Is Mark Armitage’s soft dinosaur tissue work a replication of Mary Schweitzer’s? If so…?
|September 15, 2017||Posted by News under Cell biology, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design|
Re two recent flaps around the possible discovery of soft dinosaur tissue, Senior Scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute Tim Standish writes from Loma Linda U to offer a perspective on YEC Mark Armitage’s find vs. Mary Schweitzer’s find:
It isn’t replication, but it is strong verification. There are lots of other peer reviewed papers out there ranging from halophilic bacteria being resurrected from the dead in samples that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old to more recent finds, all point to the unexpected presence of biological samples that are supposed to be millions of years old. From my perspective, this is one of those things that needs very careful explaining if the current understanding of dating and chemistry are going to stand. The alternative is that we have something wrong.
Hmmm, yes. We might indeed have something wrong. But what? When a stuffy little In group closes ranks and begins acting suspiciously (cf the Armitage firing and settlement), it often turns out that their overstuffed skeleton closet is about to burst, bones flying every which way and into the street…
So what they need, obviously, is a roomier closet. And a media relations program for Fixing those who ask, whose bones are these, exactly, and how did they come to be here?
As noted earlier, the In group doubtless fears giving young Earth creationism ammunition. But they might also be suppressing a sheetstorm of other issues, of broader interest. Only one way to start finding out: Quit treating their word as the authoritative Voice in the matter and start gathering evidence elsewhere.
See also: Is there some reason that paleontologists do NOT want soft dinosaur tissue?
Dinosaur found with preserved skin
Dinosaur found with preserved tail feathers, skin