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

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

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.


(Facepalm)




posted on May, 30 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.

Check out this page: Wikipedia: Bog Bodies
Submersion in the bogs almost perfectly preserves the entire body. In time, the peat that the bodies are found in could turn into lignite, then bituminous coal, and after that anthracite. The result would be a well preserved body including soft tissues that would have turned into a rock. All because there was insufficient oxygen for bacterial decomposition to occur.
edit on b000000312014-05-30T07:51:13-05:0007America/ChicagoFri, 30 May 2014 07:51:13 -0500700000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Seconded.

Sure, let us throw away a tried and tested system because of an inconsistency. Let us not improve the system instead.
edit on 30-5-2014 by InSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Submersion in the bogs almost perfectly preserves the entire body. In time, the peat that the bodies are found in could turn into lignite, then bituminous coal, and after that anthracite. The result would be a well preserved body including soft tissues that would have turned into a rock. All because there was insufficient oxygen for bacterial decomposition to occur.



Well a bog is a special circumstance where every fossil would show preserved flesh, this is not the case here because most of the fossils near each other do not show flesh. Decomposition was happening but stopped for some reason. It would be helpful to know if the deeper layers in the mud turned rock was where they were found or not. Perma frost takes time to penetrate deeper in the ground, which could be an explanation for the halt in decomposition.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Facepalm)


Seriously? That's supposed to be a productive response? Sheesh, you didn't even properly illustrate it.....




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


No way soft tissues survive that long.

How do you know this?



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


No way soft tissues survive that long.

How do you know this?


Fossilization takes a long time, so they say. Soft tissues should be eaten away before that can happen, according to the accepted description of how it happens. That they are present in these few cases says something is off with the assumptions on the process, at the least. Goods science would demand a thorough investigation, and seek answers.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
How do you know this?


originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Fossilization takes a long time, so they say.

So the basis of your statement is hearsay?


Soft tissues should be eaten away before that can happen, according to the accepted description of how it happens.

Which 'accepted decription' would that be?

This one from the Virtual Fossil Museum says that soft tissues sometimes fossilize.

So does this one from UC Berkeley.

So does this one from Ohio State University.

And these guys actually replicated the process of soft tissue fossilization in the laboratory.

Don't thank me. It's always a pleasure to instruct the deserving.

edit on 1/6/14 by Astyanax because: the question is, deserving of what?



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Fossilization takes a long time, so they say.


So the basis of your statement is hearsay?
the standard desctiption of fossilization makes

Do you have a point? Perhaps you can explain why you think the soft tissues would remain that long, and we can go from there. Stating that the standard desctiption of fossilization makes soft tissue survival highly unlikely isn't "hearsay"; it's based on standards.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Astyanax

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Fossilization takes a long time, so they say.


So the basis of your statement is hearsay?
the standard desctiption of fossilization makes

Do you have a point? Perhaps you can explain why you think the soft tissues would remain that long, and we can go from there. Stating that the standard desctiption of fossilization makes soft tissue survival highly unlikely isn't "hearsay"; it's based on standards.


It happens on a very, very, rare number of times, in unique circumstances. But it can still happen.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Do you have a point?

My point is that your statement is baseless and false.


Stating that the standard desctiption of fossilization makes soft tissue survival highly unlikely isn't "hearsay"; it's based on standards.

You were just shown several versions of the 'standard description', all of which make it very clear that soft tissues sometimes do fossilize. So what's your excuse for clinging to a falsehood when you've been shown the truth?

edit on 1/6/14 by Astyanax because: of quotes.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Yeah, scientists just figured they'd make it up for fun, right? I don't understand why things like this are so difficult to understand. In rare conditions, soft tissue will fossilize. It's been demonstrated and proven multiple times already. And again fossilized flesh isn't the same as finding soft flesh.
edit on 1-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   




Soft-tissue dinosaur biological material






Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material
kgov.com...

Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts
By Helen Fields
Smithsonian Magazine | Subscribe
May 2006



Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://(link tracking not allowed)/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?

by Tracy V. Wilson
science.howstuffworks.com...
www.smithsonianmag.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
never mind, i just seen it was covered
edit on 06pm04pm302014-06-01T16:22:37-05:0004America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Maybe it's because of high levels of radiation preventing bacterial growth and decay?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
It happens on a very, very, rare number of times, in unique circumstances. But it can still happen.


It's unique enough that it does warrant some further study. Under any normal circumstances, it shouldn't happen. Thus, it's intriguing. Anything out of the ordinary always makes me curious.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Do you have a point?

My point is that your statement is baseless and false.


Stating that the standard desctiption of fossilization makes soft tissue survival highly unlikely isn't "hearsay"; it's based on standards.

You were just shown several versions of the 'standard description', all of which make it very clear that soft tissues sometimes do fossilize. So what's your excuse for clinging to a falsehood when you've been shown the truth?



Uner the standard methods claimed for fossilization, it shouldn't be possible. If it is occurring, then something about the accepted method is wrong. This is basic science. If you think something is a certain way, and evidence shows it isn't, you rethink the theory, and investigate more. You don't simply pretend there isn't anything wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Uner the standard methods claimed for fossilization, it shouldn't be possible. If it is occurring, then something about the accepted method is wrong. This is basic science. If you think something is a certain way, and evidence shows it isn't, you rethink the theory, and investigate more. You don't simply pretend there isn't anything wrong.


Do you honestly believe that scientists have stopped researching this? Have you studied fossils yourself? Anomalies happen. You don't simply pretend that it negates the entire thing. It simply means there is more to be learned. Let the scientists do their job instead of nit picking them every time there is something new to learn. THAT is basic science.
edit on 2-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Uner the standard methods claimed for fossilization, it shouldn't be possible.


Care to provide a citation for that? There is nothing about this scenario that contradicts what is known about fossilization. It only contradicts what some people think they know about the fossilization process.


If it is occurring, then something about the accepted method is wrong.


Not at all. Just because something is very rare doesn't mean its not perfectly natural to occur. Fossilization itself is an extremely rare occurrence but it doesn't negate the legitimacy of soft tissue fossilizing.



[/uote] This is basic science.

Exactly, which is why I'm baffled regarding your refusal to accept it.


If you think something is a certain way, and evidence shows it isn't, you rethink the theory, and investigate more. You don't simply pretend there isn't anything wrong.


The only problem with this outlook is that you seem to think that nobody has kept up with research into fossilization and are going by your own interpretation of the process as opposed to the science behind it all. There have been varying degrees of soft tissue found to be mineralized for decades. Everything from microbial cell walls to feather up to the T-Rex soft tissue found in 1993. When Mary Higby Schweitzer began working with the T. rex soft tissue there was an extraordinary amount of research and effort involved because she wanted to publish her results for peer review. She needed to make sure the results would pass the scrutiny and triple checked everything. There is no garbage science or pulling the wool over people's eyes here. It's been peer reviewed ad independently verified by several labs. The science is solid on this.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Do you honestly believe that scientists have stopped researching this? Have you studied fossils yourself? Anomalies happen. You don't simply pretend that it negates the entire thing. It simply means there is more to be learned. Let the scientists do their job instead of nit picking them every time there is something new to learn. THAT is basic science.


Mainstream science is more about the status quo for too many, as opposed to real and honest research. Look how long it took for the old ideas about dinosaurs to change. The old, slow-moving, cold-blooded way of thinking was the standard, and those that believed otherwise were treated as heretics by the mainstream. Changing the accepted way of thinking there was a long and difficult process. That's the case in every field, though many haven't seen the changes in that particular area of study. Scientists can be very stubborn, with big egos, and they often don't like their ideas being challenged. The soft tissue in the T-Rex was years ago, but we haven't seen much of any study done to explain it. All I have seen is claims it's simply "rare', with no real explanation as to WHY. Doesn't look like anyone is doing that job. Perhaps they are afraid their old ides will be proven false, just as those of slow, cold-blooded dinosaurs were.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join