Which is more likely? Dead blood cells with squishy tissue are millions of years old or not?

[whirlingmerc]

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

 

[Left Coast]

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones?
Is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

or maybe someone should write a SIFI story where dino dan is put in humans to give them X men like powers?

I notice you post a lot of science and evolution-related OPs. Have you ever asked a scientist in a relevant field these questions? A paleontologist would be a perfect person to ask the question in your OP. Have you ever tried? Maybe audit a class at a local college? If you are serious about getting answers to your questions that's where you should go, not post on a religion forum for laypeople.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I notice you post a lot of science and evolution-related OPs. Have you ever asked a scientist in a relevant field these questions? A paleontologist would be a perfect person to ask the question in your OP. Have you ever tried? Maybe audit a class at a local college? If you are serious about getting answers to your questions that's where you should go, not post on a religion forum for laypeople.

Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?

 

[Left Coast]

Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?

Hmmm....so you're fine with asking a layperson with no formal training in paleontology that question? Ever planning to ask a professional?

 

[sooda]

Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?

How much education do you have?

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

Nothing there that I could see about blood cells being found. All they found was collagen and proteins and calling that "soft tissue" has always been a little bit of a stretch.

"Researchers discovered ancient collagen and protein remains preserved in the ribs of a dinosaur that walked the Earth 195 million years ago."

In fact they said that they did not find blood cells, they found:

"Hematite samples, represented by dark red dots, were also found in the vascular canals. Hematite is a mineral that can be derived from iron-rich hemoglobin, the protein molecule in red blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to tissues."

In case you were wondering hematite is a very simple molecule. Its formula is Fe2O3. Blood cells are just a tinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny bit more complex than that.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nothing there that I could see about blood cells being found. All they found was collagen and proteins and calling that "soft tissue" has always been a little bit of a stretch.

"Researchers discovered ancient collagen and protein remains preserved in the ribs of a dinosaur that walked the Earth 195 million years ago."

In fact they said that they did not find blood cells, they found:

"Hematite samples, represented by dark red dots, were also found in the vascular canals. Hematite is a mineral that can be derived from iron-rich hemoglobin, the protein molecule in red blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to tissues."

In case you were wondering hematite is a very simple molecule. Its formula is Fe2O3. Blood cells are just a tinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny bit more complex than that.

tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me
and 0.2 billion years old?

Sounds mighty old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me
and 0.2 billion years old?

Sounds mighty old.
View attachment 30102

The tiny red dots appear to be the hematite. That cells would leave behind a chemical trace is not unreasonable. They are not cells. And the preservation of collagen has been explained.


You should be trying to learn how we know that fossils of this sort are many millions of years old instead of reflexively grasping at straws.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The tiny red dots appear to be the hematite. That cells would leave behind a chemical trace is not unreasonable. They are not cells. And the preservation of collagen has been explained.


You should be trying to learn how we know that fossils of this sort are many millions of years old instead of reflexively grasping at straws.

Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.

 

[SomeRandom]

Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.

I don’t know. The site provided by sooda seemed to explain it relatively well. And I’m pretty ignorant of paleontology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some might say trying to claim soft tissue is 0.2 billion years old is grasping at straws.

Only the terribly ignorant would make such a claim. Once again, you should try to learn how we know those dates.

 

[sayak83]

View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

A soft tissue can survive 5 trillion years as well. Soft has nothing to do with longevity when the encased rock is liquid tight.The question is whether the encased rock is of the right composition/structure to preserve liquid remains...which it always is whenever these soft tissues are found.
As our technology improves, we would be able to extract chemical biomolecules from even the oldest of rocks (4 billion years old) including may be fully preserved cells (hopefully). It just a question of carefully looking and delicate extraction methods. Maybe even resuscitation of billion-year-old microscopic lifeforms may become possible.

 

[SomeRandom]

A soft tissue can survive 5 trillion years as well. Soft has nothing to do with longevity when the encased rock is liquid tight.The question is whether the encased rock is of the right composition/structure to preserve liquid remains...which it always is whenever these soft tissues are found.
As our technology improves, we would be able to extract chemical biomolecules from even the oldest of rocks (4 billion years old) including may be fully preserved cells (hopefully). It just a question of carefully looking and delicate extraction methods. Maybe even resuscitation of billion-year-old microscopic lifeforms may become possible.

Whoah!
It’s so awesome to see how improvements to technology expand our scientific knowledge.

 

[sayak83]

Whoah!
It’s so awesome to see how improvements to technology expand our scientific knowledge.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-toast-proteins-dinosaur-bones.html

We took on the challenge of understanding protein fossilization," said Yale paleontologist Jasmina Wiemann, the study's lead author. "We tested 35 samples of fossil bones, eggshells, and teeth to learn whether they preserve proteinaceous soft tissues, find out their chemical composition, and determine under what conditions they were able to survive for millions of years."

The researchers discovered that soft tissues are preserved in samples from oxidative environments such as sandstones and shallow, marine limestones. The soft tissues were transformed into Advanced Glycoxidation and Lipoxidation end products (AGEs and ALEs), which are resistant to decay and degradation. They're also structurally comparable to chemical compounds that stain the dark crust on toast.

The compounds are hydrophobic, which means they are resistant to the normal effects of water, and have properties that make it difficult for bacteria to consume them.

They applied Raman microspectroscopy—a non-destructive method for analyzing both the inorganic and organic contents of a sample—to the extracted fossil soft tissues. During this process, laser energy directed at the tissue causes molecular vibrations that carry spectral fingerprints for the chemicals that are present.

"The payoff is a way of targeting settings in the field where this preservation is likely to occur, expanding an important source of evidence of the biology and ecology of ancient vertebrates.

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

What you describe as 'squishy?' is not 'squishy,' and is fossilized as described in the more accurate scientific references cited.

Apparently you are still looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks. Keep this up and you will be castrated by Occum's razor.

 

[shunyadragon]

tiny red dots in vascular canals sounds a bit more like soft tissue to me
and 0.2 billion years old?

Sounds mighty old.
View attachment 30102

'Sounds to you?' Do you mean the squeaky sounds you are making without any scientific reference.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hmmm... So you're fine with soft tissue that managed to survive 0.2 billion years?

The poster did not say that. Did not even imply that.

 

[HonestJoe]

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

The actual Occam’s Razor isn’t really relevant to this question. The common misrepresentation of it - that the simplest explanation is the most likely - would only apply if you had a specific simpler explanation to offer. So what is your detailed explanation for “soft tissue” being found within apparently ancient fossils?

 

[Left Coast]

PSA - it's Occam, people. William of Occam (or Ockham).

https://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/

 

[tas8831]

View attachment 30100 View attachment 30101

Now that there are numerous cases of blood cells and soft squishy tissue found inside dinosaur bones, is it more likely they are >= 65 millions of years old <<< 65 million years old?

or even 0.2 billion year old tissue? sounds like a stretch?
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib - CNN

But what would Occum and his razor sharp decision maker say about all this? tissue is young? after all 0.2 billion years old seems a bit old for dinosaur tissue to last? or is it yearly much younger?

Please demonstrate that EVERY fossil has 'soft tissue' in it, as should be the case if the YEC timeline has merit, given your apparent position on this.

If nearly every fossil does NOT have 'soft tissue' in it, whatever shall we conclude? What would Occam's razor have us do?