Hadrosaur Soft Tissue

Posted: June 10th, 2009 under Creation Blog, Dinosaurs, Institute for Creation Research.
Tags: , ,

Dinosaur soft tissue is again in the news.  This time, the specimen is an 80 million year old hadrosaur.  Young earth creationists have jumped on this claim, again stating that the earth must be young.  Click here to read more about this Institute for Creation Research claim.

1 Comment

  • Comment by Luke Flowers, Biology Teacher — November 17, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

    1

    Would like some help…

    As I have gone over the various articles, research, and positions taken on this evidence, I have been left with the following:

    Paleontologists have two options: 1)The soft tissue remains are not actual dinosaur remains, or 2)there is a biochemical solution for the problem of how these proteins and vessels could have survived for millions of years.

    Biochemists present the same options, with a slight difference…option two is impossible: 1)The soft tissue remains are not actual dinosaur remains, or 2)they should not be there… it is impossible.

    The vast majority of the scientific community is telling me to put my faith in a mysterious and as of yet undiscovered mechanism for preserving proteins and tissue for a million years…wait, excuse me, 80 million years. “There has to be an explanation,” I am told, “because the Earth is old, the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and this tissue, if it really is from a dinosaur, must be millions of years old.”

    The problem here is that I am being asked to trust something that has just proven itself unreliable. “Trust us, these fossils are old…even though we’ve just proven that we don’t understand fossilization or the mechanisms of preservation of soft tissue, trust us that we are right about these other areas of paleontology and that we have not made any other mistakes.”

    I am a science teacher. I teach the old age of dinosaurs, the theory of how dinosaurs are ancestors of birds, the idea of homologous structures, etc… I have found myself in a philosophical dilemma because I do not believe that science is being upheld in this situation. The evidence should at least prompt a consideration of other possibilities. If biochemistry understands that soft tissue can not survive for eons of time, then perhaps the sample simply isn’t eons old. What if a couple of trex’s did somehow manage to survive until a couple thousand years ago? I agree it sounds ridiculous…but to me, so does dismissing the fact that the evidence seems to point to a more recent death for this animal than 80 million years ago.

    The research I’ve seen on the longevity of proteins, regardless of how they are “entombed,” is on the order of thousands of years, not millions. Is this really debatable?

    Then…sigh…I finally broke down and read a young earth creationists explanation for how this fossil managed to be made and why it still has tissues inside of its bones. To be honest, it makes a whole lot more sense than biological material maintaining integrity (even elasticity!) for millions of years. I may not have a doctorate in biochemistry, but I’m not an idiot. If you expect me to believe that proteins can persist for that long you better offer up some VERY compelling evidence other than it is a necessity for our age assessment of this fossil.

    I’ve printed several articles related to this topic and handed them out to my classes. The votes are unanimous… this fossil is not old according to high schoolers.

    Convince me, and them, we’re wrong.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.