The Soft Tissue Issue

Your first thought might be it simply isn’t really made of ice cream and just resembles one, but after testing it, you confirm it truly is made of frozen dairy—so you continue to brainstorm. Perhaps there’s a camp with a freezer nearby, or maybe it fell out of a low-flying airplane?

You might even entertain the idea that someone has developed a drone with an onboard fridge that just deposited this tasty treat seconds before you arrived. However, the last thing you are likely to do is question whether you are actually in a desert or not.

Does all this sound a little funny to you?

The Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue

Well, I can remember just such a scenario playing out beginning in 2005 when Dr. Mary Schweitzer (a paleontologist from the USA) discovered soft tissue inside the femur of a Tyrannosaurus rex that was supposedly 70 million years old.1

The inside of the bone wasn’t completely filled up with minerals as is usual. And Dr. Schweitzer’s team (from Montana State University) used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present.

Using a pair of tweezers, she demonstrated on camera that the material inside the bone was actually soft and stretchy—completely un-fossilized—and then she reported that there were also the remains of blood and blood vessels still intact inside as well.

She has been quoted as saying that the blood vessels were flexible and that in some instances, you could “squeeze out their contents.”

She has been quoted as saying that the blood vessels were flexible and that in some instances, you could “squeeze out their contents.” Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.”2 Another portion of the tissue was described as “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape.” 3

On top of the many dragon legends from people groups worldwide and the copious amounts of petroglyphs (carvings and other artwork) indicating that people have seen dinosaurs throughout history, other than finding a human and dinosaur skeleton buried together—you could hardly think of more conclusive evidence of dinosaurs living recently rather than millions of years ago!

Schweitzer’s team had presented solid evidence this was indeed soft tissue inside a dinosaur, and a North Carolina State University article confirmed,

Colleagues at Harvard successfully sequenced the dinosaur protein that Schweitzer had extracted from the tissue, identifying the amino acids and confirming that the material from the T. rex was collagen. . . .

‘From a paleo standpoint, sequence data really is the nail in the coffin that confirms the preservation of these tissues,’ Schweitzer says.4

This bombshell report ignited a firestorm surrounding the creation/evolution debate, as biblical creationists like myself began eagerly presenting the pictures shown in Science magazine to audiences at our presentations, to help demonstrate that the facts we see in God’s world match the history we read in God’s Word in Genesis (which includes a young earth and no mention of the story of evolution).

Again, this was powerful evidence that the poster boys for evolution (dinosaurs) hadn’t died out millions of years ago, because there is simply no way soft tissue could survive that long, especially in an environment like Hell Creek in Montana (USA) where they were found.

She admitted as much in a Discovery Channel TV show discussing what her reaction was upon first observing what was inside the bone. “Out popped the blood vessels, and they were pretty incredible. And I said I don’t believe it, that’s not possible, we need to do it again. . . .” She also said, “When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.”5

It’s Biofilm!

Unsurprisingly, some evolutionists downright denied what Schweitzer said she’d discovered, so unlikely was her claim given the evolutionary timescale.

“I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”6

And behind this denial came the first proposal from Bible skeptics of why it mustn’t be what Schweitzer’s research showed it as; that what she’d found must be the result of some type of biofilm,7 simply some type of intrusive organic material that had made its way inside the petrified remains of the T. rex.

This dismissive explanation quickly got out into the atheistic community as a foil against those “misleading creationists” (despite her findings being in one of the most distinguished evolutionary journals on the planet—with peer-reviewed research behind her, no less). I can remember having several skeptics shout it out when I was doing presentations.

“That’s just biofilm! It’s not dinosaur soft tissue!” was the challenge, along with the usual accusations of false reporting, despite the fact I was quoting directly from Schweitzer’s article (she herself being an evolutionist) and showing the pictures published in it in their full and complete context.

This quickly raced around the internet as well and was the go-to comeback for evolutionists wanting to rain on the creationists’ parade of mind-blowing evidence that was in complete contradiction to the evolutionary story.

Soft Tissue 2.0

However, shortly thereafter, the biofilm brigade got permanently silenced, as Schweitzer’s team made an even more staggering discovery in 2009. This time they found soft tissue, blood, and proteins inside of a supposed 80-million-year-old hadrosaur (a duck billed dinosaur)!8

And to quell all doubts, due to the aggressive pushback she had received from her fellow evolutionists the first time (despite her reputation as a careful and experienced scientist), Schweitzer’s team was meticulous in their work, making sure to account for anything that could discredit her research.

