How does found dinosaur tissue effect evolution and creationism? (Earth)

[Tiberius]

Evolution is easy to disprove. Bunnies in the precambrian would do it quite nicely.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by Papersock

I'm talking about the tissue found in the femur bone of a T-rex that still has some of it's elasticity and pigmentation.
I haven't given it much thought, really. I think it's pretty cool. But apparently it has caused quite a stir among some creationists hoping to disprove evolution.

So what does this mean for evolution and creationism?

It seems to me that the only thing this brings into question is how things are fossilized or preserved.

This really happened?!

AWESOME!

[Captain Civic]

How long does fossilation keep blood cells?

[3.14]

i see it now + 50 feet dinosaurs

[logician]

Originally Posted by Papersock

I'm talking about the tissue found in the femur bone of a T-rex that still has some of it's elasticity and pigmentation.
I haven't given it much thought, really. I think it's pretty cool. But apparently it has caused quite a stir among some creationists hoping to disprove evolution.

So what does this mean for evolution and creationism?

It seems to me that the only thing this brings into question is how things are fossilized or preserved.

It does nothing to change evolution, (a science), or creationism (a hoax).

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

How long does fossilation keep blood cells?

This appears to be a bigger problem for theories on fossilization than for evolution.

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside

[Alex_G]

Evolution is already proven. The fact that animals evolve is irrefutable. The best theory for the process of evolution is natural selection, which itself has heaps of evident to back it up.
Creaionism? No evidence at all. It annoys me slightly when creationism and evolution are put on a par with each other.

[painted wolf]

How long does fossilation keep blood cells?

ok, once again. It didn't keep the blood cells... it kept the structure of the blood cells. The blood cells were mineralized just like the 'soft tissue' was. (not to mention that they were long ruptured due to decay)

The important part of this find was that you could see the structure of the cells... this was a first for paleontology.

Again most of the flexibility was only regained by heavy treatment in chemical (acid) baths. It isn't like they found a meaty bone, they found a rock that still had trace amounts of organic materials.
Seeing as organic materials = carbon and iron, that shouldn't come as such an intense surprise.

And yes, as camanitx pointed out this find does more to change our view of how organic minerals are replaced by inorganic minerals during fossilization. Organic minerals are more resilient than previously thought.

wa:do

[Papersock]

Thanks Painted Wolf. Your posts are very informative.
Do you know of any sites that explain what you are saying?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

It's not possible to disprove evolution. There's no experiment or observation (or set of such) that could show that evolution is false.

That is a remarkably ignorant statement.