Are Red Blood Cells found in T-Rex Bone a Threat to Evolution?

Question

Recently scientists dissected a T-Rex bone and found soft tissues and even what seems to be red blood cells (see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7195). What are the implications of this? Can such things last 65 million years, honestly and realistically speaking? Does it call the "millions of years" idea into question? Why or why not?

Please note that your answers should address the issue of whether soft tissue and/or red blood cells can still remain in a dead organism AFTER 65 million years. I repeat it is 65 MILLION YEARS, which is a very very long time. How long does it take to turn something into a fossil, bearing in mind that it needs to be rapidly covered or buried to be preserved as a fossil? Also, if the right conditions are necessary for fossilization, then how can the "perfect" conditions fail to fully fossilize the T-Rex bone to ensure that everything is fossilized?

To William. Thanks for answering. Yes, I am a young-earth creationist, and so? What has my belief in a young earth got to do with the discovery of red blood cells in a T-Rex bone? They either found red blood cells or did not. End of argument. We have the same facts. You said that Carl Wieland was twisting the facts. You are wrong. Perhaps you should update yourself on this issue because the article from talkorigins is clearly outdated! May I direct you to this link http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php and see for yourself what the admission is. You will find that Mary said CLEARLY that those were red blood cells. Again that's the end of the argument as to what she found. Though Mary takes a swipe at YEC and accuses them of twisting her words she NEVER said what was being twisted. YEC never said that Mary was a believer in a young earth or that she is questioning evolution, at least not that I know of. Or do you have other information to add?

Hi Don, your statement "Contrary to your assertion that soft tissue can not last for so long - if we find it that way then it must - and science will discover the reason" is not dealing with the issue I raised. Yes, the facts are that the soft tissue and blood cells are there. Question is, what is the reason for it being there after supposedly 65 million years? Fact is such red cells or soft tissue CANNOT last thousands of years, not to say millions of years! So how do you reconcile this fact with the "fact" of evolution that requires millions of years?

Answer 1

I believe it does call millions of years into question, but you must remember the vast majority of scientists have had evolution shoved down their throats to the point where they believe everything that they find must be somehow related to evolution.
Evolution is to the point where, rather than still being tested by using scientific method, people simply assume it is truth.
None of the proof for evolution is one hundred percent certain, no matter what is taught, and everything should be tested.
(BTW, I'm not arguing about adaptation, inheritance, or genetics. We can preform experiments and observe these.)

The soft tissues can't prove either theory and a biased Christian will see them one way whereas a biased evolutionist will see them the other.

Answer 2

The nature of your question, especially your emphasise on the "65 millions years", suggest that you are a Yong Earth Creationist who believed that the Earth is around 6000 years old. To those less informed, YEC believes that the earth is young and that man walked the land and co-existed with dinosaurus.

The discovery you were talking about is most probably about Mary Schweitzer's discovery of the T-Rex.

Let's read the first paragraph of the link you provided:

"Palaeontologists have extracted soft, flexible structures that appear to be blood vessels from the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago. They also have found small red microstructures that resemble red blood cells."

Note the the word is "APPEARED" and "RESEMBLED". Pretty much a leap of logic and faith to claim that it is fresh red blood cells when it is not.

This particular red blood cell arguement is agressively promoted by Dr Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis Ministry, Australia. The amount of misinformation provided is astounding to say the least.

Neutrals can read more on the article here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

Lately, Mary learns that these "soft, flexible structures" inside the fossil is really a medullery bone, a part of a bone found in large ground dwelling birds like ostriches and emus that is part of the female reproductive system. So much for the controversy.

Answer 3

Evolutionist are burying their heads in the sand on this one. They are doing whatever it takes to keep from looking at the evidence. Following good scientific principles would require that they consider all possibilities. But, they are not even considering the possibility that they could be wrong about the age of these dinosaurs. So they are violating their own principles. That is bad science. They had already determined that soft tissue could last only 100,000 yrs at the most. And that # was padded to make sure they could never be wrong. OOPS. An interesting aspect of this is that it is common practice to date bones based not on testing the bones but by testing the surrounding ground. Why is this important? Because the have also tested lava flows from 1954 and the testing results showed the they were 5 billion years old. From 52 years to 5 billion years. Just a little off, wouldn't you say.

Answer 4

Almost every scientific discovery is a threat to the theory of evolution.

EDIT

There is physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists have found T.rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones were really millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.

There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil records either. If evolution did take place there would be evidence in the form of steps between each species of animal or from animal to human.

Mutations in the genetic code are responsible for any alteration to the organism. Mutations, however, are negative changes. These errors in the code are pushing us back not advancing us. The genetic code is deteriorating over time not improving. For evolution to have happened, genes would need to somehow "accidentally know" (cant say intelligently) how to improve upon the current designs and know how to change itself to make itself better. Such advanced coding could never accidentally happen in the first place. But the fact that genetic mutations are errors and not adaptations shows that life is not progressing but degressing.

Also, scientists have been researching mitochondria in human cells. The information in mitochondria is passed down from the female. Recent discoveries have shown that all people are linked to ONE common female ancestor. (sounds like Eve)




And if anyone really is interested in finding answers, supported by scientific findings, when it comes to the truths of evolution and the church of Darwinism...go to

answersingenesis.org

and look in the DVD section. There are some really great movies there. Whether you want to hear about radioisotopes, dinosaurs and the flood, evolution, how light travels, or how the earth is thousands not millions of years old...just go there.

Answer 5

I couldn't use the link you provided. So might not have the best answer for you.

Modern synthesis is not based on fossils alone. You would have to alot of other things wrong before the theory is threatned.

Finding a living cell that old would be great for evolution. Genetic scientist could learn alot that would further the theory(and other scientfic theories).

I do not see what sircumstances would allow a cell to be alive for 65 million years. A dead cell on the other hand is not impossible, simply rare. We have found dead cells in many creatures that are from millions of years ago.

I do not see how that finding could hinder Modern Synthesis in any way.

Answer 6

You must not what evolution is. That's like asking if airplanes are a threat to gravity. There is a lot more than dinosaurs that tell us how old the planet is anyway. You should take a basic science class so that you can gain an understanding of reality.

edit: My airplanes example wasn't good. I should have said that's like asking if telephones are a threat to gravity.

ConservativeGuy: Do you have some examples?

Answer 7

Everyone has red blood cells, my cats do and my dogs did. Just about everything has red blood cells, except bugs and planets. Evolution is a mutantion in the genes, a jump in many ways.

Answer 8

the only threat (if you can call it that) is that scientist will have to rewrite their books and say that the dinosaurs were warm blooded instead of cold blooded reptiles. Also along that line they have come to realize that contrary to earlier beliefs dinosaurs did walk on two legs(at least some of them did).

Answer 9

As more data is found we will understand more clearly. It may take time and the theory may change with more data. You can be sure of one thing, there is a very low probability that the universe was made in six days.

Answer 10

i don't think so, when a mutation or adaptation comes along that is incredibly well suited for something (distributing oxygen for example) it wouldn't be changed by external pressures. amino acids for example have lasted billions of years practically unchanged. change only occurs when another adaptation is better suited to a certain environment and allows an animal a better chance to pass on its genes.