The original question was:
Why do creationists make so much of the tissue and blood cells found in dinosaur fossils? It just shows they last longer than we have ever thought.
Answer by Ed Neeland
What’s inside fossil dinosaur bones is indeed newsworthy, and the discovery was totally unexpected from an evolutionary viewpoint. How can we say this? The dinosaur fossil bones containing flexible blood vessels and connective tissue, blood, intact proteins and red blood cells (RBCs) are thought to be up to 80 million years old in some cases. In the beginning, it took a lot of convincing by the researchers to get this work published because of the extreme disbelief that dinosaur bones could ever contain these things at all! Scientists wondered if the dino bone contents were the result of contamination due to careless work, or perhaps the result of bacteria making tissue membranes and blood vessels, and cell like structures. Any explanation was postulated except the obvious conclusion – actual blood, flexible tissue, blood vessels and RBCs were found in very, very old fossilized bones.
Creationists and evolutionists sat up in their seats when these results were first published. How could this be? Even today, some scientists are not convinced because of their evolutionary background. Why the disbelief from the evolution camp? In short, if a dino bone is truly 80 million years old then intact flexible proteins, blood, blood vessels and RBCs should not be there. End of story.
Let’s try thinking about the dino bone contents using a fictitious analogy. Someone claims to have found a bottle of milk from 1951. Nothing spectacular there. But this milk is fresh and drinkable. The bottle of milk was found unopened in a non-working fridge in a very isolated house in the mountains. No one has been in the house for over 60 years. Would this attract attention? Of course. Microorganisms present in all milk metabolize its sugars, fats and proteins into something not drinkable over a period of three weeks or so. Finding a 60 year old bottle of milk which is still fresh would force everyone to rethink accepted ideas of protein stability and microorganism metabolism. The experimental evidence (which everyone accepts) shows us that milk just does not last even one month, let alone 60 years. So our conclusions would have to run along the following lines. Either something extraordinary is happening to preserve the milk, or quite simply, the milk is not that old. After eliminating all special preservation factors from this case (and there are none), you are left with the young milk hypothesis. After all, we don’t know of any preservation factors that would extend milk’s shelf life to 60 years. This conclusion is reasonable. The milk is young, and therefore has not spoiled.
Now back to the contents of dinosaur fossils. The RBCs, intact proteins and flexible tissues have a known shelf life. Experimental evidence indicates shelf life times running from months to perhaps thousands of years for certain proteins. So when a scientist claims to have found time sensitive, i.e. short shelf life, chemicals in 80 million year old sample, this defies all our experimental data. Something is wrong. Like the milk analogy, either some special preservation factor is at work in the bones, or you are left with the young chemicals hypothesis. No special preservation factors are known which could preserve RBCs, blood and flexible proteins for multiple millions of years. So we must conclude that the contents of the dino bone are at most thousands of years old. That’s a far cry from 80 million years old. But conventional theory says that the dino bones are old. Hmmm, a conundrum. Which set of facts are correct?
We know experimentally that RBCs, blood and proteins are not structurally maintained over a long time – they degrade. That is a reproducible, testable, observable fact. The dating of the bones however is more suspect, and is based on some questionable assumptions. It is the old age of the bones which is the weak link. Understanding the chemistry of the dino bone contents is sound and good science. Understandably, the creationists have interpreted these discoveries as evidence which supports the creation model and which is totally unexplainable under the evolution model’s timescale. The Biblical creation model says that the universe and earth are thousands of years old and this is in line with what is found inside dinosaur bone fossils. That’s why creationists make so much of the RBCs, flexible intact proteins and blood found in dino bone fossils. This is a clear-cut example where the evidence contradicts the evolution model’s prediction, and supports the creation model’s prediction.
A home run for the creation model. A definite strike against the evolution model. Bring on the next batter!
Were you helped by this answer? If so, consider making a donation so we can keep adding more answers. Donate here.