* Soft Tissue Deniers / Science Deniers: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams list the soft tissue deniers, aka the science deniers, among leading evolutionists, media outlets, and anti-creation websites.
* RSR's List of Soft Tissue Deniers (and Doubters): This brief representative list documents the evolutionist science deniers and doubters for this specific topic. We'll occasionally update it and if any of these popular evolutionists sends a retraction or clarification to RSR, we'll note it here.
After two decades of extensive research and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, soft tissue deniers seem to be the rule rather than the exception among atheists and evolutionists. (Further, as of April 2014, the existence of dinosaur soft tissue, likely the greatest paleobiology discovery ever, remains virtually unknown to the general public as anyone can extrapolate by asking a few dozen people. RSR is working toward educating the public through radio shows, websites, and by presenting the information in easy-to-use formats.)
Soft tissue deniers (and such science doubters) include:
- Smithsonian Dinosaur Expert Brian Switek: 2012: As late at Sept. 27, 2012, Switek wrote, "The supposed dinosaur leftovers may be microfossils created by bacterial biofilms..." 2014: In 2014, this evolutionist left soft tissue off his list of the Top Ten Dinosaur Mysteries. 2016 Update 1: And as of November 1, 2016, he still demonstrates an astounding lack of interest in the greatest paleontological discovery in history, original dinosaur soft tissue, while writing for either the Smithsonian or over on his paleo blog over at Scientific American (and remember, Bob informally debated SciAm's atheist editor, Michael Shermer). 2016 Update 2: Finally, on Nov. 9, 2016, we welcomed Brian aboard as he acknowledged the existence of dinosaur biomaterial fossils, in his Part of the Original Dino Survives:
[P]aleontologists have begun to realize what “everyone knows” isn’t quite right... in special [i.e., common] circumstances, some of the original biological tidbits of ancient dinosaurs can withstand millions upon millions of years. The first such find was announced back in 2005...
For the full history, see RSR's more authoritative spreadsheet listing the published dinosaur original biomaterial discoveries with links to the peer-reviewed papers published in 26 (as of 2018) different scientific journals, including in:
- Scientific Reports
- Journal of Paleontology
- Journal of Protein Chemistry
- Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
- CRSQ [also published in Acta Histochemica]
- Connective Tissue Research
- Expert Review of Proteomics
- Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
- Current Biology
- Nature Communications
- PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science)
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Since Schweitzer's 2005 paper, respected journals have published dozens of papers on biomaterial fossils allegedly aged between five million and 1.9 billion years old (including for various specimens dated as 247, 350, 417, and 530 million years old). Additionally, since then, more than a dozen dinosaur biofossil papers have appeared, in 2007, in 2009 (two), in 2010 (two plus one on Archaeopteryx), in 2013, in 2015 (three), and in 2017 (three). But now, thankfully, Switek continues:
The first such find [?] was announced back in 2005 when biologist Mary Schweitzer and colleagues announced that they had found the remnants of blood vessels and other soft tissues in the femur of a Tyrannosaurus. ...over the following decade, Schweitzer and others have built a convincing case [yes, completely] that dinosaur bones are not wholly stone, but to varying degrees retain some of the original tissues that grew when the animal was alive.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you for that Brian! However, other soft tissue deniers are still out there
- University of Houston Biochemistry Prof. Dan Graur: This author of Molecular and Genome Evolution, aka the blogger Judge Starling, wrote on Feb. 8, 2017, "Proteins from 80 and 195-million-year-old dinosaurs 'recovered'", regarding papers in the highly respected journals Nature Communications and the Journal of Proteome Research. As with countless evolutionists, Graur science-denying rejection of the greatest discovery in the history of paleontology is based on his evolutionary timeframe. He wrote, the "only conclusion that can be drawn from the publication of these two articles is that the gullible have a very short memory." Graur dismissed this recent research (and by extension, the more than 60 peer-reviewed discoveries of biofossils), regardless of the cutting edge technology used, by listing six "discredited" papers from 1990, 1993 to 1995, and 2000, none of which RSR has ever listed on our comprehensive and authoritative online spreadsheet, List of Original Biomaterial Fossils (maintained)", dismissing the latest research by listing twelve papers and summing them up only by saying that "Jurassic Park" is "fiction".
- Oxford-educated widely-published anti-creation activist Paul Braterman: On March 8, 2014, wrote, "despite much hype the only surviving material is in the form of a collagen-bone composite.” (Prof. Braterman is a British Eugenie Scott and made his claim even after browsing our rsr.org/dinosaur-soft-tissue, which is the world's most complete catalog of such findings.)
- Anonymous "Researchers": TheScientist, 2018, 32(3):34-41, as reported by Catherine Offord, "some researchers still doubt that proteins can resist degradation for tens of millions of years..." That is, they are still denying, after 98 papers as of April 2018, the extant endogenous biological material from fossils dated at, allegedly, between five million and 1.88 billion years old.
