More fossils with soft tissue

[otseng]

In the thread Soft Tissue in Tyrannosaurus rex, soft tissue was found in T Rex that was suppossedly older than 68 million years. Now soft tissue has been found in a fish that is suppossedly 380 million years old.

The fish's remarkably well-preserved soft tissues include bundles of muscle cells, blood vessels, and nerve cells. They were found during recent electron microscope scans, the research team reported last week in the British journal Biology Letters.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html

Though the article is not clear on if the soft tissue is mineralized or not, it would seem to imply that it is not. Either way, it is amazing that soft tissue can remain on a fish for over a third of a billion years.

The article also cites the first fossilized bone marrow.

Fossilized bone marrow has been discovered in ten-million-year-old frogs and salamanders from an ancient lake bed in Spain, scientists announced Friday.

The specimens are the first examples of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered. They are so well preserved that the original color of the tissue is still visible.

And when traces of such tissues are found, the original organic matter has usually been replaced by minerals during fossilization.

Not so with the Spanish amphibians.

"The marrow is organically preserved," McNamara said. "The original color of the marrow is preserved."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -bone.html

For debate:
What do soft tissue findings show in regards to the TOE (theory of evolution) and with the CM (creation model)?

[Goat]

In the thread Soft Tissue in Tyrannosaurus rex, soft tissue was found in T Rex that was suppossedly older than 68 million years. Now soft tissue has been found in a fish that is suppossedly 380 million years old.

The fish's remarkably well-preserved soft tissues include bundles of muscle cells, blood vessels, and nerve cells. They were found during recent electron microscope scans, the research team reported last week in the British journal Biology Letters.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html

Though the article is not clear on if the soft tissue is mineralized or not, it would seem to imply that it is not. Either way, it is amazing that soft tissue can remain on a fish for over a third of a billion years.

The article also cites the first fossilized bone marrow.

Fossilized bone marrow has been discovered in ten-million-year-old frogs and salamanders from an ancient lake bed in Spain, scientists announced Friday.

The specimens are the first examples of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered. They are so well preserved that the original color of the tissue is still visible.

And when traces of such tissues are found, the original organic matter has usually been replaced by minerals during fossilization.

Not so with the Spanish amphibians.

"The marrow is organically preserved," McNamara said. "The original color of the marrow is preserved."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -bone.html

For debate:
What do soft tissue findings show in regards to the TOE (theory of evolution) and with the CM (creation model)?

Absolutely nothing. From an article about the trex 'soft tissues'

…we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality. Additionally, we can isolate three-dimensional osteocytes with internal cellular contents and intact, supple filipodia that float freely in solution. This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... r_morsels/

[micatala]

In the thread Soft Tissue in Tyrannosaurus rex, soft tissue was found in T Rex that was suppossedly older than 68 million years. Now soft tissue has been found in a fish that is suppossedly 380 million years old.

The fish's remarkably well-preserved soft tissues include bundles of muscle cells, blood vessels, and nerve cells. They were found during recent electron microscope scans, the research team reported last week in the British journal Biology Letters.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html

Though the article is not clear on if the soft tissue is mineralized or not, it would seem to imply that it is not. Either way, it is amazing that soft tissue can remain on a fish for over a third of a billion years.

The article also cites the first fossilized bone marrow.

Fossilized bone marrow has been discovered in ten-million-year-old frogs and salamanders from an ancient lake bed in Spain, scientists announced Friday.

The specimens are the first examples of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered. They are so well preserved that the original color of the tissue is still visible.

And when traces of such tissues are found, the original organic matter has usually been replaced by minerals during fossilization.

Not so with the Spanish amphibians.

"The marrow is organically preserved," McNamara said. "The original color of the marrow is preserved."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -bone.html

For debate:
What do soft tissue findings show in regards to the TOE (theory of evolution) and with the CM (creation model)?

By themselves, I would say they do not indicate too much.

As the existence of these was unexpected, they do indicate we have some things to learn about how and why organisms or their structures are preserved.

THey present a puzzle as well. How were these examples able to be preserved and not others? It seems to me this is a puzzle whatever we think about the dating involved. If we at least assume that the dates we have are relatively correct, we have to ask why we found these examples and essentially no others from the same time periods, whether this is 300 million years ago, 300,000 years ago, or 3000 years ago.

