CMIcreationstation ^{📤 7 years ago 2011-05-17}

For more details visit:

In this episode Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss amino acids (constituents of proteins) found in both hadrosaur skin and a claw, and how evolutionists would have charged "contamination" if actual proteins had been found. However, dinosaur protein has been found in a partially fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone!

Main article:
From Creation magazine 32(2) Dino protein denial
( )

Related articles
• 'Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery' ( )
• Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! ( )
• The real 'Jurassic Park' ( )
• Why don't they carbon-date dino fossils? ( )
• Dinosaur proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal? ( )
• Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years ( )

For more information on the creation/evolution issue visit:

📺 How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 21 Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Tony Reed ^{📤 2 years ago 2015-10-17}

In this episode, we examine the nail in the coffin for evolutionism. Soft-tissue discovered inside a T-Rex.

References:

Creationist version

Mary Schweitzer's Original Paper

Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival

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

How the collagen was extracted

What Acid

Demineralization

Spectroscopy:

Amber Inclusions

Recent Amber inclusion soft tissue

Smithsonian article

Bacterial Biofilm

Well, maybe

Mary Schweitzer's paper on Iron preservation

Update: Iron preservation confirmed
qabalaHCTMRS

📺 T-rex bone blood not 70mil years old

ninnzbinnz ^{📤 10 years ago 2008-01-27}

an interveiw with the people who were involved in the find and research on the t-rex bone that has blood and elastic tissue in it.

The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the 'millions of years' idea) is, to date, as follows:

The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue. Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied. Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds. To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats' immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation.

📺 Dinosaur egg fossils | Walking with Dinosaurs: Ballad of Big Al | BBC

BBC Earth ^{📤 6 years ago 2011-08-12}

Check out BBC Earth on BBC online -
Scientists step back 145 million years to tell the story of 'Big Al', a complete skeleton of an adolescent Allorsaurus found in Wyoming in 1991. The story starts in the Atlantic coast of Portugal where the discovery of remarkable fossils of dinousaur egg shells shed light on how Big Al was born.

Fascinating clip from the BBC natural history programme Walking with Dinosaurs: The Ballad of Big Al.

Broadcast in 1999, Walking with Dinosaurs set out to create the most accurate portrayal of prehistoric animals ever seen on the screen. Combining fact and informed speculation with cutting-edge computer graphics and animatronics effects, the series took two years to make.

Visit for all the latest animal news and wildlife videos and watch more high quality videos on the new BBC Earth YouTube channel

📺 T.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs: Soft Tissue

theTRUTHgroup ^{📤 10 years ago 2008-05-07}

Click this link to watch a video about the people involved in this blood cell discovery.

Check out this link for more information about this topic.

[This clip is an excerpt from the DVD project "T.R.U.T.H. about the Dinosaurs", which can be found on-line at theTRUTHgroup.com or at livingwaters.com.]

📺 Dr. Mary Schweitzer on T-Rex Soft Tissue Discovery.flv

What is ^{📤 6 years ago 2012-01-07}

The day molecular paleontology was born:
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an associate professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences, created the molecular paleontology field of study. While studying dissolved pieces of a T-Rex bone, she found something that should not have been there: soft tissue.

"I looked at the scope, and I backed up, and I looked at the scope again," Schweitzer told the NC State alumni magazine in 2005. "And I said,'Jen [Wittmeyer, a lab technician], this is not possible. That is not a microbe, that is an osteocyte [a type of cell found in bone].'"

The bone itself has long dominated the field of paleontology, a result of the belief that no tissue could be found in an extinct dinosaur bone. So, is the bone really70 million years old?

T. Rex Blood?: Expert Q&A
Posted 07.31.07
NOVA scienceNOW
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: 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.

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.

📺 Does Dinosaur Tissue In Fossils Prove Evolution?

Nobleeagle100 ^{📤 5 years ago 2012-10-09}

"I cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body, Bada says: "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules." - Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.

The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
by Frank Sherwin, M.A. - .

Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.

Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz."

He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.

Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.

"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.

"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.

"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.

Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says.

📺 soft tissue in dino & other fossils(notes)-nothing in science justifies millions of years ages

TruthIsLife7 ^{📤 7 years ago 2010-12-08}

(See notes part 1: )
Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.

Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz."

He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.

Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."

Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.

"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.

"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.

"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.

Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.

Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says.

There are also quite a few evidences that dinos lived with man. See my creation-soft tissue playlist.
100+ DATING METHODS POINT TO A YOUNG EARTH
1)(for laymen)

2)(more technical)

&

On the fossil order,see:

📺 Kent Hovind, Jared, T. Rex Soft Tissue, 06/05, Part 1.

freethoughtEFNet ^{📤 10 years ago 2008-05-30}

T. Rex Soft Tissue.
Conducted June ?th, 2005.

📺 T rex red blood cells

Evolution Debunked ^{📤 11 months ago 2017-07-02}

In the early nineties, researchers from Montana State University made a startling discovery. Inspecting a piece of T. rex bone under a microscope, they could hardly believe their eyes—they could see dinosaur red blood cells!
This discovery prompted lead scientist, Dr Mary Schweitzer, to say:
'It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: "The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"'
In a Discover magazine article, Dr Schweitzer explained further her surprise,
'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?'
Such a response is understandable, considering that she thinks dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. But surely such data suggest it wasn't that long ago?

Allopatric speciation, speciation, allele, angular momentum, Noah's Ark, atheism, creationism, creation, evolution, ATP synthase, avian lung, Avogadro's number, baraminology, behemoth, big bang theory, Biologos, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, paleontology, physics, age of the earth, distant starlight, horizon problem, Cambrian explosion, Carbon-14, radiometric dating, radiocarbon, origins science, historical science, chronogenealogies, creation week, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Days of Creation, dinosaur, DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, eugenics, flat gap, flood, global flood, genealogies, giants, Gilgamesh, Grand Canyon, God of the Gaps, Stephen Jay Gould, Hamartiology, Stephen Hawking, helium, Ice Age, Biblical inerrancy, genetic information, intelligent design, isochron dating, Kuiper Belt, dark matter, dark energy, abiogenesis, magnetic field, living fossils, fossils, mammoth, materialism, naturalism, Mitochondrial Eve, mutation, natural selection, nebular hypothesis, Origin of Species, the Fall, the curse, planation surfaces, plate tectonics, polystrate, radioactive decay, radiohalos, accelerated decay, uniformitarianism, catastrophism, Refuting Compromise, Hugh Ross, Sailhamer, stars, subduction, thermodynamics, heat death, In the beginning, junk DNA, vestigial organs, evolutionary tree, homology, embryonic recapitulation, phylogeny, genetics, Bill Nye, Ken Ham

📺 soft tissue in dino fossils-nothing in science can allow this to be millions of years old

TruthIsLife7 ^{📤 7 years ago 2010-12-08}

Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her research assistants were working on a T-rex dinosaur fossil and saw medullary tissue (showing that the T-rex had been pregnant). Because no one had ever found this tissue in a dinosaur fossil before, she told her assistant to soak it in acid to be able to study the structures better. When they tried this new approach, they were stunned to find blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues in the fossil, all soft tissues found somewhere they shouldn't be according to evolution. Schweitzer et al. also found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants.

She eventually published a number of papers (references and links below) which right from the first challenged the basic principles of fossilization by stating,
"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."

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, states, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry, biology and and everything else we know, say it should be gone, it should be degraded completely."
(~6:30)

Derrick Briggs, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Peabody Museum at Yale University agrees saying, "Nobody was imaging that dinosaurs might have had preserved soft tissues... this was totally improbable....We have this clear understanding that part of all biological cycles involves decay. Nature's set up to break down that material and recycle it. So, it's just improbable that those kinds of very delicate structures would survive, particularly for millions of years."

He's also agreeing that nothing we can verify with science would allow soft tissue to last for millions of years. The obvious conclusion is that they are not millions of years as Creationists have said for long. Remember that evidence from your critics is one of the highest levels evidence you can get. Creationists have that in MANY areas. Evolutionists don't.

Leading evolution experts agree that nothing in science would make it possible for soft tissue to last more than ~100,000 years ( ~8:30)

Why don't we know of more soft tissues in fossils?
1) As. Dr. Schweitzer said, she used a new technique with acid to remove bones that almost no one had used before. If more used that method, we'd find more soft tissue in fossils. Dr. Kaye tried to replicate Dr. Schweitzer and found a very large amount of soft tissue with her technique just like she did.
2) There actually are quite a number of other soft tissue finds.
A) Soft tissue in fossilized salamandar.

B) DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

C)
and others.

3) Even evolutionists say that only a very few of biological forms that die become fossils and most of those are marine animals or were buried in water (things that make you go hmmm...when considering the flood story).

RESEARCH PAPERS BY SCHWEITZER
***Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present

***Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex

**Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187; 2. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Teran Arce F, Horner JR. 2007.

****More detailed interview with the researchers & info in notes here:

📺 Dr. Mary Schweitzer on T-Rex Soft Tissue Discovery.flv

dino saur ^{📤 4 years ago 2014-03-01}

The day molecular paleontology was born: Dr. Mary Schweitzer an associate professor of marine earth and atmospheric sciences created the molecular paleontology field of study. While studying dissolved pieces of a T-Rex bone she found something that should not have been there: soft tissue. "I looked at the scope and I backed up and I looked at the scope again" Schweitzer told the NC State alumni magazine in 2005. "And I said Jen Wittmeyer a lab technician this is not possible. That is not a microbe that is an osteocyte a type of cell found in bone . " The bone itself has long dominated the field of paleontology a result of the belief that no tissue could be found in an extinct dinosaur bone. So is the bone really70 million years old T. Rex Blood : Expert Q amp A Posted 07.31.07 NOVA scienceNOW 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: 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. 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.