Soft tissue recovered from an early Cretaceous dinosaur – test of evolution theories?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Soft tissue recovered from an early Cretaceous dinosaur

What if many are indistinguishable from modern lizards? Would that be like fossil rabbits in the Cambrian?

Johan Lindgren et al explain the process in “Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins”:

The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation and occasionally labile and decay-prone tissues, such as skin and melanosomes (color-bearing organelles), are preserved as phosphatized remains or organic residues with a high degree of morphological fidelity [1], [2]. Yet, whether multimillion-year-old fossils harbor original organic components remains controversial [3], [4], and, if they do, a positive identification of these biomolecules is required.

[ … ]

Here, we present the results from a broad array of biochemical and molecular analyses of fibrous bone tissues isolated from an exceptionally preserved 70 Ma mosasaur (a Cretaceous marine lizard [7]) humerus (IRSNB 1624; Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique) referred to the genus Prognathodon from the early Maastrichtian Ciply Phosphatic Chalk of Belgium. Specifically, we employ synchrotron radiation-based infrared microspectroscopy (IR) because this technique provides information on complex organic molecules in selected microstructures [8], [9].

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

It seems to me that soft tissue recovered from an early Cretaceous dinosaur is a direct challange to current fossil dating. A fossil which has preserved some of its soft tissue should not be just presumed to be 100 million years old, unless someone has a really good explanation for it.George R._{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

SCheeseman said: "(ID predicts).. that the differences between dinosaurs and present-day reptiles are more of form (and size!) than substance, with the basic systems and biology little changed" I dont think this is a valid prediction for ID- its something we've already observed to be the case. If anything, ID 'predicts' the opposite and this has been viewed as evidence against creationism for over a century. If God ( or the IDer) created living things seperately then there is no reason for organisms that are very different to have underlying similarity. Of course, God could do it that way if he wanted, but he could also do it a multitude of other ways- what a coincidence that the way he chooses is always the way consistent with evolution, which occurs under severe constraints that God doesnt have. So back to dinos, we already know they have almost identical tissues to birds, and we can predict that mososaurs will be similar to lizards, but we'd know that without direct evidence from looking at the living things around us. The rabbits in the cambrian comment comes from a debate/disscusion many decades ago. A biologist ( i dont remember who) was asked what evidence would invalidate evolution and he replied "a fossil rabbit in the cambrian" He was wrong. It wouldnt invalidate evolution because it wouldnt address the overwhelming positive evidence for it. If we were absolutely sure the fossil was valid what it would prove is that one day people will invent time machinesRodW_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Well, as evolutionary theory holds that at at least one cambrian critter was the ancestor of the modern rabbit (indeed a common ancestor all mammals) then we would certainly expect to see some similarities.
How in the good name of logic and reason does one follow from the other?Mung_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

...with evolution becoming more the unfolding of pre-existing information... Was that not, more or less, the original definition of evolution?Mung_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

SCheesman: That's interesting - sounds like we might even have two differential predictions, one from each theory! Ideal. :) So let's pursue this:
I would say, on the surface, not much. On a deeper level however, there is a growing realization that all the “building blocks” of evolution were present early on, with evolution becoming more the unfolding of pre-existing information, than the development of new things.
hmmm. Are you assuming common descent here? In which case, presumably you would have to posit that all genomes contain (or contained) in at least dormant form, every gene and every allele of that gene ever found in any descendent?
The presence of complex structures such as eyes in trilobites is a good example.
Not quite sure why. Could you explain?
What the investigation of soft tissue from dinosaurs is likely to reveal (at least in the expectation of ID sympathizers) is that the differences between dinosaurs and present-day reptiles are more of form (and size!) than substance, with the basic systems and biology little changed.
So what, specifically, would you predict that the soft tissue would show? As I understand it, there is protein, but what do you think that Darwinian theory would predict about that protein, and what ID?
That is where the reference to the cambrian rabbit has relevance; if we should ever recover soft-tissue samples from many of the cambrian-era phyla, then would it reveal that in fact there is much less “distance” between such creatures and a modern-day rabbit?
Well, as evolutionary theory holds that at at least one cambrian critter was the ancestor of the modern rabbit (indeed a common ancestor all mammals) then we would certainly expect to see some similarities. But then we already see them - they would have been the first vertebrates, slightly fishy looking things, certainly more fish like than rabbit like (no limbs, for instance) which is, of course, why a rabbit fossil would throw the most enormous spanner in the works - a creature with features that didn't appear anywhere else in the fossil record until hundreds of millions of years later. What else do you think Cambrian vertebrates might show, andwhat would ID predict in terms of similarity that Darwinian evolution wouldn't?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle
Why would it be like fossil rabbits in the Cambrian?
I would say, on the surface, not much. On a deeper level however, there is a growing realization that all the "building blocks" of evolution were present early on, with evolution becoming more the unfolding of pre-existing information, than the development of new things. The presence of complex structures such as eyes in trilobites is a good example. What the investigation of soft tissue from dinosaurs is likely to reveal (at least in the expectation of ID sympathizers) is that the differences between dinosaurs and present-day reptiles are more of form (and size!) than substance, with the basic systems and biology little changed. That is where the reference to the cambrian rabbit has relevance; if we should ever recover soft-tissue samples from many of the cambrian-era phyla, then would it reveal that in fact there is much less "distance" between such creatures and a modern-day rabbit?SCheesman_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

This should settle the question of whether birds evolved from dinosaurs once and for all.Mung_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

What if many are indistinguishable from modern lizards? Would that be like fossil rabbits in the Cambrian?
Why would it be like fossil rabbits in the Cambrian?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Did someone say like fossil rabbits in the Cambrian? I am sure Mike Gene is smiling...Joseph_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply