| Wiintendo said:
Researchers Debate: Is It Preserved Dinosaur Tissue, or Bacterial Slime? Schweitzer says her team considered the hypothesis that the material they found in the original thigh bone was a bacterial biofilm, and rejected the possibility. She says there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study [Science News].
I don't agree with Mary that the soft tissue is 68 million years old or anything close. I don't think such things could be preserved for so long. I believe in a young earth.
|
On what grounds do you not believe it is 68 million years old? I understand you're a young Earth creationist, and so it is hard for you to picture a date that extends back millions of years, but bear with me.
The main area of debate for the soft tissue found is not the age of the specimen, it's far more likely that we have to rethink our models of mineralisation in fossils to explain why soft tissues could (rarely) be found in ancient specimens. The likelihood is that there is some factor of mineralisation that we don't fully understand yet. Mary herself even said this is the case in a 2007 paper.
"A two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence of still-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought. Additionally, in many cases, osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data."
There has never been any question about the age of the specimen, we know it is 68 million years old because it was found in sedimentary rock that was sandwiched between two layers of radiometrically dated igneous rock that were found to be 68 millions years old.
It couldn't have existed in recent times unless it found a way to somehow travel through layers of rock deep in to the ground and lie there with other completely fossilised dinosaurs.
It's far more likely that our understanding of mineralisation is not complete, as opposed to this dinosaur lived in recent times.