The chief of the division of matrix biology at BIDMC, an independent lab used to verify the find reported,

Because I am a collagen biochemist, our lab was contacted to perform an independent analysis of this new bone find. . . . We isolated the proteins – collagen, laminin and elastin – from the bone, and also extracted bone cells and blood vessels from this sample. Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix.9

What Schweitzer’s team demonstrated was above reproach, her former evolutionary detractors’ minds were changed, and the “biofilm boys” quickly tucked their tails and ran—never to be seen at a creationist presentation again, despite the bravado they had previously shown.

The Dam Breaks

After this, the dam broke wide open. Just a year later, National Geographic had an article titled “Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside.”10 And by 2015, evolutionists were reporting on how an accidental discovery of blood and collagen in several dinosaur bones could “rewrite textbooks.” They further said, “It suggests that nearly every fossil science studied in the past century could contain similarly well-preserved blood and tissue samples. . . .”11

All this to say, soft tissues have been found in dinosaur or “dinosaur era” (according to the evolutionary timeline) creatures now well over 100 times. These have been found in many different types of organisms ranging from dinosaurs to mammals, birds, plants, reptiles, amphibians, clams, insects and other arthropods, sponges, and worm fossils.

Not only that, but they have also been found all over the world—from China to Mongolia to Russia, Madagascar, Europe, the UK, and all over North and South America. Which means they have been exposed to a wide variety of environmental conditions—cold, hot, wet, and dry.

And even further, they have been found throughout the fossil record, from the Cambrian to the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. And they’ve been found at all different levels—the oldest being a marine worm claimed to be 551 million years old!12

All of this is totally devastating to the entire evolutionary narrative because, according to a 2002 report in the science journal The Biochemist,13 “even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years,”14 let alone 65 million—and certainly not over half a billion like our wormy friend is supposed to be.

In a more recent 2011 article, it has been experimentally established that at 10°C (around 50°F) only 1% of the original collagen in a bone sample can survive for longer than 700,000 years in an optimal burial environment.15 But as mentioned, it’s a tad hotter than that in Hell Creek where Schweitzer’s soft tissue was recovered.

“These facts have been a thorn in their [the evolutionary community’s] side for several years now as they are incredibly difficult to explain within an evolutionary (millions of years) timeframe.”16

Dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs are said to have evolved into birds. Dinosaurs are an evolutionary icon, and their fossils are the stuff of legend in the atheistic, humanistic worldview that teaches materialism is absolute. So the discovery of soft tissue inside them is a kill shot for the idea of deep time—which is a requisite for the story of evolution—because everyone knows soft tissue breaks down very rapidly, certainly much faster than a million years. But without millions of years, evolution would be impossible. What to do then for the naturalist?

A Way Out?

Evolutionists recognize the soft tissue issue is a serious threat to their materialistic worldview because it defies known experimental decay rates, and they know that biblical creationists have been using it effectively to demonstrate the falsehood of the story of evolution. As one science journal noted,

Despite the consistency of these data, the endogeneity [dinosaur native proteins] of these sequences has been questioned and remains controversial. This is in part because of the ages of the specimens, which are well beyond the proposed theoretical limits for protein survival in bone. . . .17

So they are fighting back by claiming they have discovered several ways these soft tissues could have been preserved, with one article telling educators to explain them to students so they won’t be influenced against evolution.

These protective factors can result in soft-tissue preservation that lasts millions of years. It would benefit educators to be aware of these phenomena, in order to better advise students whose acceptance of biological evolution has been challenged by young-Earth creationist arguments that are based on soft tissues in dinosaur fossils.18

Indeed, “there has been a spate of popular-level articles claiming that Dr. Schweitzer [and others] may have found the answer”19 to the soft tissue issue. For example, Schweitzer has proposed “that iron might help preserve dinosaur soft tissue, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an antioxidant.”20 She’s tested this idea and published articles to summarize her new hypothesis.

Schweitzer’s latest research shows that the presence of hemoglobin – the iron-containing molecule that transports oxygen in red blood cells – may be the key to both preserving and concealing original ancient proteins within fossils.21

Another article explained further:

“The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.22

In a technical paper, Schweitzer claimed that “haemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C [77°F]). . . .”23

Questions

However, “even under moderate scrutiny, Schweitzer’s explanation quickly falls to pieces. In her new paper, she discusses experiments that appear totally unrepresentative of the conditions under which these dinosaur remains were actually preserved.”24 Here’s a description of what her team did.

They soaked one group of [ostrich] blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.25

But from “reading the supplementary material in her article it appears that pure hemoglobin was used, not lysed cells or materials that could be expected to mimic what would be present in an animal carcass. (Blood vessels soaked in laboratory-prepared hemoglobin is hardly representative of decomposing bones.)”26

“One might [should] also ask how realistic a concentrated hemoglobin extract is, compared to [what happens inside dead bodies we see in] the real world. While unrealistically concentrated hemoglobin might preserve for a time, it doesn’t follow that natural, dilute hemoglobin will act the same way. Indeed, [coroners, for example, observe that] tissues rich in blood vessels, such as lungs and gills, often decay very quickly.”27

“And the suggestion that blood vessels remaining ‘recognizable’ for two years somehow demonstrates that these could last thirty five million times as long requires a phenomenal cognitive leap”28—let alone a full 225 million times longer, which is what our amazingly decomposition-resistant marine worm would have required.

Furthermore, “it’s not plausible that iron could be as good a preservative as formaldehyde, which directly forms covalent cross-links between protein chains, something iron can’t do. But even if we granted it had the same preservative power (just for the sake of the discussion), what reason is there for anyone to expect that formaldehyde could preserve soft tissues . . . for millions of years?”29

Embalmers of human bodies widely acknowledge that their use of formaldehyde is to slow down, not prevent, the relentless process of decomposition.”30 And what is our best example of how well that works?

Well, in a Scientific American article discussing the preservation of the not yet 100-year-old body of Vladimir Lenin, the communist revolutionary and founder of the Soviet Union, they mentioned the following:

A core group of five to six anatomists, biochemists and surgeons, known as the “Mausoleum group,” have primary responsibility for maintaining Lenin’s remains. . . .

The Russian methods focus on preserving the body’s physical form—its look, shape, weight, color, limb flexibility and suppleness—but not necessarily its original biological matter. . . .

The body gets reembalmed once every other year; a process that involves submerging the body in separate solutions. . . . Each session takes about one and a half months.31

DNA and proteins will eventually succumb to ordinary chemistry, especially reactions with water, which several of the soft tissue finds were undoubtedly exposed to.

So, if it takes a team of dedicated experts to constantly try to slow the degradation of Lenin’s corpse, it’s obvious that chemical decomposition will relentlessly occur in soft tissues, regardless of whatever special factors (natural or man-made) might be helping to preserve them. “Over millions of years, even [if there were somehow] the lack of enzymatic and bacterial degradation makes no difference. DNA and proteins will eventually succumb to ordinary chemistry, especially reactions with water,”32 which several of the soft tissue finds were undoubtedly exposed to. And evolutionists have likewise admitted this.

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.33

So, Schweitzer’s mechanism holds that iron atoms help cross-link biochemicals—including proteins—making them larger, tougher molecules. And there’s also a newer idea that holds that the same kinds of reactions that transform sugars and lipids into bread crust in an oven also occurred in some fossils and so may account for this miraculous preservation of soft tissues for up to half a billion years. These Maillard reactions happen when proteins react with sugars to form dark-colored polymers. It’s what makes bread crusts and puts the outer crust on French fries; hence, its moniker, the toast model.

However, neither the iron nor the toast model directly preserves the original biochemistry. They instead transform it into biomaterials that would preserve merely the original shape, like formaldehyde and other solutions do to Lenin’s body, for example.

So, both mechanisms don’t actually account for much of what they are actually finding inside these supposed millions-of-years-old creatures—this original soft tissue that hasn’t been transformed into tougher biomaterial. Their solution?

Well, some now propose that perhaps these two models somehow worked together to create some kind of shielding effect that preserved the original (non-cross-linked, non-toasted material) soft tissue.

