Early Cretaceous (150 million to 100 million years old) specimens.....with "flesh"

Here's the kicker.....

The skeletons were extremely well preserved some even retained soft tissues

How does soft tissue survive 100 - 150 million years on a fossilized skeleton?
Fossilized means the original material is mineral saturated and hardened.

Ancient 'fish lizard' graveyard discovered beneath melting glacier

If there is soft tissue then the mineral saturation over eons was halted abruptly, when there was still flesh. This implies abrupt burial in the mud and sudden deep freezing.

How do creationists and evolutionists view such data, and which will be more likely to attempt to dismiss this data?

a reply to: TinfoilTP
There isn't anything 'soft' about the fossil. Most fossils only consist of bony pieces that survive attack by bacteria, scavengers and predators. These were buried under deep mud, which excluded oxygen, keeping the soft tissues to remain undamaged, and allowing them to be mineralized.

You can see the outlines of the skin on many dinosaur dig pictures, also what appears to be featherlike areas at that point.

Now soft tissue, that would mean that they aren't dating things right, I think that dinosaurs did not all go extinct until maybe less than fifty thousand years ago. Some isolated places may have had evolved dinosaurs still around. Now all we have is chickens and turkeys.

There is no real evidence proving that all dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, only the fact that they have not found or allowed evidence of much later dinosaurs. Anything that goes against conscensus of the time is usually discounted, that is not real science.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

The article doesn't even refer to a scientific article. I'd wait before I jump to conclusions concerning these "soft tissues". It could very well be a comment on the sediment these Ichtyosaurs were encased in.

Taking this at face value, if there were actual soft tissues then we've discovered a brand new way of preserving soft tissues for a very long time.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: TinfoilTP
There isn't anything 'soft' about the fossil. Most fossils only consist of bony pieces that survive attack by bacteria, scavengers and predators. These were buried under deep mud, which excluded oxygen, keeping the soft tissues to remain undamaged, and allowing them to be mineralized.

So you expect people to believe there are no micro organisms in "mud" to decompose soft tissue?
Take any mud on earth and you will find life.

a reply to: TinfoilTP


Fossilised soft tissue. The story was a tad missleading*.

Normally, soft tissue decays long before it has a chance to become fossilised - only the hard bones fossilise - so it's very unusual to find any.

* Edit: apologies, I was assuming this related to this story which at the time was used by some creationists to 'prove' that the T-Rex must have died not that long ago (thinking that actual soft tissue had been recovered, still soft). I see now this is one I've not seen before, though the point remains. An explanation for the earlier story is here: www.livescience.com...

Oh look, it's another Fox News article written by someone who doesn't properly understand science. What a surprise. Not.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Fossilised soft tissue. The story was a tad missleading*.

Normally, soft tissue decays long before it has a chance to become fossilised - only the hard bones fossilise - so it's very unusual to find any.

* Edit: apologies, I was assuming this related to this story which at the time was used by some creationists to 'prove' that the T-Rex must have died not that long ago (thinking that actual soft tissue had been recovered, still soft). I see now this is one I've not seen before, though the point remains. An explanation for the earlier story is here: www.livescience.com...

How does the fossilization process outpace the decay from the organisms that live in mud? Lack of oxygen is not a qualifier because irrefutably there is microbial life in mud. The microbial decay would have to be slowed down in order for fossilization to speed past it, which implies freezing or all of the microbial life dieing quickly in the mud from some event. The flesh was there long enough to fossilize somehow.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

How does the fossilization process outpace the decay from the organisms that live in mud? Lack of oxygen is not a qualifier because irrefutably there is microbial life in mud. The microbial decay would have to be slowed down in order for fossilization to speed past it, which implies freezing or all of the microbial life dieing quickly in the mud from some event. The flesh was there long enough to fossilize somehow.

Depends on the circumstances. If they were buried in anaerobic mud in deep (cold) water - and quickly covered by further mudslides, I don't see it being impossible.

Obviously not a common occurrence though.

But I'm no expert.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So you expect people to believe there are no micro organisms in "mud" to decompose soft tissue?
Take any mud on earth and you will find life.

Scientifically explained here

Massaged creationist version here

But both sides agree that it is perfectly possible for soft tissues to fossilize.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

there are scores of citations for soft tissue preservation in :

aneorobic // acidic // dessicating environments

these [ from memory ] cite finds of 100 to 4500 years old

decomposition is dependant on environment

as is fosilisation

a reply to: rickymouse

Some isolated places may have had evolved dinosaurs still around. Now all we have is chickens and turkeys.

That is an interesting thought, giant turkeys eating us.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TinfoilTP

there are scores of citations for soft tissue preservation in :

aneorobic // acidic // dessicating environments

these [ from memory ] cite finds of 100 to 4500 years old

decomposition is dependant on environment

as is fosilisation

Interesting that you can find all of those special cases to list but never include a fast freeze environment scenario.

These were found in mud, which can be studied, mud which was under a glacier.

Brings to mind the frozen Siberian mud expanses, with vast quantities of smashed forestation growth mangled together with extinct species carcasses. As if a massive mud flow swept through just before the permafrost entombed the entire area. Something a large impact could account for, thawing leads to mudflows followed by rapid refreezing. Being afraid to touch the freezing scenario for fear of bible thumpers shouting flood, is no excuse to ignore all possibilities.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

There is nothing "new" about what you have posted . . . and it has not implications on the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or the timelines it operates under.

Mary Schweitzer NCSU

Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who is known for leading the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a pregnant female when she died.[3] More recently, Schweitzer's work has shown molecular similarities between Tyrannosaurus remains and chickens, providing further evidence of the bird-dinosaur connection.[4]

Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in 1993, and although there was a large resistance to the idea, she continued to pile up evidence. Once all other paleontologists caught on to her methods and the conditions to look under, many more researchers have provided evidence.

It's not just about the mud . . . or "quick burial".

Schweitzer was the first researcher to identify and isolate soft tissues from a 68 million year old fossil bone. The soft tissues are collagen, a connective protein. Amino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickens, frogs, newts and other animals. Prior to Schweitzer’s discovery, the oldest soft tissue recovered from a fossil was less than one million years old.[8] Schweitzer has also isolated organic compounds and antigenic structures in sauropod egg shells.[9] With respect to the significance of her work, Kevin Padian, Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology, has stated "Chemicals that might degrade in a laboratory over a short period need not do so in a protected natural chemical environment...it's time to readjust our thinking."[8]

Schweitzer first publicly announced her discovery in 1993.[10][11] Since then, the claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil has been disputed by some molecular biologists. Later research by Kaye et al.[12] published in PLoS ONE (30 July 2008) challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. The extraction of protein from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed.[13] A more recent study (October 2010) published in PLoS ONE contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion.[14]

Schweitzer has also discovered that iron particles can play a part in the preservation of soft tissue over geologic time.[15]

Seems you are just late to the party . . .

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TinfoilTP

there are scores of citations for soft tissue preservation in :

aneorobic // acidic // dessicating environments

these [ from memory ] cite finds of 100 to 4500 years old

decomposition is dependant on environment

as is fosilisation

Interesting that you can find all of those special cases to list but never include a fast freeze environment scenario.

Honestly the only thing I found interesting there was the fact that you've decided for yourself that the only possible scenario involved a quick freeze ad on your own terms at that.

These were found in mud, which can be studied, mud which was under a glacier.

Actually, the fossils were found in rocks which was under a glacier. You make it sound like they found a pile of bones with soft tissue still intact, lying in the mud underneath a melting glacier.

If the scenario you are so insistent on maintaining as your only acceptable narrative were actually true then why was there fossilized soft tissue only on some of the nearly 4 dozen specimens, most of which were rather complete skeletons? If it were a situation like a sudden freeze as has been seen in several mammoth and mastodon specimens, then you should see the similar level of preservation in all of the specimens found. But that just isn't the case. The most likely scenario is that there was indeed a mudslide and these ichthyosaurs were forced into deeper water which would have been much colder and then buried under anaerobic mud. It far better s counts for the completeness of the remains as well as the level of preservation that is seen. People need to understand that fossilization in and of itself is a rate event and requires a perfect storm of conditions to occur. Just because people are having their minds blown over a rare event that has been evidenced for decades now(just nothing quite this old) doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Brings to mind the frozen Siberian mud expanses, with vast quantities of smashed forestation growth mangled together with extinct species carcasses. As if a massive mud flow swept through just before the permafrost entombed the entire area. Something a large impact could account for, thawing leads to mudflows followed by rapid refreezing. Being afraid to touch the freezing scenario for fear of bible thumpers shouting flood, is no excuse to ignore all possibilities.

Interesting that your first thought regards how this will impact a creationist vs. evolution debate as opposed to focusing on the science involved. Not a moments pause for the possibility that nobody is jumping on your prerequisite freeze scenario because the science doesn't support it and creationism never entered into the thought process.

originally posted by: rickymouse
You can see the outlines of the skin on many dinosaur dig pictures, also what appears to be featherlike areas at that point.

Now soft tissue, that would mean that they aren't dating things right, I think that dinosaurs did not all go extinct until maybe less than fifty thousand years ago. Some isolated places may have had evolved dinosaurs still around. Now all we have is chickens and turkeys.

There is no real evidence proving that all dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, only the fact that they have not found or allowed evidence of much later dinosaurs. Anything that goes against conscensus of the time is usually discounted, that is not real science.

Birds are classified as Dinosaurs now days.

Also, to add to what you shared. There is evidence of mammoth still being around up until the 1700' BC off the coast of Russia on a tiny Island!

a reply to: strongfp

There were elephant birds around yet on islands up until about the time Columbus didn't really discover America.

originally posted by: solomons path
Seems you are just late to the party . . .

None of those are 150 - 100 million years old. This find is. Bad comparison.
Those examples you cited are of extracting protein molecules from bones, this is of fossilization of external soft tissue. Billions of proteins preserved long enough to fossilize vs microscopic quantities encased in fossilized bone. Your comparison is not really so comparable.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: solomons path
Seems you are just late to the party . . .

None of those are 150 - 100 million years old. This find is. Bad comparison.
Those examples you cited are of extracting protein molecules from bones, this is of fossilization of external soft tissue. Billions of proteins preserved long enough to fossilize vs microscopic quantities encased in fossilized bone. Your comparison is not really so comparable.

Well T-Rex is what, at least 60 million years old..
Also it's not just bones:

fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

And I read about it that she smelled decaying meat/dead animal and that was the reason she investigated further on the T-Rex.

IMO I don't believe they are as old as being dated, how old no clue but that so little changed (in how they looked and so on) in hundreds and hundreds of million of years, doesn't make much sense. Also if they where arround for such a long time.. imagine how many bones/remains (fossilised) there must be - how many dino's would have existed if they where arround for hunderds of millions of years in total? Trillions?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
How does soft tissue survive 100 - 150 million years on a fossilized skeleton?
Fossilized means the original material is mineral saturated and hardened.

Quite simply, it doesn't. No way soft tissues survive that long. Something like this should cause real scientists to toss the dating systems out on their collective ears, and start rethinking what they think they know. Of course, it won't. because facts aren't as important as not rocking the boat.