RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

GuySmiley

Well-known member
So we're wandering off into semantics. But this is what it means in biology:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tissue

If you don't use words as they are used by others, you'll always have miscommunications problems.

Let's differentiate between "tissue A" (the definition above) and "tissue B" (any sort of organic material).

Then we can move on. Clearly, the fossils have "tissue B", under those definitions.
You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too. I think your suggestion for tissue A & B is good, but you'll need to convince the scientific world.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have defined option (a) as, "Deny the soft tissue really is soft tissue." The Barbarian has provided us with the following fool-proof method to determine if this material is, in fact, soft tissue:

Fix it in paraffin, take some slices, and look under a microscope. If you see cells in an orderly arrangement, the obvious conclusion is that it's tissue.​

But like he says, so far that hasn't been done. Or if it has been done, those results have not been published. Until such results are published, it cannot conclusively be said that soft tissue has been found.

Why hasn't Mark Armitage done this yet?

Ignoring the troll, the facts are that material has been found that 10 years ago was "completely impossible." We were taught that fossils were always 100 percent rock.

Now the evolutionists are cooking up ideas to preserve soft tissue for millions of years.

It is these efforts that are obviously lacking.




You seem to have the problem calling it tissue. The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too. I think your suggestion for tissue A & B is good, but you'll need to convince the scientific world.

The situation requires no such confusion, unless you're Barbarian; desperate to make every discussion impenetrable.

The facts are that these animals have died and as the creationists predicted, despite evolutionary demands otherwise, organic material remains as a general rule under many conditions. One explanation of how blood might preserve organic material -- clearly a nonsense ploy -- has been shown impossible as a factor in even a few cases.
 

User Name

Well-known member
(User Name notes that so far an actual test for tissue in the fossil material hasn't been done)

Musty asks:
It hasn't? (link to some pictures of big chunks of material, but no photomicrographs)

Nope. Hasn't.

Any competent histology lab could do it. You do a series of solvent/paraffin treatments, to embed the material on paraffin, use a microtome to cut sections, clear it and stain it and take a look under a microscope.

What is the stuff they've found if it isn't soft tissue? Is it the remnants of soft tissue?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You seem to have the problem calling it tissue.

Notice the scientific definition. If you have private definitions for words, then miscommunication is inevitable.

The two papers Bob linked to that I looked at use the words 'soft tissue.' I suppose the rest do too.

I notice even Schweitzer only says it's perhaps tissue. And most sources indicate that it's not. But it's easy to show one way or the other. Do some microtome sections and see if they actually are tissues.

I think your suggestion for tissue A & B is good, but you'll need to convince the scientific world.

Notice the definition from a dictionary of biology. It's already the standard.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
What is the stuff they've found if it isn't soft tissue? Is it the remnants of soft tissue?

I think that's just about certain. For example, the molecule found in the T-rex bones was heme, a fraction of a hemoglobin molecule. Interestingly, the heme turned out to be most like that of birds, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
 

User Name

Well-known member
I think that's just about certain. For example, the molecule found in the T-rex bones was heme, a fraction of a hemoglobin molecule. Interestingly, the heme turned out to be most like that of birds, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

I think it's important to point out what "heme" is. From Wikipedia:

...heme is a cofactor consisting of an Fe2+ (ferrous) ion...​

I'll stop right there because the rest of the definition is too technical for many, but my point is that the word ferrous means "of, relating to, or containing iron" and as those of us who have been following this debate know, iron chelators are thought to play a key role in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Yeah, basically, an iron ion, wrapped in an organic molecule.

heme.gif


Four of these together, as part of an even larger protein:
05-the-structure-and-function-of-large-biological-molecules-66-638.jpg


is hemoglobin. But yes, lots of iron. Which is, as noted before, capable of preserving organic molecules.
 

User Name

Well-known member

Apparently not. If so, let's see the published results. Photographs of "cells organized into tissue." It does bother me though, that many reputable sources refer to this fossil material as "soft tissue" if that isn't technically correct. I think they're just calling it "soft tissue" because it is the broken-down remnants of soft tissue. Only different by degrees.

I'm still hopeful that actual soft tissue will be found. Let's get Mark Armitage on the job, make him famous. Perhaps forum admin could pass the word to Bob Enyart, who can then speak to Armitage about doing what Barbarian said: "a series of solvent/paraffin treatments, to embed the material on paraffin, use a microtome to cut sections, clear it and stain it and take a look under a microscope. And then, if you see cells organized into tissue, you've got it."
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Ignoring the troll, the facts are that material has been found that 10 years ago was "completely impossible."

Sounds wrong, considering we had soft material from invertebrate fossils before that time.

Purely organic matter, however, and particularly such things as spores, are immune. They barely notice the immersion, except perhaps to enjoy their newfound freedom. Chitinozoans are similar. These are believed to be the eggs of some animal, perhaps related to an obscure group of worms called the gastrotrichs. Chitinozoans occur in their billions through the Ordovician to Carboniferous, and have been successfully extracted from significantly metamorphic rocks. For whatever reason, those eggs were meant to last. Slightly less robust, but still often abundantly preserved, are the jaws of polychaete worms, that we call scolecodonts. Again, something in their composition made them rather resilient to decay processes.

The most peculiar and apparently inexplicable example, however, are the graptolites. These are a very important group of fossils with respect to dating rocks, since they are extremely abundant, very widespread, and evolved rapidly in a recognisable sequence. In general the colonial skeletons, made of a series of tubes, are a few centimetres long (although some reached a meter or so), and they are usually preserved as organic carbon – either a shiny film or a thick black deposit. Sometimes they are found preserved in three dimensions, and can be extracted by dissolving limestones in weak acids. In the best examples, the skeletons can be sectioned and viewed with an electron microscope to yield details of how they were put together. And what do we find? Collagen. Although the huge molecules themselves are no longer pristine, they have a characteristic shape that is recognisable. Collagen was a surprising result. Skin is mostly collagen, and needless to say, it doesn’t generally fossilize. There are however different types of collagen, with different levels of robustness.

http://www.asoldasthehills.org/Fossil preservation.html

We were taught that fossils were always 100 percent rock.

Maybe you were. Did you think amber was "100 percent rock?"
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

No... God tells us birds were created before dinosaurs.
Gen. 1
God said... Let the skies be filled with birds ...So God created ....every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind....And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

*Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, ...*evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
No... God tells us birds were created before dinosaurs.
Gen. 1
God said... Let the skies be filled with birds ...So God created ....every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind....And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

*Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, ...*evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

Sorry, that is just incorrect
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
No.God devised scripture to tell us our history...our need of Him, and His plan of salvation.

The was He created life and the diversity of living things has nothing to do with your salvation. It's O.K., even if you're a creationist. You won't go to hell for not approving of the way He did it.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
The was He created life and the diversity of living things has nothing to do with your salvation. ..
Genesis 1 tell us how God created life and the diversity of living things. It tells us how he created birds on day 5 and the land animals on day 6.

But the important thing which happened on day 6 is that God created humans to have a relationship with Himself.

Genesis 2 and the following chapters, explain how that relationship has been broken. Those chapters set the foundation for the gospel....how Christ has made it possible for us to have a restored relationship with our Creator.*
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Genesis 1 tell us how God created life and the diversity of living things. It tells us how he created birds on day 5 and the land animals on day 6.

But the important thing which happened on day 6 is that God created humans to have a relationship with Himself.

Genesis 2 and the following chapters, explain how that relationship has been broken. Those chapters set the foundation for the gospel....how Christ has made it possible for us to have a restored relationship with our Creator.*
Interesting theology, although I think in the past I have been banned for my interpretation of your god's actions.

But relying on Genesis to explain the history and age of the universe, the earth and the living things in it is simply irrational in 2015.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Genesis 1 tell us how God created life and the diversity of living things. It tells us how he created birds on day 5 and the land animals on day 6.

No, it says He did. The details, we don't get in Genesis.

But the important thing which happened on day 6 is that God created humans to have a relationship with Himself.

I'm pleased you understand that much.
Genesis 2 and the following chapters, explain how that relationship has been broken. Those chapters set the foundation for the gospel....how Christ has made it possible for us to have a restored relationship with our Creator.*

How He made the first living things, and how they developed in to the diversity of things we see today, is of no consequence at all to our salvation. It it had been, He would have told us more about it.
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Genesis 1 tell us how God created life and the diversity of living things. It tells us how he created birds on day 5 and the land animals on day 6.
No, it says He did. The details, we don't get in Genesis.*
We DO get some detailsin the first couple chapters of Genesis. Here are some, but *not all of the details....

*Earth was created covered in water...not a hot molten blob.

*Earth was created before the stars..... not billions of years later.

*Light was created for before the sun and stars existed.

*Days with evening and morning existed before the sun.

*Man was created from the dust of the ground...not a descendant of any previous creature.

*Woman was created from the rib of a man....created as an equal partner, and not a less highly evolved creature.

*Birds created before land animals...not a descendant of them.*

*Animals were given every green plant for food.....not to rip other creatures apart while still alive.

*The great sea creatures were created on day 5.....they did not evolve from land creatures which where created the following day.

*Our universe was spoken into existence by a deliberate act.... not a quantum fluctuation.

*Our moon was placed at the appropriate distance from Earth....not the result of a giant astrroid colliding with earth.

*Death entered our world after man sinned.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
We DO get some detailsin the first couple chapters of Genesis. Here are some, but *not all of the details....

*Earth was created covered in water...not a hot molten blob.

*Earth was created before the stars..... not billions of years later.

*Light was created for before the sun and stars existed.

*Days with evening and morning existed before the sun.

*Man was created from the dust of the ground...not a descendant of any previous creature.

*Woman was created from the rib of a man....created as an equal partner, and not a less highly evolved creature.

*Birds created before land animals...not a descendant of them.*

*Animals were given every green plant for food.....not to rip other creatures apart while still alive.

*The great sea creatures were created on day 5.....they did not evolve from land creatures which where created the following day.

*Our universe was spoken into existence by a deliberate act.... not a quantum fluctuation.

*Our moon was placed at the appropriate distance from Earth....not the result of a giant astrroid colliding with earth.

*Death entered our world after man sinned.

Hard to decide which is the most inaccurate based on current understanding. Although if you are willing to base your understanding of the universe on a cobbled together reconstruction of 2000+ year old myth you would be satisfied. Most rational people are not.
 
Top