However, the Maillard effect happens between 280 and 330°F, which, granted, are temperatures that some fossils may have reached while buried deep beneath the earth. But what happens if you don’t take the bread out of the oven in time, so to speak?

Every baker works with a timer of some kind, and on average, it takes less than 35 minutes to bake a loaf of bread and get that nice, crusty outer layer. But what if we left it in the oven on and off over 65 million years?

And what would happen to a pot roast (analogously, the iron-soaked material) we left in there with the bread? Even a roast that had been soaked in formaldehyde? Remember that Schweitzer’s iron-soaked material was left out at room temperature. And what about the soft tissues still there that aren’t iron-soaked or “toasted”?

Are you seeing the utter ridiculousness of these “scientific” proposals about what could somehow preserve these soft tissues?

The Experts Know Best

However, to the general public, “the power in this argument is its seeming simplicity. The ‘average Joe’ might think; ‘Oh, I get it, iron acts as a preserving agent like formaldehyde, the stuff scientists use to embalm things. It’s like those animals preserved in jars I’ve seen in laboratories. So the iron in the dinosaur’s blood must have preserved the organic material. And scientists know what they are talking about much better than I do so dinosaur soft tissue makes sense to me.’”34

It’s strategic. Just like the evolutionist I quoted earlier who warned educators to let students “know” how soft tissue preservation happened—despite not having a lick of long-term observational experimentation—by announcing, “We already have the answer.”

This is how evolutionists try to lessen the impact of the argument. “From now on ‘Joe’ will likely not be surprised if he is presented with teh facts of dinosaur soft tissue found in fossils, thinking evolutionary scientists have already explained this”35—even if they don’t have a realistic understanding of how tenuous their proposals are.

The takeaway is that, obviously, the creationists are crazy to think dinosaurs died out recently, because, you know—science!

Chemical Decomposition Rates Don’t Allow for Tens of Millions of Years

However, “take a laboratory-prepared specimen, place it in a jar full of formaldehyde . . . then stick it in the ground encased in rock—and just for good measure, keep the surrounds permanently frozen at 0°C. It would still be subject to thermodynamic breakdown of such complex, fragile molecules.”36

“Atoms and molecules in a compound are always in motion, even at such freezing temperatures. For any scientists to have said prior to the Schweitzer discoveries that they would have expected blood vessels, delicate cell structures, DNA and proteins after 70 million years from such an experiment would have been inviting derision at best, psychiatric scrutiny at worst.”37

“There are very good scientific reasons behind Schweitzer’s earlier (2010) comment”38: “When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.”

A Help to Biblical Creationists

“So what has Dr Schweitzer [and others] shown with her more recent ‘iron’ observations? She’s demonstrated that the iron in red blood cells apparently has some qualities that could well contribute to soft tissue preservation, at least if it is artificially concentrated.”39 And there may be some legitimacy in some of the other models proposed as well.

But “far from being a threat to biblical creationists, this may well be a plus, in that it might help explain how such fragile things [biomolecules] could possibly last for”40 the approximately 4,400 years since Noah’s flood—because seeing proteins and even cell microstructures after so long is still surprising. But again, it isn’t as surprising as believing they could last for over half a billion years!

The Bottom Line?

“Perhaps the most important lesson in all this is the power of the paradigm.”41 Metaphorically, evolutionists find themselves strolling through a desert surrounded by freezing cold ice cream cones popping up everywhere as far as the eye can see. But trying to get them to admit they aren’t actually in a desert goes against everything their worldview is based on—i.e., the ideology of millions of years.

Indeed, “in the face of today’s widespread secular religion, [admitting that the earth isn’t very old] would have the ideological impact of a nuclear warhead.”42 The story of evolution desperately needs millions of years. In the face of this evidence, they continue to clutch at straws to explain it, no matter how ridiculous the proposals are.43

What we see in God’s world matches what we see in his Word.

“Needless to say, they [soft tissue found all over the world in fossils at all levels] fit beautifully within a biblical (young earth) timescale”44 because the facts fit perfectly with a worldwide event that essentially simultaneously (within a year) buried billions of creatures together rapidly and completely just a short while ago.

These soft tissue finds are “the remains of creatures that were buried during the Genesis flood, approximately 4,400 years ago,”45 showing once again that what we see in God’s world matches what we see in his Word.