- Anti-creationist YouTube star AronRa: If you click the link, then just search for: No. :)
- RationalWiki: The science deniers over at the atheist, anti-creation RationalWiki.org, as late as Feb. 1, 2017, are still denying the overwhelming hard science that has documented the existence of endogenous, extant dinosaur soft tissue. (Note too their observation that DNA would be undetectable after 100,000 years and so the lack of DNA in dinosaur bones proves the earth is old, yet a leading science journal published powerful evidence for the recovery of DNA from a hadrosaur and a T. rex.)
- Talk Origins quote from their Age of the Earth article as accessed on March 1, 2012 through Nov. 10, 2016:
"Answers in Genesis claims that paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found 'obvious, fresh-looking blood cells' and traces of blood protein hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurus rex bone… all these claims are absolutely false." -Talk Origins :)
- Phys.org as late as May 2015 published Bob Yirka's Iceman reveals oldest known example of red blood cells claiming that the oldest red-blood cells ever recovered belong to modern homo sapiens. However the science community is going to have to come to terms with the reality that dinosaur soft tissue is not going away. For peer-reviewed reports on recovered blood cells, see Science 1993 and Proc. Royal Soc. 2007 and for blood vessels see:
- Tony Reed: "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science" host Tony Reed in a video posted in 2015 and still on YouTube even without correction on-screen or in the video's Description, Reed says of Mary Schweitzer's discovery, "People believed that Schweitzer had found blood cells..." Of course, Mary, and other scientists, have found dinosaur blood. See especially in 2015, Nature Communications, Bertazzo, et al!
- Sherry Konkus at stupiddinosaurlies.org copyrighted 2010 - 2013 (Konkus removed the page, even from archive.org, but RSR put it back online), mocks creationists for claiming "that Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer have [sic] found inside the fossil bone blood cells and hemoglobin... while ignoring the fact that Mary actually found none of it... But that's not all. In 2005... she thought she found soft tissue in the bone [but] Mary, in reality, actually found slime [a claim now falsified] — biofilm created by bacteria... Still, this doesn't stop the creationists from making slanderous, derogatory remarks..." Update: As of 2015, this site took down that page and now claims that iron can preserve endogenous material for hundreds of millions of years, even though iron cannot explain the varied circumstances in which soft tissue is found.
- Gary, S. Hurd, Ph.D. at noanswersingenesis.org.au, even as of June 2013, has not corrected or even put a disclaimer on his Dino-blood and the Young Earth article which harshly criticized creationists for their optimistic presentation of the early reports of dinosaur blood vessels and cells. Ultimately, the creationist expectations on the existence of dinosaur soft tissue were vindicated, and the countless evolutionists who mocked both Schweitzer and the creationists (for their presumption that soft tissues would be confirmed) have yet to humbly congratulate the creationists for an expectation come true.
- Nigel Deplege, commented at Discover Magazine's site against a challenge by Bob Enyart, posted Sept. 1, 2011. Published evolutionist Deplege wrote, "...soft dinosaur tissue has never been discovered or reported. What you perhaps refer to is the discovery of fossilised impression of soft tissue structures." If Nigel (or any of these evolutionists listed) contacts Real Science Radio admitting error, we will post his admission here.
- Wikipedia List of Dino Soft Tissue: As of June 15, 2016, Wikipedia's List of dinosaur specimens with preserved soft tissue, presents only two finds, and neither of them suggest the existence of any nondecomposed, endogenous soft tissue.
- Random Collection of Anti-Creationists: At Yahoo Answers in April 2014, a crowd of passionate evolutionists mock us creationists for lying about the existence of dinosaur soft tissue. Etc., etc., etc. :)
- Raatz: "I've corrected the creationist 'misinterpretations' ...dozens of times. They continue to repeat them because they don't care. They know they're lying." :)
- Don: "The entire episode is an opportunity to watch creationist lies in the making - not one of them actually knows what they're talking about..."
- Jethom33545: "...creationists are ALL liars or grossly misinformed. I'm going with liars."
- Space Wasp: "The quote you give is a false claim... they are not found as 'soft tissue' as creationist claims tend to imply."
- Andymanec: "Nope. This is one of those creationist misinterpretations that never seems to die, no matter how many times it's corrected. Soft tissue wasn't found in a dinosaur bone... Schweitzer's samples were also contaminated with modern bacteria, and were growing a biofilm that made the results unreliable. ...this one un-reproduced experiment... It's a neat discovery, to be sure..." Hey, why would it be a neat discovery it its bacterial contamination? :)
- "Wasn't it remnants of the extra-cellular bone matrix Schweitzer et al found? You'd think the key words "extra-cellular" would give away the fact that you're not going to find any DNA in it..." :)
- Ladyren: "Soft tissue contains water. Water evaporates very quickly. The claim is false."
- PZ Myers and virtually all the evolutionists on his blog doubted or outright denied extant dinosaur soft tissue when the infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to our RSR Trochlea Challenge. To his credit, he said, "I don't know," which in itself does not prove that he is wrong nor that I am right, but it is pretty funny that the simplest of anatomy designs could stump one of the world's leading Darwinists.
