T-rex Soft Tissue

ent discovery of soft tissue inside a fossilized T-rexthe dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. I would not
femur has the young earth creationist world buzzing.expect a young earth theorist to recognize the
They claim this startling evidence clearly supports asignificance of this fact, since they believe the Flood
young earth. However, as usual, young earth creationdeposited all of these rock formation. However, it is
science is “grasping at straws” while ignoring theclear from stratigraphy that dinosaurs were not all
whole haystack (for links to the Answers in Genesiskilled by Noah's Flood. To learn more, read
article, see below). Even more interesting is whatStunning Omissions
Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, asWhat is even more stunning is that Wieland ignores
they "pick and choose," as is their style, only thoseover half the article, which compares pictures and
portions that supports their position.data from the T-rex to pictures and data from a
The young earth author calls this a "stunning rebuttalfossilized Ostrich. The similarities are stunning. More
of millions of years." Nothing could be further fromthan anything, this one fossil of T-rex lends support
the truth. Instead of focusing only on the soft tissueto the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
alone (the "straw"), let's examine the whole picture.In response to this omission, three days later (28
ExpectationsMarch 05) Answers in Genesis published another
First, some expectations. If we were to find somearticle addressing the Ostrich comparisons (see below
soft tissue of dinosaurs, where is the most likelyfor link). The new author (Dr. David Menton) says this
place to find it? The answer is obvious...in the mostis not the first time that soft tissue has been found,
recent fossils. The T-rex was one of the last of theand he provides a link back to the already disproven
dinosaurs, living in the last five million years ofAiG report on T-rex blood cells. Dr. Menton appears
dinosaur existence, from 70-65 million years ago.to bring up some valid arguments about Dr.
Second expectation...what body part would weSchweitzer's article, mainly that the comparisons of
expect to contain the soft tissue? Here again, thethe structures of the T-Rex and Ostrich would be
answer is obvious. The soft tissue stands the bestcommon to most amphibians, reptiles, birds, or
chance of being preserved in a large bone, such asmammals. The assumption made by Dr. Menton is
the femur of the T-rex. The larger the bone, thethat there is an unstated conclusion that dinosaurs
more "insulation" the soft tissue has from outsideevolved into birds, and thus he is attempting to
elements. The original source report for this article,discredit the similarities between the ostrich and
which came from Science magazine, gives severalT-Rex. However, Dr. Schweitzer does not mention
key phrases, such as the "dense compact boneevolution at all in her article. She is merely showing
typical of therapods," and "dense mineralization ofsimilar features between two organisms, which were
dinosaur bone." A large bone such as a therapodobtained in similar procedures when applied to two
femur would be the most likely source of soft tissue,different creatures.
as the larger bone provides an opportunity for theDr. Schweitzer may be using the comparison for
outer bone to be sealed by mineralization, entombingproof of dinosaur to bird evolution, but it is more
the inner contents and protecting them from thelikely that she is merely showing a modern example,
elements.for the sake of clarity of understanding. Dr. Menton
Third expectation...if the earth was young, then weadmits that he sees an unstated conclusion that "this
would expect most, if not all large dinosaur fossils tosimilarity in microscopic structure proves that
show evidences of soft tissue...after all, according todinosaurs and birds are closely related through
young earth theory, large dinosaurs from 200 millionevolution." Nowhere does Dr. Schweitzer make this
years ago died at the same time T-rex did, duringclaim.
the flood of Noah. Thus, you should expect all largeIn the end, the layman reading these articles must
dinosaur bones to be possible sources for soft tissue.decide which scientist to believe. Since Dr. Schweitzer
However, this is not the case. With this fossil, wehas no religious motivations for proving a young or
have one sample of soft tissue, out of millions ofold earth, hers is the more objective, or fair and
dinosaur bones that have been collected. Thus, thisbalanced approach, and in this case is a more reliable
young earth "expectation" is completely unfounded.scientific source than Dr. Menton (see
StratigraphyConclusion
Young earth creation science "expert" Carl WielandThe find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a
ignores the stratigraphic location of the fossil.young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact
According to the Science Magazine article, it wasthat we should find much more soft tissue in all large
located "at the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even
m above the Fox Hills Sandstone." The Hell Creekbetter! Neither article presents convincing information
Formation is Late Cretaceous in age, and actuallythat supports their cause.
crosses the K/T boundary, the extinction point of