[upallnite]

I read the articles and I think everyone is missing something. They are fossilized. The question of how did soft tissue survive 350 million years does not apply. The question here is how did the tissue fossilize so rapidly. No one is questioning the dating of the fossils. They are trying to figure out how they fossilized so fast.

This is why I hate creation science so much. They read an article and do not realize how the terms are being used and why it is special to begin with. The T-Rex cells is a great example of how creationists sensationalize something and then misrepresent it.

[otseng]

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... r_morsels/

Actually, that's an interesting article.

Especially that they were able to find blood cells (or what appears to be blood cells) from the T Rex.



And to find such finely preserved cells entombed after 68 million years is amazing.

So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at play—cells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at death—so I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.

I read the articles and I think everyone is missing something. They are fossilized.

In the case of the T Rex and amphibians, it definitely has not been mineralized. We can understand how minerals can last a long time, but organic matter?

The T-Rex cells is a great example of how creationists sensationalize something and then misrepresent it.

How exactly has it been sensationalized?

[Goat]

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... r_morsels/

Actually, that's an interesting article.

Especially that they were able to find blood cells (or what appears to be blood cells) from the T Rex.



And to find such finely preserved cells entombed after 68 million years is amazing.

So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at play—cells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at death—so I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.

I read the articles and I think everyone is missing something. They are fossilized.

In the case of the T Rex and amphibians, it definitely has not been mineralized. We can understand how minerals can last a long time, but organic matter?

The T-Rex cells is a great example of how creationists sensationalize something and then misrepresent it.

How exactly has it been sensationalized?

Some creationists are saying it is "Fresh", rather than soft tissue that has gone through a fossilzation process, but is still flexible.

[Cathar1950]

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... r_morsels/

Actually, that's an interesting article.

Especially that they were able to find blood cells (or what appears to be blood cells) from the T Rex.



And to find such finely preserved cells entombed after 68 million years is amazing.

So, basically, these cells were entombed in a thick mineral sarcophagus, protected from bacteria and other external insults. There have to have been other factors at play—cells are full of enzymes that trigger a very thorough self-destruct sequence at death—so I'm definitely looking forward to the molecular analysis. Even if their form was preserved, I expect these cells to be denatured monomer soup on the inside.

I read the articles and I think everyone is missing something. They are fossilized.

In the case of the T Rex and amphibians, it definitely has not been mineralized. We can understand how minerals can last a long time, but organic matter?

The T-Rex cells is a great example of how creationists sensationalize something and then misrepresent it.

How exactly has it been sensationalized?

Some creationists are saying it is "Fresh", rather than soft tissue that has gone through a fossilzation process, but is still flexible.

Does it taste like chicken?

It should be intersting.

[Goat]

This link here explains who the 'soft' tissue is sensationalised. It still is 'soft' but actully fossilized. This is misrepresnted by the 'creationsists'

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

[upallnite]

Thank you, Goat. I was not around to defend my statement. I should have given overwhelming evidence when I saw this.

[otseng]

This link here explains who the 'soft' tissue is sensationalised. It still is 'soft' but actully fossilized. This is misrepresnted by the 'creationsists'

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

The article you cite infers that it is the news media that would be "sensationalizing".

A significantly better video was presented on MSNBC, and is linked from Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels. No "Jurassic Park" footage, but here again, Schweitzer made easily misinterpreted statements contradicted by her published work. Just one example was her statement that the contents of vessels could be readily "squeezed out." Since she offered no laboratory procedure as a context, this left the impression that these remains just popped out of the bone as fresh as if the dinosaur died yesterday.

The print media have been a little better in their reportage. The Los Angeles Times ran the story on the 25th (front page below the fold) and used three microphotographs from the Science article. But even here, they referred to the recovered material as "fresh" at the same time describing the weeks long labor need to recover and reconstitute them.

So, unless creationists have infiltrated MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times, it would be a false accusation that creationists have sensationalized it.

I would agree that these discoveries have been siezed upon by the creationists. But to say that creationists say that it is fresh and thus sensationalizing is a misplaced accusation.