Recent Hype Over Dinosaur Soft Tissue
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Dinosaur soft tissue and organic material is popping up so often these days that paleontologists are desperately seeking a way to explain its presence. It needs an explanation because all dinosaur fossils are supposed to be millions of years old, based on the false theory of evolution. How could organic materials like amino acids or proteins, have withstood tens-of-millions of years of decay? Of course, the reasonable answer to that question is simply that they could not have. The millions of years supposed to have intervened between the dinosaurs’ deaths and our unearthing of their remains has been grotesquely exaggerated, and we need to rethink and rewrite most of what has been published by the scientific community on the topic for the last 100 years. It is not likely, however, that you will hear or read such a straightforward, honest answer from the paleontological community. Instead, we are treated to the outlandish idea that, although we do not have the faintest idea how such could be the case, dinosaur soft tissue has been preserved for vast eons of millions of years.
As a case in point, Philip Manning, paleontologist from Britain’s University of Manchester, led an excavation team that uncovered a duckbilled dinosaur about the size of a hippo (Dell’Amore, 2009). The noteworthy characteristic of the find was the fact that its skin had only partly fossilized, and amino acids were still present. Christine Dell’Amore, writing for National Geographic On-line news, said that scientists “know” that the dinosaur was probably buried rapidly in a low-oxygen environment (2009). She also noted that “protein-recovery techniques used on the skin and a claw detected amino acids, the building blocks of proteins” (2009). Although no actual proteins were found, the remarkable fact that amino acids remained caused the paleontological world to pay attention to this noteworthy find.
In a BBC article titled “Dinosaur Mummy Yields Its Secrets,” Jason Palmer reported that the fossil “still retains some of the organic matter of the original dinosaur, mixed in with minerals” (2009). Much was made over the fact that the skin exhibited dual layers, like the skin of “modern-day crocodiles and birds” (emp. added). [The bird reference is thrown in to link dinosaurs with birds based on the modern scientific community’s false assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds.] Words that one researcher used to describe the find were “absolutely amazing,” and “absolutely gobsmacking.” Derek Briggs, paleontologist at Yale University, attempted to down play the outrageousness of the idea that soft tissue could last millions of years. He stated: “This kind of discovery just demonstrates very clearly that soft tissue does survive, that the processes involved are unusual but not absolutely extraordinary—so there’s no reason why this kind of material won’t be discovered again” (Palmer, 2009).
Derek Briggs is correct. This kind of discovery does demonstrate that soft tissue is preserved in dinosaur remains. He is also right to suggest that more such finds are on their way. He and the rest of the evolutionary world are wrong, however, to conclude that soft tissue could last for tens-of-millions of years. There is no known mechanism by which soft tissue could stand the ravages of such vast ages. In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of everything we know experimentally about soft tissue. But that is just the point. Evolution, positing millions of years of chance processes causing endless mutations and selections, has never been verified experimentally. In truth, the experimental facts unite to amass a formidable legion of facts that militates against the unscientific idea. When a researcher uncovers soft tissue and exclaims that he is surprised that it could last millions of years, instead of expressing even the remotest possibility that his dating methods are flawed, it becomes obvious that data simply do not matter in the formation or the maintenance of his theory.
Dell’Amore, Christine (2009), “‘Dinosaur Mummy’ Has Skin Like Birds’ and Crocodiles’,” National Geographic News, [On-line], URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090630-dinosaur-mummy-skin.html.
Palmer, Jason (2009), “Dinosaur Mummy Yields Its Secrets,” BBC News, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8124098.stm.