now that the sleepers on EST (Evolution Standard Time) have been jolted awake, should we trust their alarm clocks? Should we grant them credibility now, when they say, “Well, I’ll be darned! DNA can survive for 150 million years!”? Many of them are sidestepping the fact that soft tissue preservation wreaks havoc on evolutionary age assumptions (cf. 06/03/2005).
While these findings do not vindicate the young earth creationists beyond all doubt – there are still many questions and tests to be made – it sure looks like they have the ball, and the momentum is with them. So don’t let the evolutionists put Greek happy-masks over their red faces and spin this story with cheerful talk that such finds are going to “breathe new life into our understanding of ancient life” (how much did they understand before?), or that this is going to “revolutionize paleontology” somehow, in some vague, unspecified way. It ought to revolutionize it, all right: by dismantling the evolutionary timeline and re-opening some old, imprisoned questions about the history of the earth.

http://creationwiki.org/Evidence_of_blood_in_a_Tyrannosaurus_bone_indicates_recent_burial_(Talk.Origins)

In addition to all of this, Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been dated on about 20-30 occasions (at different times, and at different laboratories), and the "dates" obtained are all between 10,000 and 48,000 years old: the same as for unfossilized Sabretooth Tiger bones, and Neanderthal bones, and Mammoth bones. Perhaps that's because they are the same age. Come to think of it, that's also (probably) why Dinosaurs are described in detail in the Old Testament book of Job.

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

Biological Material Found: As of April 2014, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton component actin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, and powerful evidence for DNA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4yt1WoDlYQ

Otangelo · 14 New Record Set for Soft Tissue in Fossils Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:26 pm

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

New Record Set for Soft Tissue in Fossils

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767-soft-tissues-and-carbon-in-dinossaur-fossils#2907

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12518

In the following paper, the authors note that portions of the fossil are not mineralized. In other words, they are still soft. As the authors report:

Moczydlowska, M., F. Estall, and F. Foucher, “Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites,” Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224-239, 2014.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/13-003

The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.

As a chemist, it is hard for me to understand how soft tissue and modified polysaccharides like chitin can survive for hundreds of millions of years. It is much easier for me to believe that these fossils aren’t nearly as old as the standard geological timescale indicates.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/
Permineralization, or encased fossilization, occurs when dissolved minerals fill the pores and empty spaces in the plant or animal but don’t replace any of the original material. The chemicals then turn into crystals, keeping the organism safe and preserved. While it is possible for many different chemicals to do this, quartz is the most common. Most dinosaur bones are permineralized.

And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils.

MICROSTRUCTURE AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF THE ORGANICALLY PRESERVED EDIACARAN METAZOAN SABELLIDITES

Journal of Paleontology, 88(2), 2014, p. 224–239
MAŁGORZATA MOCZYDŁOWSKA,1 FRANCES WESTALL,2 AND FRE´ DE´RIC FOUCHER2

http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/85598/moczydlowska-etal-2014-e.pdf

Non permineralized soft tissue is impossible to be millions of years old.

The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014
They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensis were still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?

http://creation.com/worm-fossils-still-soft

Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:

“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5

Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.

Last edited by Admin on Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:12 pm; edited 12 times in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=10065

These are exciting times to be a creationist! Ever since Dr. Mary Schweitzer first demonstrated the existence of soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that is supposed to be 65 million years old,1 soft tissue is turning up in all sorts of supposedly ancient fossils (see here, here, here, and here for more information). The latest example comes from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, which is supposed to be about 65 million years old, so the fossil is assumed to be that old as well.

The fossil in question is a horn from a Triceratops horridus specimen. After it was collected, it broke in several places, indicating that the fossil had been fractured. Since the fossil was broken, the authors of the study decided to get rid of the “hard parts” of the fossil to see if there was anything soft inside. To do this, they soaked the horn in a weak acid for a month.

As the acid ate away at the minerals that formed the horn, the authors found strips of light brown, soft tissue remaining. Now this soft stuff could be from all manner of things, so the authors decided to do a microscopic study of the tissue, and what they found was was exactly what you would expect to see if you examined the tissue from the bone of a recently deceased animal!2

When they examined the tissue under a light microscope, they found well-defined, circular Haversian systems. In case you aren’t familiar with that term, compact bone is made of cylindrical structures formed by bone cells that are called osteocytes.

The authors show that the Haversian canals they saw in the tissue were filled with structures that strongly resemble red blood cells!

Since the tissue looks like compact bone tissue, the most reasonable conclusion is that it comes from the Triceratops fossil. Given that, there is another question to answer: are these Haversian systems fossilized or not? After all, it is possible that the fossilization process is so precise that it preserves structures on the cellular level. Given the fact that the tissue was soft, that’s unlikely, but I suppose it’s still a possibility.

To answer this question, the authors looked at the Haversian systems with a scanning electron microscope, and you can see pictures of what they saw here. The osteocytes that make up the Haversian systems seem completely intact, all the way down to their fragile filipodial extensions. In fact, the authors note:

Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft.

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils 1-s2_010

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils 1-s2_010

So it really seems like they were seeing intact, soft osteocytes from a Triceratops fossil found in the Hell Creek Formation. It is hard enough to understand how a bone cell can exist like that for thousands of years. The idea that it has lasted for 65 million years simply boggles the mind.

In my mind, this study is strong evidence against the idea that the fossils in the Hell Creek Formation are millions of years old.

Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins

Low concentrations of the structural protein collagen have recently been reported in dinosaur fossils based primarily on mass spectrometric analyses of whole bone extracts. However, direct spectroscopic characterization of isolated fibrous bone tissues, a crucial test of hypotheses of biomolecular preservation over deep time, has not been performed. Here, we demonstrate that endogenous proteinaceous molecules are retained in a humerus from a Late Cretaceous mosasaur (an extinct giant marine lizard).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445

Last edited by Admin on Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:36 pm; edited 3 times in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5161

Oh Dem Young Bones

Posted by jlwile on May 16, 2011

An osteocyte-like structure found in a supposedly 70-million-year-old fossil (Click for credit)
In three previous articles (here, here, and here), I discussed bones that are supposed to be millions of years old and yet have soft tissue and large organic molecules in them. This is quite hard to understand if the fossils truly are that old, since soft tissue and large organic molecules are expected to decay fairly rapidly, even under ideal conditions. For example, an interdisciplinary approach to understanding how large organic molecules such as protein and DNA could be preserved over time suggested that even if a fossil were kept at the freezing point of water, collagen (a protein found in bone) should decay away so that it becomes undetectable in just under three million years.1 Nevertheless, collagen has been found in fossils that are supposed to be more than twenty times that old!

Of course, if you are desperate to believe in an ancient earth and are therefore forced to think such fossils are really that old, you could hope that either very special conditions existed for the fossils in which the soft tissue and proteins were found, or you could hope that the soft tissue and proteins were the result of some kind of contamination. A recent paper in PLoS ONE has, in my opinion, laid both of those hopes to rest.

The paper examines samples from a mosasaur fossil that is 70 million years old, according to scientifically-irresponsible dating techniques. A microscopic analysis of this fossil showed all sorts of amazing things. For example, when the bone was etched with acid and then examined with a microscope, several structures that look like mature bone cells (called osteocytes) were found. In addition, all sorts of fibrous tissue was found, and amazingly enough, that fibrous tissue absorbed dye just like connective tissue from a modern bone!2

But what was the fibrous tissue made of? The authors show beyond all reasonable doubt that it contained collagen, which is a complex protein found in all bones. In my mind, their detailed analysis is part of what makes this paper so important.

As I stated before, some who are desperate to believe that fossils like this mosasaur fossil really are tens of millions of years old want to believe that any soft tissue or proteins recovered from them don’t really belong to the fossil itself. Instead, they are the result of recent bacterial contamination or some other process that would yield fibrous organic tissue. However, the authors show that this is just not possible.

For example, they used infrared light to probe the fibrous tissue that they isolated from the fossil, but instead of using a standard source for this infrared light, they used a particle accelerator known as a synchrotron. This produces incredibly high-intensity infrared light, which can provide significant details on the molecules in the tissue. They compared the results they obtained with tissue from their fossil to those obtained with bacterial cells and bacterial biofilms, and they show quite conclusively that the fibrous tissue in the fossil could not possibly be the result of bacterial contamination. They also compare their results to a sample of pure collagen and to the fibrous tissue from a modern monitor lizard. The results are completely consistent, indicating that the fibrous tissue from the fossil is not only reptile tissue, but it is reptile tissue that contains a lot of collagen.

They did several other tests on the tissue recovered from the fossil to conclusively demonstrate that they had recovered collagen from it. For example, they exposed it to antibodies that are designed to bind with collagen, and the antibodies did, indeed, bind to molecules in the fibrous tissue. This is important, because if the collagen in the fossil had decayed significantly, the antibodies would not bind well to it. They also examined the amino acids that were in the fibrous tissue, and the distribution was exactly what you would expect for collagen and other structural proteins. In the end, they make the strong case that the collagen they found really was from the original mosasaur that formed the fossil and that said collagen retained much of its original chemical structure.

These results, while impressive enough, are not the only important results that come from this paper. In fact, this paper tells us something about what to expect from the fossil record in general. As the authors note:

Thus, the preservation of primary soft tissues and biomolecules is not limited to large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs in relatively small-sized skeletal elements deposited in marine sediments.

This makes their results all the more important. It is one thing to have soft tissue and proteins preserved in a large bone that was buried in fluvial sandstone. After all, the large bone might protect the fragile tissue, and fluvial sandstones are supposed to have been deposited by rivers. Thus, it is likely that the sediments which formed the sandstone weren’t inundated with water for a long time. So even though finding soft tissue and proteins in a large bone that was encased in fluvial sandstone for millions of years is surprising, you might be able to imagine that the environment offered some special conditions that helped to prevent the expected decay.

However, these results come from a small bone, and the bone was found in sediments that should have been soaked in water for a long time. This makes it extremely hard to believe that the fossil had any special conditions that would help keep soft tissue and proteins from decaying away relatively quickly.

Of course, if one takes the more reasonable approach and is willing to consider that the fossil isn’t anywhere close to 70 million years old, the results of this incredible study are a lot easier to understand.

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/05/discovery-of-fossilized-brain-matter-floors-scientists-challenges-evolution/

STOKKE, Norway – Archaeologists working in Norway were recently stunned when they discovered what appears to be remains of a fossilized brain—a find that could prove to be a significant challenge to the evolutionary timescale.

A team of about a dozen scientists affiliated with the University of Oslo in Norway has been digging for the past two months in a fjordside area near Oslo. The researchers believe the location was once the site of a Stone Age civilization, where—according to secular models—humans supposedly lived 8,000 years ago.

As reported by Norwegian Broadcasting, the team of archaeologists has unearthed several noteworthy specimens, including ancient bone remnants and other biological material.

“The fact that we’re uncovering a whole lot of things that are exceptional on a national basis, makes this very special,” said Gaute Reitan, the leader of the excavations.

However, one find in particular completely surprised the scientists and may directly contradict the evolutionary timeframe. The shocking discovery came when the archaeologists noticed softer gray material inside a skull remnant.

“It’s not easy to see, you need to have some training and have an open mind,” Reitan told reporters. “But we saw something brown, with a bit darker surface.”

The scientists believe they have found brain matter, somehow preserved after all these years.

Connect with Christian News

“Inside [the skull] is something rather grey and clay-like,” Reitan explained. “You can just think for yourself what that may be.”

Right now, the scientists are unsure whether the bone fragments belonged to people or animals. Regardless, their dating methods indicate that the specimens from the dig site, including the apparent brain matter, are nearly 8,000 years old.

Can brain matter survive for eight millennia without disintegrating entirely? Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), says that is highly unlikely.

“The biblical idea of post-Flood mega-storms supplies a framework for rapid and catastrophic inundations—those unique conditions required to mineralize soft organs before the tissues disintegrate,” Thomas wrote in a recent ICR article. “Plus, the idea of a recent creation supplies a timeframe for ancient soft tissues to fit within their expected shelf-lives.”

Thomas says this Norwegian find is similar to a 2010 discovery, when potential brain remnants were found on an African ape fossil that was allegedly 1.9 million years old. These discoveries, Thomas argues, do not comport with the evolutionary timeframe.

“In a biblical framework,” Thomas wrote, “the remains from both the African and Norwegian fossil sites were buried after the Flood, and would thus be fewer than 4,500 years old. Since brains disintegrate with time like all soft tissue, older age assignments for fossil brains seem less credible.”

However, the biblical model may provide a better explanation for these recent discoveries. In fact, in a 2009 article, Thomas predicted that scientists would likely unearth brain matter and soft tissues in fossil remains.

“Given the catastrophic formation indicated by most of earth’s geologic structures and the massive extermination of life represented in the fossil record … the biblical Flood is a valid and relevant interpretive key to earth’s past,” he wrote at the time. “It can be expected that more soft tissue fossils, including brains and perhaps visceral organs, will be found.”

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

Scientist loses job for discovering soft tissues in a triceratops horn (it's like finding fresh meat in their bones, a smoking gun evidence that dinosaurs did not lived millions of years ago so it's a huge threat to the theory of Evolution).

If you question evolution, you risk to lose your job. Intolerant atheist evolutionists will never allow real science to prevail, because they will always manipulate the evidence to fit their childish myths.
Sometimes, atheists say to creationists: since you can easily disprove evolution, claim your Nobel Prize!! Obviously, given that Nobel Prizes are controlled by radical intolerant evolutionists, they will not allow a creationist to win a Nobel Prize, for proving evolution wrong. On the contrary, evolutionists will always do their best to ridicule and even fire those who question their religious dogmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AyvyxXvwM

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Intact Proteins Found in Fossils That Are Supposedly 8-18 Million Years Old 1

Since 2005, there have been several discoveries of soft tissue in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). From a young-earth perspective, this is interesting, because it is hard to understand how soft tissue could be preserved for millions and millions of years. Dr. Mary Schweitzer has attempted to provide a mechanism for such preservation, but it isn’t applicable in the real world. If nothing else, I can safely say that finding such tissue was surprising to those who believe the fossils are millions of years old, but it wasn’t surprising to those of us who think the fossils are only thousands of years old.

Recently, I ran across a very interesting study that adds to the list of surprises for those who think that some fossils are millions of years old. The authors were analyzing the fossilized shells of an extinct group of marine mollusks from the genus Ecphora. Unlike many mollusk groups, the fossilized shells of the Ecphora are colored reddish-brown. The authors decided to find out what produces this colorization, so they soaked the fossils in weak acid to remove the minerals. What remained were thin sheets of organic residue that had all the characteristics one would expect if they were made of proteins.

When the authors examined the sheets chemically, they found all the hallmarks of proteins. For example, they put the sheets through hydrolysis, a process that living organisms use to break proteins down into their component chemicals, which are amino acids. When the sheets were hydrolyzed, they broke down into amino acids, exactly as you would expect a sheet of proteins to do. They also measured the percent carbon in the sheets as well as the ratio of carbon to nitrogen. In the end, they concluded:1

…the organic matter elemental and isotopic compositions are very similar to those from modern marine invertebrates. We conclude, therefore, that essentially intact shell-binding proteins have been preserved for up to 18 Ma.

This is significant, because even at temperatures of zero degrees Celsius, the hardiest proteins are not expected to be detectable in organic samples that are more than about 3 million years old.2 Nevertheless, the authors found lots of essentially intact proteins in fossils that are supposed to be up to 18 million years old!

This isn’t the first time researchers have claimed to find protein in supposedly ancient fossils. About two years ago, Robert R. Reisz and his colleagues were examining fossilized dinosaur eggs that are supposed to be about 190-200 million years old.3 They found organic residue that they thought was made of protein. However, they didn’t do nearly as detailed an analysis, so they couldn’t really say how intact the protein was. In addition, they interpreted it to be collagen, and that’s a pretty hardy protein. Dr. Rana from Reasons to believe, for example, thinks that collagen is durable enough for fragments of it to survive for millions of years.

In this current study of Ecphora fossils, however, the researchers didn’t find fragments. They found essentially intact proteins. Also, these shell-binding proteins shouldn’t be as durable as collagen, because they don’t have the same triple-helix structure. It seems to me that if you want to believe these fossils are millions of years old, you need to come up with some mechanism by which proteins can stay intact for so long.

Now I do have to point out two things. First, there was probably some decay in the proteins of these fossils, because the chemical analysis indicated that they didn’t have as much nitrogen in them as they should have. I would suspect that means some of the proteins had decayed, but others had not. Second, most fossilized mollusk shells are chalky white, which probably means they don’t contain any intact proteins. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that there is something about Ecphora shells that helps them preserve their proteins. I hope more analysis eventually finds the process by which such preservation takes place, because that would help us get a better handle on the upper age limit of such fossils.

REFERENCES

1. J.R. Nance, J.T. Armstrong, G.D. Cody, M.L. Fogel, and R.M. Hazen, Preserved macroscopic polymeric sheets of shell-binding protein in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod Ecphora, Geochemical Perspective Letters 1:1-9, 2015 doi:10.7185/geochemlet.150
Return to Text

2. Nielson-Marsh, Christina, et al. , “Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance,” The Biochemist, 12-14, June 2002
Return to Text

3. Robert R. Reisz, Timothy D. Huang, Eric M. Roberts, ShinRung Peng, Corwin Sullivan, Koen Stein, Aaron R. H. LeBlanc, DarBin Shieh, RongSeng Chang, ChengCheng Chiang, Chuanwei Yang, and Shiming Zhong, “Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains,” Nature 496:210–214, 2013

1) http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13504#more-13504

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Dino Soft Tissue Confirms Creationist Prediction

Gleanings from the original paper show discoverers excited but surprised. Creationists are excited and gratified.
Yesterday’s announcement of dinosaur soft tissue in Nature Communications by scientists from Imperial College London sets a new high hurdle for critics. It’s not really news, since soft tissue in dinosaur bones has been reported for over a decade now (see Bob Enyart’s list of journal papers). This new paper, however, is noteworthy in many respects that will challenge naysayers:

The team used ordinary, common bones from museum specimens. “Models proposed to account for such preservation indicate that it should be the exception rather than the rule,” they noted. “.…Here, we examined eight dinosaur bones from the Cretaceous period,none of which are exceptionally preserved.”

The outside of the bones gave no hint of what was inside. “Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted.”

The bones they sampled came from both major classes of dinosaurs. “Specimens representing both major dinosaurian clades (Ornithischia [bird-hipped] and Saurischia [lizard-hipped]) and different osteological elements were chosen.”

The bones came from different parts of the anatomy. “…an ungual claw of an indeterminate theropod dinosaur…”, “… a hadrosaurid tibia,” “an astragalus of a hadrosaurid” and others.

The team took great pains to prevent contamination. “The sections were obtained from the interior of each sample, ruling out modern surface contamination.” Again, “this method rules out the possibility of modern contamination, as the surface exposed is inaccessible to any contaminant.”

The team used multiple methods for observation: SEM, TEM, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and focused ion beam (FIB) mass spectrometry. “These results show that to determine the presence of soft tissue in fossils a new synergistic approach needs to be applied where micro/nano-analytical methods are utilized to their full potential.”

They used controls by running the same tests with rabbit bone, another bone lacking the fibers, emu blood and a copper grid. “Sections were obtained from an agglomeration of erythrocyte-like structures and cement surrounding these from specimen NHMUK R12562, fixed emu blood, three fossils showing calcified fibres (NHMUK R4493, NHMUK R4249,NHMUK R4864), rabbit bone and a fossil not presenting sign of calcified fibres (NHMUKR12562). As a control, a mass spectrum from the copper grid holding the samples was also obtained.”

Six of the eight samples contained soft tissue. “.…in this study, putative soft tissue (either erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures (Supplementary Fig. 7)) was observed in six of our eight dinosaur specimens(Supplementary Table 1).”

Two distinct kinds of soft tissue were reported: collagen and red blood cells. “In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains .… Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood.”

The collagen structure had not degraded; it still displayed the quaternary structure characteristic of collagen’s triple-helix configuration. “One sample (NHMUK R4493) also showed, for the first time in a dinosaur bone, a clear ~67 nm banding, that is typical of the banding observed in collagen (Fig. 3e), for the length of the preserved fibre.” The fibers are obvious from the electron micrographs shown in the paper and the popular news.

Amino acids were detected that are characteristic of collagen: “The positive mass spectrum obtained from NHMUK R4493 showed peaks corresponding to fragments of theamino acids glycine, alanine, proline and others.… Detection of fragments of the amino acids normally found in collagen supports the results obtained from TEM analysis where the ~67 nm banding is consistent with potential preservation of the original quaternary structure of the protein.”

Blood cells were found. Though shrunken in size, this confirms Schweitzer’s original claim of finding blood cells. “The spectra obtained from four different regions of the dinosaur bone containing erythrocyte-like structures are surprisingly similar to the spectra obtained from emu blood.” Why would the dinosaur cells be smaller? “Within the dinosaur samples on average, the erythrocyte-like structures are ~2 μm in length. This is somewhat smaller than erythrocytes of birds, which range from 9 to 15 μm in length; emu blood cells in our sample were 9±2 μm (n=17). The structures consistent with putative erythrocytes in the fossilcould well have been deformed and it is quite probable that these structures have undergone some shrinkage during fossilization.”
Another standout feature of this paper is the undercurrent of emotion. Scientific papers tend to be stodgy and understated in tone. These scientists used “exciting” twice, and a scattering of other “surprise” words:

Therefore, the observation of a ~67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years. Before this finding, the oldest undegraded collagen recorded (based on mass spectrometry sequencing and peptide fingerprinting) was about 4 million years old.

The common preservation of soft tissues could pave the way for cellular investigations of extinct animals, shedding light on aspects of physiology and behaviour that have been previously inaccessible to palaeontologists and inaugurating a new and exciting way to do paleontology.

Unexpectedly, from three of the samples (NHMUK R4493, NHMUK R4249 and NHMUKR4243) TEM micrographs showed obvious fibrous structures (Fig. 3a,b,c and Supplementary Fig. 10) containing carbon

The spectra obtained from the erythrocyte-like structures are surprisingly similar to the spectra obtained from the whole blood of an extant emu.
The paper is timely, seeing that the latest dinosaur movie “Jurassic World” hits the theaters in two days. Reporters, so far, are sticking to their story that the evidence merely demonstrates that soft tissue can last for 75 million years. This estimate, however, is about 18 times longer than the previous “expert” opinion about the longevity of collagen, especially in its quaternary structure. Can this giant leap be simply assumed? Four million years was already a stretch for many who said soft tissue degrades quickly after death. Moreover, they thought it could only be preserved for 4my under exceptional conditions of preservation—not on common bones in museum collections.
Another noteworthy discovery from the current paper is “structures enriched in carbon.” They write, “Elemental analysis using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) established that all these structures are enriched in carbon, in contrast with the surrounding denser tissue/cement.” This raises the possibility of running carbon-14 tests on the samples. None of the authors or reporters mentioned this rather obvious follow-up step. If the bones were older than about 100,000 years, there should be no carbon-14 at all remaining, due to its 5,730-year half-life.

Bob Enyart discusses this paper with CEH editor David Coppedge in a special edition of his radio show today (June 10).

Bob Enyart keeps a list of objects containing carbon-14 that should have none, such as coal, diamonds and other “dinosaur-era” fossils. A few years ago, he spoke with famous dinosaur hunter Jack Horner, who was the inspiration for the scientist in Jurassic Park, and consultant on all the Spielberg dinosaur movies. When Enyart offered him $23,000 to carbon-date the soft tissue in his T. rex, he refused the generous grant and donation to his museum. Recognizing that Enyart is a creationist, he revealed his real reason: “The spin you guys could get out of this,” he admitted, “would not help us.” But it isn’t spin! It’s a scientific test. Who is interested in facts as opposed to spin? You can hear the whole conversation here.
The world’s leading scientists are less scientific than this pastor in Denver. Enyart keepslists of predictions by creation scientists, many of which have been confirmed. This paper now confirms #2 of his dinosaur soft tissue predictions: “For now, dinosaur tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for.” Prediction confirmed! He was spot on. Did the secular evolutionists predict this? No! They were totally surprised (see the reactions in yesterday’s post). His lists also show that DNA from dinosaurs has already been found, contrary to what the reporters on the current story are saying.
Sooner or later, someone will do a carbon-14 test on dinosaur soft tissue. If there is any C-14 found at all, it will defeat the geologic column with its “Age of dinosaurs” ending millions of years ago. Don’t be alarmed if the age comes out to tens or hundreds of thousands of years, because the error bars go out of control beyond dates that can be checked against recorded history, and creationists expect different atmospheric conditions in the pre-Flood world. The point is that C-14 should be completely absent from dinosaur bone—unless dinosaurs died only thousands of years ago, not millions. That’s the Genesis Flood prediction. Want to gamble on who will be right?
We want to see a fair, unbiased suite of accurate carbon-14 tests on dinosaur soft tissue. Bring it on. We’ll see who is interested in empirical science.

http://crev.info/2015/06/dinosaur-soft-tissue-surprise/

Otangelo · Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:20 am; edited 1 time in total

SEM analysis

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail

The very labile (decay-prone), non-biomineralized, tissues of organisms are rarely fossilized. Occurrences thereof are invaluable supplements to a body fossil record dominated by biomineralized tissues, which alone are extremely unrepresentative of diversity in modern and ancient ecosystems. Fossil examples of extremely labile tissues (e.g. muscle) that exhibit a high degree of morphological fidelity are almost invariably replicated by inorganic compounds such as calcium phosphate. There is no consensus as to whether such tissues can be preserved with similar morphological fidelity as organic remains, except when enclosed inside amber. Here, we report fossilized musculature from an approximately 18 Myr old salamander from lacustrine sediments of Ribesalbes, Spain. The muscle is preserved organically, in three dimensions, and with the highest fidelity of morphological preservation yet documented from the fossil record. Preserved ultrastructural details include myofilaments, endomysium, layering within the sarcolemma, and endomysial circulatory vessels infilled with blood. Slight differences between the fossil tissues and their counterparts in extant amphibians reflect limited degradation during fossilization. Our results provide unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely labile tissues is not only feasible, but likely to be common. This is supported by the discovery of similarly preserved tissues in the Eocene Grube Messel biota.

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Muscle11

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Muscle11

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Muscle12

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Muscle10

Last edited by Admin on Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:45 pm; edited 2 times in total

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

T. Rex Blood?: Expert Q&A 1

On July 31, 2007, Mary Schweitzer answered questions about her discovery of what may be T. rex blood vessels and red blood cells, the implications of that and similar discoveries, and other matters dinosaurian and paleontological.

Q: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells. Is this so?
Judith Chester, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mary Schweitzer: Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of "if it looks like a duckâ¦." But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.
However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells "spit out" the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs' closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated.
Q: What do you intend to do with the possible T. rex blood vessels if you find out that they contain T. rex DNA?Recie, Alorton, Illinois
Schweitzer: I don't work with DNA, and my lab is not equipped to work with ancient DNA—it is not as stringent as it needs to be. So I won't be doing anything with them. However, there are a lot of other questions those blood vessels raise, and that is what I am pursuing now. And again, we have not ruled out that the vessels are some kind of artifact. They look and act like vessels, and have all the characteristics, but until the chemistry shows what they are made of, I can't state definitively that they were vessels actually produced by the dinosaur.
Q: I have a stereomicroscope and I love looking at bugs and other stuff with it. What did it feel like when you first realized what you were looking at, I mean the dinosaur tissues? Did it blow your mind? Thanks so much for your answer!Olivia Tyson, Ottoson Middle School, 7th Grade, Arlington, Massachusetts
Schweitzer: Yeah, it did sort of "blow my mind." Still does. I spent about three weeks saying that I couldn't be seeing what it looked like I was seeing. I kept looking at them over and over, and I would get goosebumps. I kept thinking that there had to be some kind of mistake, and I had my technician repeat the studies over and over and over with new chunks of bone to be sure we could get the same results.
Q: The NOVA scienceNOW show and its Web site both state that these are possible blood vessels and possible red blood cells. When will you know if they definitely are, and if they are, what questions about T. rex(and perhaps other extinct animals) might that confirmation help answer?Anonymous
Schweitzer: I can't make any claims for those structures that appear to be like their modern counterparts until the chemistry reveals whether they are molecular remnants of the original structures, even if altered greatly, or if they are some kind of microbial pseudomorph or even some kind of as yet unknown biogeological process unrelated to structures or molecules produced by the dinosaur itself. If, for example, I were able to isolate those round red structures in the vessel and analyze them separately, and if I were to see any signals that are consistent with heme or hemoglobin, I would be much more likely to believe they are related to the dinosaur cells and proteins. For right now, I am assuming they are not.
They are pretty intriguing tho, aren't they?
Q: I found your work as shown on the NOVA scienceNOW program fascinating. Has your discovery of surviving soft tissues in fossilized bones sent other paleontologists scurrying into the field or into museum drawers to test more bones? Did it shake up your field?Lisa Ennis, West Chester, Pennsylvania
Schweitzer: Well, thanks! I find it really interesting too! But, so far as I know, no other dinosaur paleontologists are keen to do this. This is for a lot of reasons, of course, not the least of which is that when they have spent all that time and money exploring for, collecting, transporting, and preparing their dinosaurs, the thought of taking large chunks of the bone and dissolving them just doesn't seem all that—well, productive, I guess. I am not sure whether it "shook up the field" or not, that would be better put to one of my colleagues. I think they are all very appropriately just waiting to see how much information we really can get out of this material first.
Q: What does your discovery of soft tissues still surviving after many millions of years say about our understanding of how fossils become fossils? Will that understanding now have to be greatly revised? Also, did other paleontologists initially doubt your discovery, seeing how radical it was? Keep up the good work!Alexander McCurdy, East Blue Hill, Maine
Schweitzer: I think that our fundamental understanding of the fossilization process may be somewhat in need of revamping—but only if it can be shown that this material is original to the dinosaurs and not some unknown artifact. One thing I am focusing on in our lab is to try to tease out the pathways that would go from what we know of modern tissues and cells to whatever these structures have become. But in reality, although the mechanisms of fossilization have been presented to the public in relatively simplified form, we in the profession have always known that it is more complicated, and that microenvironments within a single bone can vary greatly, resulting in a highly varied preservation. This is just an extension of that, I guess.
As for an acceptance of this work, what needs to be realized is that it is the job of my colleagues to be very skeptical. That is how we keep one another in line! Peer review is crucial to the scientific process, and the skeptical opinion of my colleagues is something I rely on very much. They are probably not as skeptical as me though. I think many of them have a "let's just wait and see" attitude that is very, very appropriate. We have a saying that goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That is what we are trying to come up with, and the community will wait until then to weigh in fully, I think. They will also wait until the work is repeated by other colleagues. Those are things that are necessary to validate our work.
Thanks for the encouragement. We are still plugging away.
Q: As I recall, you soaked fossils in a mild acid to dissolve the mineral deposits on the inside of the bones. Why does the acid not harm or dissolve the vessels as well, but instead leaves them intact and pliable?Paul Moffett, Indianapolis, Indiana
Schweitzer: That is a good question. The type of acid we use is very commonly applied to remove the mineral from modern bone to reveal the structural proteins that are so intimately linked to the mineral. It is a very mild acid and is more accurately a metal chelator than a true "acid." So it removes the mineral while leaving the protein intact, and it does not harm cell membranes or vessels in modern bone, so we hoped that it would not in our ancient material either.
Q: Why has it taken so long to extract or attempt to extract DNA from this tissue? Has it been tried and failed? I would think intact DNA, even in fragments, would be the most important finding from this soft tissue.Terence Milligan, Edgewater, New Jersey
Schweitzer: Well, it has taken so long because I don't work with ancient DNA and so have not tried to extract DNA. My lab does not meet the requirement of an ancient DNA lab. I am not particularly well-trained in DNA studies, and I personally think that it is much more informative and less risky to begin by demonstrating first ultrastructural preservation and then protein preservation.
Many in the scientific community believe that DNA is too labile to have possibly survived, even in tiny fragments, for 70 million years. It is more generally accepted that some proteins, like collagen, have a higher preservation potential than DNA. And my lab is more suited to do protein studies than to work with ancient DNA. Others are certainly welcome to try to obtain DNA from this or other dinosaurs. It probably won't be me directly, though if we get to the point where funding and equipment allow, I will certainly do the supportive work.
Q: From the first fossils found, what previously made scientists think dinosaurs were or are cold-blooded without having tissue and blood samples?Lydia Lloyd, Modesto, California
Schweitzer: Many of the first dinosaur scientists in fact proposed that these were active beasts, particularly the theropods. Some of the very early work by some artists show theropods in active poses (see for example http://www.glue.umd.edu/~gdouglas/maryland/images/fig8.jpgby Charles Knight). But we also knew from the bones that they were (and are) closely related to reptiles, and modern reptiles are cold-blooded. So it was largely an assumption that dinosaurs shared this trait, and that assumption dictated many of the questions asked about dinosaurs for many decades. This is true in many scientific fields actually.
And, in my own case, I was not looking for vessels and cells in the first dinosaur we found them in, because like every other paleontologist, I did not think there could possibly be any remnant of those structures surviving for that long. The vessels and soft tissues we discovered were actually the happy accident of looking for and trying to describe something else entirely.
Q: I have two pieces of amber with insects in them, and I've always been amazed that it's essentially the actual creatures still there after 20 million years. Did you feel something similar when you found the T. rex soft tissue? Does it bring the dinosaur and its world that much more alive to you than fossil bones can? I think I would get a shiver down my spine.Anonymous
Schweitzer: Yes, I spent about three weeks feeling like every day I was living in a science-fiction movie. It was one of the most amazing things I have ever experienced in my professional career.
Q: Will science be able to use the discovered tissues to recreate living dinosaurs, a la Jurassic ParkGlenn Martin, Grand Junction, Colorado
Schweitzer: In my professional opinion, no. There are way too many obstacles beyond getting real dino DNA and proving that it is dinosaurian. That, believe it or not, would probably be the "easy" part, and we have not yet accomplished that. I am not exactly sure why anyone would want to do such a thing! Like the Jeff Goldbloom character in the movie says, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."
If you want more detail, check out a paper I wrote on this subject, available as a pdf at:
http://palaeo-electronica.org/2002_2/editor/r_and_p.pdf
Q: Did the internal structures you found previously show up in X-ray and X-ray tomographs of dinosaur bones? If they did not, why not?
Also, in the Colgate University museum in about 1965, I saw fossilized clamshells that had had their limestone "shells" dissolved away to reveal an internal structure somewhat like a rib cage made of iron pyrites. Why was this apparently known method of dissolving fossilized material to reveal potential inner structures not used on other fossils before now?Hal Lane, Durham, North Carolina
Schweitzer: In answer to your first question, these structures we see are very, very tiny (the cells are about 20 microns), and again, if you don't think that they exist, why would you look? I think that part of the reason they were preserved is because they were covered with a mineral "shell," and therefore there would not be sufficient resolution or density difference to image with a standard X-ray or CT.
Regarding your second question, I sure don't have an answer for that. All we did was apply a very standard methodology that is commonly used to study modern bones. It wasn't really anything special. I think, if you look at the answer to the previous question, it has more to do with expectations. Many of the questions we ask as scientists are built upon accumulated wisdom and assumptions, and so fit within that framework. Sometimes we need to reevaluate those assumptions to make sure they are still valid, and this will happen more often as technology becomes more sensitive.
In addition, I would like to point out that a Polish researcher by the name of Roman Pawlicki was reporting cells similar to what we saw as early as the 1960s. But no one followed up on his work, and some of these findings were not published in widely read journals so may have been overlooked.
Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?Carl Baker, Billings, Montana
Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.
Q: Do you feel dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded, and what evidence supports each case?
Also, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that most dinosaurs could not live in today's gravity without total engineering failure of their body structures. What is your take on this?Robert Therriault, Sunnyvale, California
Schweitzer: In regards to your first question, I think that dinosaurs probably spanned a range of metabolic strategies. Most of the very early and very primitive dinosaurs already possess some characteristics we associate with an elevated metabolic rate. For example, only warm-blooded animals today are obligate bipeds, with upright posture (legs directly under the body, not splayed as in crocodiles, lizards, and turtles). Only warm-blooded animals have sustained and rapid growth or possess insulatory body coverings. All of these traits have been observed in some dinosaurs, although not all are features of all dinosaurs. I think that the evidence supports the idea that dinosaurs had a higher metabolic rate than modern lizards and snakes. Whether any or all dinosaurs attained the metabolic rates possessed by living birds is still open to debate.
We wrote a paper reviewing this evidence, if you want more information. To see an abstract, go to:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/88511281/ABSTRACT
Re your second question, I do not know of any evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to support such a claim. The biomechanical evidence that I am familiar with shows that dinosaurs were remarkably efficient and well-adapted to their habitats, lifestyles, and environments. I can think of absolutely no arguments in any field that something so fundamental as the law of gravity has varied even slightly over the course of geological time. I would recommend papers by John Hutchinson and others that address biomechanical issues in dinosaurs.
Having seen many dinosaur fossils in my time, I think it is quite apparent that they were very, very successful, and I have seen no signs at all, even on the microscopic level, for engineering failure. And I think all research in physics supports the "gravitational constant." The principle of uniformitarianism guides historical sciences and states that "the present is the key to the past." Without that understanding, or invoking ever-changing conditions in which certain fundamental rules like gravity do not apply, we cannot ever understand or make statements about events that we can only observe indirectly. The evidence is very strong that by applying principles like the constancy of gravity or the speed of light, past events are understandable and future events predictable, and science moves forward. And these have not yet been disproven, so in my mind there is absolutely no reason to question that dinosaurs would have done just fine in today's gravity.
Q: I have two questions, if that's okay. What work are you up to now? Are you testing the bones of yet more types of animals than were reported on in the show and the NOVA scienceNOW Web article "Inside the Bones" (see Editors' Picks)?
Also, what does it take to do the kind of work you do? What kind of training would someone need to do it? Thanks for your time!Anonymous
Schweitzer: In answer to your first question, yes. We have been seeking to verify the extent of the phenomenon we observed in our "B. rex" by looking at a range of bones from other organisms, from dinosaurs in the Mesozoic to mammals and birds in modern times. See our 2007 Proceedings of the Royal Society paper, "Soft Tissue and Cellular Preservation in Vertebrate Skeletal Elements From the Cretaceous to the Present," an abstract of which is available at:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/762538t13072m341/
My research goals for the immediate future are to determine if any original remnant molecules comprise the structures that look like blood vessels and cells, and to try to characterize the chemical changes that took place to get from original, functional dinosaur material to what remains of this today. We have so much to learn about preservation, and about these wonderful beasts, I just can't wait.
Regarding your second question, I think it helps if you are slightly crazy. Other than that, I think a firm grounding in chemistry, biology, molecular biology, and evolutionary biology as well as a lot of chemistry. I also think you need to be willing to take chances and to think outside the box. And a deep passion for and love of the subject matter certainly helps in those dark times when nothing goes the way you think it should.

1) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present 1

Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments. At least three of the four components persist in some skeletal elements of specimens dating to the Campanian. Fibrous bone matrix is more altered over time in morphology and less likely to persist than vessels and/or osteocytes. Vessels vary greatly in preservation, even within the same specimen, with some regions retaining pliability and other regions almost crystalline. Osteocytes also vary, with some retaining long filipodia and transparency, while others present with short and stubby filipodia and deeply pigmented nuclei, or are pigmented throughout with no nucleus visible. Alternative hypotheses are considered to explain the origin/source of observed materials. Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought. Additionally, in many cases, osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data.

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils T-rex_10

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils T-rex_10

Tissue and cells: moa, mammoth, and mastodon. (MOR OFT255, a–e) Moa. (a) Fibrous texture, embedded osteocytes and natural pigmentation of demineralized cortical bone. Vessels are not apparent in this image. (b) Interconnecting network of isolated, transparent vessels, with dark-bodied fungal spores visible within vessel lumen (arrows). Inset shows vessels emerging from digesting bone fragment. (c) Enzyme-resistant tissue associated with osteocyte cell bodies. (d) Isolated fragment of vessel shows natural pigmentation. (e) Transparent, round-bodied osteocyte (arrow) with radiating filipodia, still closely associated or attached to remnants of fibrous matrix. (MOR 604, f–j) Mammoth. (f) Demineralized mammoth skull fragment shows uneven pigmentation and osteocyte (arrow) with filipodia within fibrous matrix. (g) Flexible, deeply pigmented vessels with associated matrix (white) sheet material. Vascular contents appear as deeply pigmented microstructures. Inset shows vessel with similar pigmentation and internal microstructures, but crystalline, not flexible. (h) Flexible, fibrous matrix containing multiple pigmented osteocytes with interconnecting filipodia. (i) Vessel shows consistent wall thickness and intravascular material. (j) Orange-pigmented osteocyte with filipodia radiating outward into fibrous matrix. (MOR 605, k–p) Mastodon. (k) Fibrous texture of demineralized matrix encloses abundant, naturally pigmented osteocytes, with distinct nuclei and long filipodia extending into matrix fibres. (l) Fragmented and deeply pigmented crystalline vessel. Inset shows another vessel fragment with crystalline surface structure. (m–p) Osteocytes with interconnected filipodia, some showing distinct nuclei (p, arrow). Scale bars are as indicated.

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

Otangelo

Otangelo

Admin

Posts : 9656
Join date : 2009-08-09
Age : 58
Location : Aracaju brazil

Hi, Folks - a HUGE shout-out to Tommy Hall and Heather Adam for your awesome donations!! THANKS! I am so excited about the way the news of this work is reaching around the world. Just yesterday I heard from folks in South Africa and a radio program in Seattle who want to interview me. Of course I will go anywhere and speak to any group about the stunning results of my microscopic study of dinosaur soft cells - please PASS THIS ON! We have the evolutionists on the run!
Comments "Sound Off"

http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-may-4-2015-theres-more-than-dust-to-dinosaurs-mark-armitage-found-soft-tissue-too/#comment-1646

https://www.facebook.com/mark.armitage.98

Mark's paper published in
Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research (M. H. Armitage and K. L. Anderson Acta Histochem. 115, 603–608; 2013).
A Journal of Structural Biochemistry, Cell and Tissue Imaging

Logic says the organics would break down over that timescale. So if scientists are finding tissue, blood, etc., then the age they are assigning to the fossils must be wrong. MUST be wrong.

Sponsored content

Dinosaur (a)	Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)	C-14 Years B.P.	Date	USA State
Acro Acro Acro Acro Acro Allosaurus Hadrosaur #1 Hadrosaur #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #1 Triceratops #2 Triceratops #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #2 Hadrosaur #3 Apatosaur	GX-15155-A/Beta/bio GX-15155-A/AMS/bio AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio KIA-5523/AMS/bow KIA-5523/AMS/hum GX-32372/AMS/col GX-32647/Beta/bow UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col GX-32739/Beta/ext GX-32678/AMS/w UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio UGAMS-01936/AMS/w UGAMS-01937/AMS/col UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio	>32,400 25,750 + 280 23,760 + 270 29,690 + 90 30,640 + 90 31,360 + 100 31,050 + 230/-220 36,480 + 560/-530 30,890 + 200 33,830 + 2910/-1960 24,340 + 70 39,230 + 140 30,110 + 80 22,380 + 800 22,990 +130 25,670 + 220 25,170 + 230 23,170 + 170 37,660 + 160 38,250 + 160	11/10/1989 06/14/1990 10/23/1990 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 05/01/2008 10/01/1998 10/01/1998 08/25/2006 09/12/2006 10/29/2009 08/27/2008 08/27/2008 01/06/2007 04/04/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 11/29/2011 11/29/2011	TX TX TX TX TX CO AK AK MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT CO CO

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils

1 Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:46 pm

Otangelo

What are the oldest things that can be radiocarbon dated?

2 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:03 pm

Otangelo

3 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:05 pm

Otangelo

4 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:07 pm

Otangelo

5 Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:03 pm

Otangelo

6 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:06 am

Otangelo

7 ichthyosaur-bonanza Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:53 pm

Otangelo

8 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:07 am

Otangelo

9 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:13 am

Otangelo

10 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:29 am

Otangelo

11 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:17 am

Otangelo

12 Rescuing Dinosaur Soft Tissue from the Ravages of Time Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:26 pm

Otangelo

13 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:44 pm

Otangelo

14 New Record Set for Soft Tissue in Fossils Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:26 pm

Otangelo

15 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:29 pm

Otangelo

16 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:33 pm

Otangelo

17 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:46 am

Otangelo

18 Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:02 pm

Otangelo

19 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:05 pm

Otangelo

20 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:39 pm

Otangelo

21 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:46 pm

Otangelo

SEM analysis

Internal structures investigated by FIB

TEM analysis

Mass spectrometry analysis

Sample collection and preparation

SEM analyses and FIB preparation

SEM and EDS analyses

FIB and SEM analyses

FIB and TEM sample preparation

Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry

EDS analyses and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS)

Partial least squares—discriminant analysis

22 SEM images of organically preserved muscle fibres in fossils from Grube Messel Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:43 pm

Otangelo

23 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:06 am

Otangelo

24 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:46 am

Otangelo

25 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:50 am

Otangelo

26 Re: Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence of young fossils

Sponsored content