PZ, being severely out-of-date on what is the greatest paleobiology discovery yet, as late as November 2011 doubted the existence of dinosaur soft tissue by critically writing about "Will's rants here" regarding dinosaur soft tissue for which Myers linked to his long out-dated report of "a good alternative explanation: this is an example of bacterial contamination producing a biofilm." (Update: As late as August 2013, still in denial, PZ continues to irresponsibly suggest the falsified biofilm hypothesis.) If PZ weren't a soft tissue denier (or doubter) he would have instead indicated that the biofilm interpretation against actual primary tissue had been repeatedly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. Like LoR's AronRa, Myers didn't mention all the confirming studies, and he preferred to keep telling the story, although contrary to the latest science, that is far more comfortable to Darwinists. (And regarding Carbon 14 PZ Myers, like so many evolutionists have, went on to mock Will and me for our $23,000 grant offer to Jack Horner to carbon date his dinosaur fossil, which PZ says, "makes no sense at all," even though peer-reviewed studies are now carbon dating dinosaur soft-tissue fossils.)
YEC's continued claim there was "soft" tissue found, represents a failure to even read the peer reviewed papers. No organic material was ever found. The material that was found was calcified, which became "soft" after a bath in acid. Learn to read!
[Meanwhile, peer-reviewed papers ARE reporting on their carbon 14 tests on dinosaurs even though PZ Myers wrote mocking RSR that "carbon dating is so absurdly inappropriate and useless that only an ignorant clown would… do it."]
In summary, on what is the greatest paleontology discovery in history, PZ Myers and AronRa join those evolutionists who are science deniers and science doubters, all because they intuitively know that even simple changes in temperature gradually breakdown complex biological molecules which all of science uniformly maintained could not exist for even one million years. Now, they've got to deal with Harvard sequencing hardrosaur proteins, blood vessels from a T. rex, biological material from archaeopteryx, and a whole boatload of other related problems, including carbon 14, left-handed amino acids, and a world looking them square in the face and saying: "If you believe soft tissue can last for 65 million years, you'll believe just about anything, won't you?" So, for the short-term, it's a lot easier to be a soft tissue denier. But the cure is now here: DinosaurSoftTissue.com!
RSR Listeners: Please feel free to email other soft tissue deniers to Bob@KGOV.com. And let us know if any of our Darwinist listeners over at TOL, such as Alate_One or Johnnie, are deniers. Thanks!
* From RSR.org/soft-tissue: Real Science Radio presents the scientific journals reporting, the kinds of biological material found so far, and the dinosaurs yielding up these exciting discoveries:
Scientific Journals: Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, and others below in our chronological catalog, "the web's most complete list of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries," as published in many leading journals, according to a co-author of one of those papers.
Biological Material Found: As of April 2014, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton component actin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, and powerful evidence for DNA.
Dinosaur and Dinosaur-Layer Creatures: The dinosaurs and other Mesozoic creatures that have yielded their biological material are hadrosaur, titanosaur, ornithomimosaur [ostrich-like dinosaurs], mosasaur, triceratops, Lufengosaurs, T. rex, and Archaeopteryx.
* "65-million" Year Old T. rex Soft Tissue: The T. rex photos above are actually old news, whereas all the latest published journal papers, through 2014, are listed chronologically at rsr.org/soft. As for these photos though, North Carolina State University discovered this original biological tissue from a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, with transparent and pliable blood vessels containing red blood cells. See these and other T. rex photos at Smithsonian Magazine and MS-NBC, and see an early Nat'l Geographic report. Famed paleontologist Jack Horner of Montana State University worked the excavation site. In a 2011 development, ten leading universities and institutes including Harvard, the University of Manchester, and the University of Pennsylvania published in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed journal, that they had verified that presumed dinosaur material is indeed original biological tissue from a dinosaur! Creationists refer to dinosaurs as missionary lizards for many reasons including:
- the short-lived Carbon 14 everywhere including in dinosaur bones
- the 521-year half-life of DNA that helps date the actual age of fossils containing dinosaurian genetic material, and
- the mostly left-handed amino acids that should be equally right and left handed if they were "Jurassic", and
- the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive. Interestingly, the renowned evolutionist PZ Myers ridiculed our Real Science Radio program by repeating what had been a widely-discredited secular hope that the "soft-tissue" dinosaur finds were "biofilm" contamination from bacteria. But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."
Today’s Resource: Get the fabulous Carl Werner DVD Living Fossils and his great prequel, Evolution: The Grand Experiment! And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? For the best of the best in creation books, debates, and videos, click on our Science Department or just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).
HOT OFF THE PRESSES! Another RSR Prediction Fulfilled! NOW, allegedly 530 million-year-old soft tissue: Tune into the above program for our excerpts from a Journal of Paleontology paper on the soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worm" fossils that we've added to our list of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries!