Soft Tissue Found Inside a Dinosaur Bone!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- In 2003, an exceptionally well preserved T. rex leg bone was unearthed in the Cretaceous rocks of Montana. Upon close examination, Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the bone to contain soft tissue inside - tiny blood vessels and proteins! Some claim that this is evidence of a young Earth, a recent extinction of the dinosaurs. Could this be, or is there another explanation?
=============
Update: since writing the script for this video, a study came out further questioning that the tissue found belongs to the original T. rex, suggesting again that it is biofilm: rspb.royalsocie...
Even more recently, a study published in Nature came out further confirming that the tissue did belong to T. rex and detailed, with much greater clarity than before, how the preservation happens: www.nature.com...
In short, scientific consensus is no longer as strong as suggested in this animation, the boat was rocked again, but it looks like it's on its way to being settled once again on the position that the soft tissue is indeed from the original T. rex.
=============
========
Support us on Patreon: / statedclearly
Get a T. rex t-shirt: www.redbubble....
Visit Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s website: molecularpaleo...
========
Papers cited in this animation:
ORIGINAL DISCOVERY OF SOFT TISSUE:
Soft Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex: science.science...
Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
CRITIQUE OF DISCOVERY:
Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
DEFENSES OF DISCOVERY:
Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs:
www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules: www.thebonejour...
Testing the Hypothesis of Biofilm as a Source for Soft Tissue and Cell-Like Structures Preserved in Dinosaur Bone: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
10 million year old frog bones with marrow preserved: pubs.geoscienc...
IRON’S ROLE IN PRESERVATION:
A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time: rspb.royalsocie...
OTHER DINOSAURS WITH SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERED:
Mass Spectrometry and Antibody-Based Characterization of Blood Vessels from Brachylophosaurus canadensis: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Evidence of preserved collagen in an Early Jurassic sauropodomorph dinosaur revealed by synchrotron FTIR microspectroscopy: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Hemoglobin-derived porphyrins preserved in a Middle Eocene blood-engorged mosquito: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Molecular preservation in Late Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur eggshells www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Update: since writing the script for this video, a new study came out that does a bit to weaken the consensus that the tissue found belongs to the original T. rex: rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1855/20170544
Stated Clearly -- Just stick a dino bone up your stingy crab's ass which is waterproof and it will survive forever.
Ric Rovey -- You're closer to home than most people in this ludicrous thread.
Ric, why would most churches not have a clue what the bible means? Did your god fail to make it clear enough? Why should I have to "unlock" anything that god gave us to know the truth? Sounds incompetent.
BTW, there was no global flood, it really is that simple. There were many civilizations living before and during the time this flood supposedly happened, and they never noticed any flood. Also, the evidence in the rocks would show a clear pattern for the trillions of dead organisms & other debris. The flood never happened.
Ric, your fairy tale ain't hard to understand - I have an engineering and math degree and currently a physics major - so quit flattering your myth. Additionally, I'm a former xtian and still study the bible today. Your pathetic & condensing swipe at me is b/c you can't defend your god. You can argue with other fanatics about 1 or 2 floods. The bible is full of crap anyway.
The fossils are NOT found jumbled up together. We've never found trilobites & kangaroos, or rabbits and raptors,.... buried in the fossil record. You are the one who is blind if you believe in a global flood. Of course you have to defend your god drowning millions of babies.
The fact that you quoted your god saying he will cause people not hear his important message shows what a wicked god you worship. Your god wants people to hear and follow his word, so what you wrote contradicts his most important mandate. Of course your god made no attempt to get his important message to billions of natives, chinese, and Indians. He didn't try too hard & doesn't give a shit.
If your god wasn't so incompetent with his "words", there wouldn't be more versions of xtianity than there are sentences in the bible.
Guitar Jerk -- The Bible is not a book for the world to understand like a technical manual, that means its wisdom is hidden from the fools--you, for example. God hides from the wise, the proud and the wicked and reveals Himself to babes, those who are pure of heart and diligently seek Him in meekness and in truth. I know you're not about to do that nor is anyone going to force it upon you, so God will either have to bring your proud ass down to the point you realize you're nothing but a worm who needs salvation or let you continue on the way to perdition. Given your "overt atheistic" attitude the latter is most likely to occur.
Now, ignorant blabbermouth, every single ancient civilization has a flood story that spread from mouth to mouth after Babel. It refers to the same flood except that each civilization tailored it to their our cultural mores.
As to the evidence of the flood, your stupid "clear pattern for the trillions of dead organisms" could not exist since dead things either fossilized rather quickly in the flood or decomposed back into the ground. And just so you know about 75% of the earth's crust has sedimentary rocks. It really is that simple, simpleton.
Absolutely beautiful animation and great information! Awesome work, Jon!
You're absolutely right man !!!
TREY the Explainer you are my waifu.
TREY the Explainer Yo it's so cool to see you here, I love your dinosaur videos! Keep it up man!
I thought so too Trey ^_^
Hey trey de miss you man. When the next vídeo?
Much Respect to Dr. Schweitzer.
😸 This is how to present a lesson! Expertly structured, paced and illustrated without overwhelming your audience. Teachers of any subject would benefit so much by incorporating your approach in their classes! Kindest regards from a retired English teacher.
Sir Meow The Library Cat
Indeed. Everything taught should be taught within a structured analysis of the lesson. Too often the material is distilled to wrote memorization with no foundational understanding of why the information is important or how it effects us. A student is left to either retain it or forget it and without the subtext it gets discarded over time, misattributed to an irrelevant claim or outright confabulated into rabid nonsense.
Class material and lesson plans should be designed around inquiry, rather than certainty. Reason should be corequisite as a guide to learning how to research any subject for themselves and *how* to think about what they encounter in their research. In such an environment a student is more likely to retain the material but much more importantly the student walks away with a tool kit for examining *any* material presented to them. It becomes habitual and the student is able to master any subject that interests him.
The most important thing a student should learn is how to learn.
We don't do that much any more and we have generations of our posterity running around without the most basic notion of how to figure things out for themselves.
While I agree to some extent, I don't think it is a very balanced presentation.
It gives the impression that Mary's conclusions are widely and fully accepted by almost all paleontologists, but this is not the case. Many still express reservations about many of her findings, and seem to have good reasons for them.
And yet they won't let people carbon test the fossil, remember how Galileo's astronomy was rejected even by other scientists of his day?
Also watch the Will Smith movie Concussion, the scientist in that (who was religious mind you) researched the real degenerative brain disease caused by football games and kept getting discredited by the NFL who had a lot of influence over things.
Before claiming something about carbon dating you should understand the method and when and how to use it. Stated clearly has even a cideo on that: ruclips.net/video/eNY8xC3raDY/видео.html
Jason Sacuta
No... nobody will let you test anything because you're a moron who has no idea what you're doing.
You forgot option 4: Satan did it to confuse us. Or option 5: I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.
Had to be
drazezard lolyeah
It was Q.
Probably the number 3
Option 7: these were cyborg dinosaurs that were mechanised by an yet undiscovered civilization. The iron-rich environment that their bones were in was due to the mechanical parts.
6:36 except the scientific community totally turned on her and she lost all credibility, and was stripped of her funding. This was her reward for making such an important discovery. She then had to scramble for an explanation in order to save her career.
Sources?
@@glencarbon2533 Pretty much every article written post "discovery". But if you must have one handed to you (see bottom of article) - www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt. The article also states that no one has been able to replicate her results.
Opposing the official narrative is usually harmful to the person even when they’re correct. One of the difficulties of working with humanity.
@@seanjustinification they did actually replicate it, which is why it was so surprising.
@@CanadianLoveKnot Please include a link to your source.
Oh my gosh, the young earth creationists in the comments that still say this is evidence for a young earth... Did they even watch the video? If your one piece of data contradicts millions of others, you assume the one has some kind of anomaly, not that all the others are wrong. I can't believe I used to believe this kind of stuff....
No you don't assume and there are several fossils that show carbon dating in dino fossils and soft tissue. The evidence is adding up
Alex Thompson incoherent sentence
Dragongirl, that's not how it works and I am not a Young Earther. You don't just go along with the majority all the time, each person needs to develop critical thinking skills and think outside the box and not always follow the majority like sheep.
That's the point of peer review. All peer reviewed research supports an old earth and old dinosaurs because it has been heavily scrutinized by other scientists. @@ArranVid
No wet tissue could survive millions of years.
So frustrating that young earth creationists still lie about this and try and use it to support their lies.
😂
no lies, just evidence
Dr. Schweitzer, you are a ROCK STAR ! ! ! Thank you for being who you are. @Stated Clearly: I know that your work is unbelievably time consuming and difficult, but it is SO important. Thank you for all of your time and work. Your videos helped my wife finally understand how evolution actually works, taught me about chemo-genesis, and, along with Aron Ra, will soon help supplement my children's education. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
They are still going to search for the Creator if they follow their higher mental faculties. As someone who was raised as an atheist, I will tell you right now that it can backfire.
I sure wish they would find some of those billions of transitional forms that are supposed to exist. Or at least prove why none exist.
Oh shut up Mr. Driver. Evolution is no more true than there is a man in the moon. I suggest you educate yourself at CREATION.COM
She sold out for money prestige and to not be virtually or literally killed for dissenting. We are really a disgusting species...
The ra rush is an idiot!
"To successfully argue that her single discovery means that the fossil was actually young, she would have to ignore everyone else's careful observations."
That hasn't stopped other people from using her discovery to argue that very thing. And, by extension, that every other Cretaceous fossil was young. And that "young" is a couple orders of magnitude less than science actually requires. And that it conveniently lines up with their pre-existing biases.
@Joshua Giesey You're preaching to the choir.
What if all current observations are based on the same flawed assumptions?!
@@catman1353 Don't worry, they seam to be from what I have found. Starting to see this evolution theory in a new light.
@Krona If i found a sunken ship with money in it, one way to know when it was built is to check the dates on the coins. If i find 100 coins with dates of 600 years and only ONE with 1900, the conclusion would be that the ship was around 1900 and not around 600 even though its only one coin.
Jonas A. That’s... not how paleantology works.
I thought christmas was in december
Eric Pham no the solstice is in December, Christmas is a fake occasion to usurp pagan solstice celebrations Jesus birthday is April first or some other day near the end of March depending on which Christ the bible is lying about
Its a joke, whenever Stated Clearly upload its always amazing
i think it is, or people are just putting up a lot of late or early decorations.
/r Whoosh!
@Evi1M4chine Good gosh, someone makes a light-hearted joke about Christmas and you immediately launch into a diatribe against the church? What is your problem? Also, the majority of priests are not child rapists.
Holy crap, that was good.
My only question is, why did not this observed more commonly before given the fact that all animals are full of hemoglobin? What's the key difference what making this a special case?
It wasn't looked for before. All large animals can have this type of preservation (small animals can be preserved too in microbial mats but not as long, the process works different, look at the frog paper in vid description for details). We now look for soft tissue in more fossils and have found it in many.
Stated Clearly thanks for the awesome vid
It's not, we just never looked before, it's a rare but marginal process. Always more Science to be discovered.
Yes in the video it suggested it's a rare chance event as the iron preserved the soft tissue, PLUS it was sealed in bone
Ádám Tóth sealed in bone? Each time a skeleton is found it should have been sealed in bone!
Wierd that tissue can stay intact for thousends of years.
Here's where you can order our T. rex shirt! www.redbubble.com/people/statedclearly/works/28105774-gloating-t-rex?asc=u&p=t-shirt&rel=carousel&style=mens
More science videos PLEAAAASSSE
Stated Clearly
The animation, especially the super-hero graphic is a bit like cover art for a The Watchtower pamphlet.
I enjoyed this one. I work at the NC Museum of Natural Sciences, where Dr. Schweitzer was cross-posted, and I've spoken to her informally about this matter. I thought you did a great job presenting the data and the *real* situation. When I started working with scientists many years ago, their willingness to admit error and/or lack of understanding was the single aspect of the scientific discipline I found most attractive, for lots of reasons. Also, as an animator, I appreciate the hard work and attention to detail on display in your work--great to see it! It's inspiring. Great work on the video--keep 'em coming.
Wonderful post. And have actually heard this soft tissue find as proof of a young Earth by Evangelical Christians. So nice to hear that dedicated scientists have studied this unusual phenomenon and have a reasonable answer. Unlike the creationist who so smugly told me, "We have proof now, and it's from YOUR scientists."
Arghh!!!
Turns out, Dr. Mary herself is a Christian who totally accepts evolution by natural selection via common descent. She's awesome & #womeninstem!
What's more, fragments of the proteins have been sequenced, and resemble those of modern birds
MicroBlogganism
Although there is recent evidence to suggest that these sequenced proteins may actually have been contamination.
The story continues...
Ration alMind Well.. That's a bummer
The paper is called: "A fossil protein chimera; difficulties in discriminating dinosaur peptide sequences from modern cross-contamination" by Buckley et al.
I'm glad you and @MicroBlogganism had this discussion in this forum. It supports Stated Clearly's mantra of "stay curious." Thanks for sharing and furthering discussion of the topic.
Many are asking if we can clone a dinosaur. I made a new video for you about that on my other channel! ruclips.net/video/Gsk6QLmC2NM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/HThKTXrINHc/видео.html
Stated Clearly May I, respectfully challenge your explanation?
But if the soft tissue was preserved, does that mean that the DNA could have been preserved as well???
I was thinking that
Sadly DNA was too damaged to the point of few components left.
Jolez _ Yes. I am very disappointed.
okay :(
InDeepPudding. No
She is probably the most misrepresented scientist by young earth creationists in all of human history.
agreed 👍
Thanks For Awesome Informations
This is EXTREMELY well presented! The graphics also helped a lot in your explanation, really fun to watch too!
Good graphics too.
Here is a link to the guy who found the soft tissue in the triceratops horn in Montana . ruclips.net/video/8Sq5hCZCECQ/видео.html . He is a fully fledged scientist whose sole professional role is to examine dinosaur bones and an expert in preservation techniques . And he says iron cannot preserve this tissue for millions of years and explains why it cannot . Please review this “stated clearly “ and then explain why he is wrong .
The bone was a couple thousand years that’s all dinosaurs are existed by Noah flood
Very well done, as always!
Looks like John Hammond was wrong. In order to get Dino DNA he only needed to soak Dino bones in acid to get to the young, soft, tissue and proteins in the fossils😄
An interesting note: Dr Mary Schweizer is a conservative Christian (obviously not a young earth creationist).
Omid Tenkaren she is in denial then. Many smart people trade reason for some sort of emotional satisfaction.
Elon musk gets married again even after he got fucked over in divorce.
sciure sci the reason I brought up the fact that she is a Christian was precisely because of the attitude you have friend... The Richard Dawkins attitude that everything is black and white. There have been, long before Darwin, Christians with another view then that of young earth creationism. Who are you to judge there reasons being inconsistent? Let's have humility and accept that the question is more about good science than about certain theological interpretations.
Why is that relevant?
Tera The Feather Nazi we are living in a time plagued by stereotypes like Dawkins and Ken ham. I think it is good to abandon the "we against them" mentality that some propagate and instead understand that there are Christians that love science and there are actually even atheists that are not scientific in their thinking. Such a view reflects reality better and creates more healthy discussions.
For once, I'm not annoyed by someone bringing religion into discussion on a science video. Thanks :P
option 4: The earth is young.
srsly that's all the evidence you need to believe it -_-
Literally all findings of paleontology, geology and cosmology point to an old earth. Hence, this option is unacceptable.
@@hilfsmittel7934 it is a possibility that the methods behind those braches of science are flawed. That happens all thr time in any science.
Why does the T-rex have feathers? I didn't know that...
More likely proto-feathers, because of how related theropod dinosaurs are to modern birds, but now it may have just been fully scaly from what I'm picking up from papers on the subject.
"informed thinkers"... nice distinction to those nutjobs that call themselves "critical" or "sceptical" thinkers
Nice, I wondered if people ever actually notice when I word things carefully.
I consider myself to be a critical thinker and a skeptic(yes, I'm American), but I have only been like this for less than 5 years and I am a long way from being able to call myself, "informed."
Evolutionary Solitude Some flat-earthers and conspiracy theorists call themselves "skeptics". Also, Ken Ham thinks that he practices and teaches "critical thinking".
Evolutionary Solitude
I think you might mean "sceptical of sceptics."
Anyone who witnessed the cluster-event that was known as Atheism+ (Plus), can never recall it without throwing up a bit.
Sven Leuschner Literally the most fossils are made from catastrophic events every astroid that came from outer space. Some form of radiation that enforce the sales as well as the fact that the earth was a lot different back then so everything was a lot harder than what it is now today making it easier for survival right or wrong
Carbon 14 also found therefore less than 23,000 years old.
Who analyzed the samples that Schweitzer and her team found to confirm the presence of carbon-14? Where are their findings published? What other methods did the use to cross reference the claimed date?
Let's try to use real science, okay? | Do I look like Google ? Do your own research.
You are the one who claimed c-14 was found, where did you get that from, your ass? Modern c-14 dating can be accurate out to over 75,000 years if cross referenced properly.
You make a claim, you have the burden of proof, bud.
That is absolutely right. You made the claim that carbon 14 was found and that that somehow meant that the sample is less than 23,000 years old. Put up or shut up. Where is the evidence that backs up your very specific claim? Where did you get that very specific information. Who did the testing? Where did they get the sample from? Was the testing cross referenced to another method like it must be to be considered valid? You made the claim, you have the burden of proof, bud.
Creationist dreams were crushed during the making of this video...
Notice how they immediately dismiss the obvious answer (#1). Science! Just keep giving them our money, folks....and keep your mouth shut. 60 MILLION YEAR OLD SOFT TISSUE...right.
Yes, did you not listen to it? She would have to dismiss decades and well over a hundred years of evidence that the layers are about 66 myo, they show in the video how the specific layers in question were cross dated with four different isotopes, so you just close your ears and whine like a baby because you have a preconceived dogma that can't possibly be false nomatter all the evidence that denies it you hypocrite.
@@richardblazer8070all of the carbon dating is based off assumptions. And should those assumptions be right then the carbon dating would be accurate. That’s the bit they always forget to tell you
@@Will34117 Haha, ok. What are those assumptions? The fact that you think carbon dating would be used on Mesozoic dinosaur specimens shows how little you know about this topic. You have to radiometrically date igneous layers, you can’t carbon date the fossils, check the half life.
@@richardblazer8070 obviously, it’s not organic material. Don’t try and get all technical and act like everyone who doesn’t have the same beliefs as you is an idiot
Her test is a bit silly. 2 years does not equal = 66 million. But you also have to account at what point does iron come into play in preserving the soft tissue. The animal dies and decomposes, it's not immediately preserved like in her test. I would expect to find only a portion of the dinosaur bones to have live tissue, not all of them, to account for ones of the same time period to not experience such a preservation technique.
Where is the love button instead of like?
When I was still a Christian and creationist, I taught this was solid proof of a young earth.
Good thing I'm done with those BS fairy tales.
Guru Mage You are a smart man.
@@titan1853 sounds like a big excuse .
@@richardabram4596 Whatevs
Good thing
+Guru Mage
What made you change your mind?
Here is a question that screws creationism:
Genetics obviously functions as a science, so whatever it's based on must be sound.
What is in the genetic students exam before they graduate?
Is it, "mutations sometimes working, bringing new hybrid populations"?
Or is it, "mutations never working, and can never bring new hybrid populations"?
Great vid, but her last name is pronounced with the "Sch" sound. Not 'sw'.
Sorry . It was driving me nuts.
Christina BlackFeather Shviteser
schuelermine thank you. Sometimes I can't really demonstrate what I want when English runs away from me. Lol
Shvaitsa
Evi1M4chine I don't know. German can sound sinful and sexy when sung by the right German metal band. :)
bigtutubi get over yourself.
I have a quick question. What about the tissue found in the triceratops horn? How could that have survived millions of years?
why? Just the same, that horn was bone, too. Plus likely a keratin covering.
Crosslinking...the tissue may be 2 million years old.
I have a better idea.
The world was created last Saturday. Including the fossil and the soft tissue.
Wouldn't be surprised if some people actually believe that, people believe in Creationism after all and a 6000 year old Earth. I call them idiots
Saw you on Ham and Egg News with Paul. Your videos are great. Clear, concise, and lots of evidence to back it up. Well done, keep it up.
A lot of work went in to this - THANK you, Stated Clearly! Now, if only hard-core Creationists will sit down long enough to watch this all the way through. The soft tissue saga is their holy grail of creationist 'proof' at the moment; I'm always having it fired at me ('What about the soft tissue found in TRex bones? That proves that dinosaurs CAN'T be millions of years old!'). This, without even any proper reading into the matter. Thanks again, Jon. On to the next!
As I said above: 2 years is not 65 million. And a lab environment is nothing like the environment where the bones were discovered. Let's wait and see what happens to the samples after 10, 20, 30 or 10,000 years...I thought she was a scientist...
Talk Beliefs, I agree, if only hard-core creationists will sit down long enough to watch this all the way through. This very subject (dino soft tissue) was the center of a very recent (yesterday) debate I had with a young earth creationist. In the end we both agreed to disagree, (he was actually quite nice and polite, a real change from most young earthers I've had exchanges with in the past). At any rate, I think to date, this Stated Clearly video does the best job of explaining soft tissue preservation that I've come across, I wish I had known of it's existence one day earlier. I'm off to view another video; I think I'll try your channel next, it's been awhile since I last visited your site and seeing your comment was a welcome reminder.
lividmachine
"Because they have found cephalopods dating back 178 million years with wet ink in what was left of their ink sac."
Please citation.
All I can find is fossils with dried ink.
And ink is not the same bloodcells. You do agree that?
Once that stuff dries up it could become inert. They also found pigment on fossilized skin.
"By the way, they have carbon-dated hundreds of dinosaur bones with most of them no more than 40,000 years old."
You really should brush up on your knowledge. From a certain age upwards you cannot use carbon dating. Even if there is carbon left. For instance they cannot carbon date coal. It has to do with the ratio of two types of carbon. Everything from a certain age upward will always return the 40 or 50 thousand date mark.
" But as Mary Schweitzer's Mentor has stated, carbon dating is not scientific."
No, did you listen to the same dialogue that I heard an hour ago between a creationist radiohost and Horner?
He was being polite. He should have said that the man was a moron.
He knew it would not work and yet he wanted the dating.
One should know the limitations of a technique but creationists never get it.
So, get an education on radiometric dating and see where you can improve yourself.
They are believers, all their answers will go to the same place every time, that is their whole purpose.
MsSomeonenew
Yes,
They start with the infallibility of the bible and work backwards. When you do that I am sure you can come up with everything, simply look at flattards who make all evidence fit their view.
Really well done! i was having a debate over this discovery with an evolution denier about a month ago... wish this video existed then.
+Anka Polo - well, if the person you were debating still exists, send it their way!
We should look into regions on earth that have a lot of iron rich "water reservoirs" maybe we can find an intact dinosaur trapped in one of these?
The problem is that iron doesn't preserve for that long and fossils have been found with soft tissue where much iron was not
So why did she use intact hemoglobin for her experiment? Why not free iron? Hemoglobin would have the iron locked up in the molecule and unable to react as well with the cells to cause cross-linking.
Beautifully researched and presented, this channel is a real contribution to the understanding of sometimes difficult concepts.
I absolutely love this channel's videos
This channel deserves hundreds of millions of views!! What a fabulous work you've done!
The real Question is, if this maked jurassic park possible
Why not test it by using the C14-method to verify whether it is young. This has already been done on dinosaurie bones:
newgeology.us/presentation48.html
And it doesn't support the 6000 year narrative. So why do bible believers bother?
Has this soft tissue been carbon dated?
ruclips.net/video/eNY8xC3raDY/видео.html
yes and they have carbon in them. Which would seem to not be as old as they say. All this idiot does is drop a video that says iron caused it. lol so rust makes things last longer didnt you know! Anyway In fact, they tried to pay a well renowned scientist not gonna mention names, ( Jack Horner) refused over 20,000 to carbon date 5 samples and says he cant do that test and simply refuses to test these specimen. Hilarious. here ill link the article and video if you would like all you have to do is type it into youtube and see. They lose... period.
Why would you carbon date such a fossil when carbon dating cannot detect items older than 50,000 years? You would just get dumb results. Unless of course you wanted to be deliberately dishonest.
because the results should be unmessurable, you should get numbers off the chart, thing is you dont, you get numbers like 10,000, and 6,000 which seems to say there is still carbon in the bones which means they are less than 20,000 years old
Tyler Layman: No you would not, clearly you know nothing of the carbon dating process. It is like trying to measure one year with a twenty four hour clock. After a year all you would get is number 0-23. If you use the appropriate radio-dating method, you get the correct results.
Thanks! When this material was first announced my young Earth creationist friend declared it proof for her beliefs. Can't wait to send her this!
How did it go?
@@orionred2489 The friend wants to know where all the transitional forms are that prove evolution is true. All species have variations, like there are many kinds of dogs and cats. But dogs and cats cannot mate and produce a docat! Why can't man mate with a chimp and have a successful offspring? Afterall we are 97% alike so we've been told. There are too many holes in believing evolution is factual. Just like the Big Bang, both are theoretical, but Satan pushes the narrative because it denies the existence of the Creator. Once you understand that Satan and God are fighting for your souls everything begins to make sense!
Ok, now go ahead and dismiss me as a nutjob. The Devil wants you to!
@@saturn722 I can't tell if you are serious, or are being sarcastic. Classic Poe situation.
@@orionred2489 I try to look at any evidence objectively, whether it comes from creationists or others.
It takes faith to believe in what cannot actually be proven. Those of us with limited backgrounds in science have little choice but to TRUST what we've been told is fact. Today's scientific community has been caught several times fudging data to push their narrative.
@@saturn722 Still can't tell. What you're saying is so childish that you make a great parody of the average creationist.
Jon, you're a national treasure.
I thought that "biofilm" would be a movie about that T-Rex's life.
Dinosaurs Are Badasses
Thank you. I had heard about the initial discovery of the preserved soft tissue in the T Rex bone in the popular press but had long since lost track of the story. I'm happy to have found the rest of the story here, Stated Clearly. Science is so much more interesting than religious dogma, don't you think? It has a narrative.
What is most telling is that after multiple tests she, Mary, was "afraid" to share her findings wither boss.
It is also very telling that so many are so vehemently adamant that there is absolutely no way this could mean the bones are younger than previously thought. I think that is known as drawing a conclusion before considering the evidence.
Wither boss? 💀💀💀
@@alexwilson3133 You can thank autocorrect for providing some content on your level of comprehension.
@@beestoe993no it really boils down to consulting your starting point, one’s worldview regarding the timetable.
My immediate response was, "Then why don't we find soft tissue in lots of fossils?" But at the end, you said "We do find soft tissues in many fossils."
So... Never Mind.
I think they need to publish more of the soft tissue findings so people know it is common!
I love this channel. My dad has been forcing me to watch Kent Hovind and this channel literally debunks Hovind's claims.
Man, kent hovind, convicted criminal and con man who never admits when he's wrong, painful to watch.
Hovinds data is extensively footnoted. Acedemics dont refute the referenced data. Many however disagree with some, but not all of the conclusions Hovind draws from this data. Hovind was considered a masterful debater with a powerful delivery. Because of this, academics were advised not to participate in organized debates with Hovind. There was simply nothing to gain as they would loose more often than not. The reason for this is most acedemics had little or no experience with having their positions challenged. Hovind has had nothing but challenges when he debates. By design he is the underdog in these encounters. Thus he is prepared for and expects specific attacks. By responding with calculated application of publicly published reports and data he makes compelling arguments.
Such arguments are difficult to logically refute out of hand. Unfortunately recent discussion seems to focus less on hard data and more on personal desparagement.
That is a real pity...
get away from your father as fast as you can
This is nonsense if it was true why does the preservation not happen in other dinosaurs bones?
Because some are better preserved then others. For instance if a dinosaur skeleton sits at the bottom of large body of water or drowns in quicksand then it will be better preserved then 1 just dieing in fact 99% of all living things are not fossilized
Fake news
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The more I learn about science to more I appreciate all the work that went in to making sense of it all. Everything we know has a story behind it about how we came to know it, and the people that made it happen.
A3Kr0n You should really look into epistemology
Young earth creationists do not understand preservation.
I loved the feathered dinos. It's a small but nice touch, and shows your rigorous in being scientific correct even on the animations.
The is no evidence of feathered dinosaurs. It from someone's imagination. Nothing more.
sauropod, not souropod
oops, too late now. Thanks
Read your bible wow!
One more step to bringing dinosaurs back to life so I can ride them into battle and look hella badass.
My guy, I don't think it's gonna happen cause we don't got a proper cell and a proper genetically related host.
Just leave dinosaurs alone, it is fine that most of them went extinct. Also, modern birds are actual dinosaurs.
Shouldn't the channel be called "Stated Succinctly"?
The word "Clearly" connotes loudly cutting through the bs, as does the megaphone logo.
an 8 minute video isn't particularly succinct. It's clarity they are after, which is different from brevity. That's why they go and tell the whole story of Mary Schweizer's discovery rather than simply stating her findings in a few sentences. They could have simply explained her conclusion and detailed her experiment. Instead they told the whole story so that the scientific process she went through would be clear to their audience. Thus "Stated Clearly" is an excellent name for the channel.
Subscribed.
I did NOT expect iron to preserve the soft tissue, how fascinating!
Great job, and amazing explanation.
And I may have to link to this for more explanation when creationists continuously try to use her work to show that the earth is young.
+Shane Wilson
Creationists will deny those observations per default. This is easily to understand, when you understand their goals of personal religious satisfaction. For example when we observe that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5+ million years away it is denied. Even when the stars would cook us when they would be nearby - or the light speed (Einstein etc.) would be wrong, too.
It makes also no sense how they argue from their own excuse argumentation. For example they believe before the flood of the bible humans, dinos and mammoth lived together.
Why do we have neanderthal DNA and mammoth DNA but not dinosaurs living in the ice age and so on and so on.
It makes no sense.
Mary looks so heroic. But it's obvious that any anomaly in paleontology must prove that the earth is 6000 years young, and Adam and Eve were literal people. Obviously.
Great vid😀
Like you said, 2 years is a far cry from 65 million years, so an act of desperation on Schweitzer's part to explain soft-tissue preservation via bonding with iron. Besides this, the solution of iron she used was gained through a very complex set of procedures in the lab, and in no way represents anything that can occur in the field, so you cannot use her experiment to explain naturally occurring preservation. Furthermore, multiple investigations are finding DNA markers. DNA as a molecule does not bind with iron compared to the larger protein molecules, so iron cannot be invoked to explain the preservation of DNA. But don't take my word for it, Prof. Matthew Collins
from the University of York states "I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for how soft tissues can be preserved for this long … for me they’re defying basic chemistry and physics. … Iron may slow down the decay process but it’s not clear how it could be arrested altogether.” (Morton, M.C., Cretaceous collagen: Can molecular paleontology glean soft tissue from dinosaurs? Earth 16 October 2017; earthmagazine . org).
In another paper it is stated: “Proteins decay in an orderly fashion. We can slow it down, but not by a lot.” (Service, R.F., Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in ‘milestone’ paper, Science 31 January 2017; sciencemag . org.)
Your video is, therefore, a trite and unsatisfactory answer to the enigma of soft-tissue preservation. Schweitzer has yet to give a workable answer.
Lying for jesus i see.
@@devilmonkey427 In a paper published in January 2020 "Evidence of proteins, chromosomes and chemical markers of DNA in exceptionally preserved dinosaur cartilage" National Science Review 0:1-8, doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz206; the six lead scientists find chemical markers for DNA. DNA cannot be preserved by iron. They also state in their paper "Unlike dinosaur osteocytes that often present a reddish hue
due to iron inclusions, Hypacrosaurus chondrocytes are transparent (Fig. 4A and B), suggesting a different preservation mode." In other other words these bone cells have no iron in them. This "different preservation mode" they hint at in the paper is not mentioned again. Iron is not the get-out-of-jail free card they are hoping for. And no, this is not "lying for Jesus" as you so ignorantly and crassly insinuate- this is scientific fact- so get over it.
@@brainzpvz2592 To try and extrapolate from 2 years to 65 million years is absurd. But the paper ref I gave above Schweiter found T-rex tissue with no iron therefore her supposed preservation mechanism is irrelevant. Evolutionists have no means to preserve dinosaur soft tissue therefore it cannot be millions of years old.
@@brainzpvz2592 If you see my comments above, I give full references to Schweitzer's papers, including where she finds T-rex soft tissue with NO iron, they are described as 'transparent'. Also, see the refs to scientists who don't take her iron rescuing device at all seriously. In other words, you don't even have 2 years to play with. Schweiter has debunked her own rescuing device. Triceratops soft tissue is also known, as also is Hadrosaur, but the one that beats them all is soft tissue found inside a pre-Cambrian tube worm: Moczydłowska, M., Westall, F. and Foucher, F., Microstructure and biogeochemistry of the organically preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites, Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224-239, 2014
The researchers state the following: "The Sabellidites [tube-worm] organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.” and "The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.” This was in pre-Cambrian rock supposedly 550 million years old. No way!
@Brain PVZ Schweiter admitted in an interview on NBC (see her full interview here: ruclips.net/video/ynXwAo9V_pY/видео.html)
“It is utterly shocking, and it flies in the face of everything we know about how tissues and cells degrade...” and "it is utterly shocking... a lot of our science doesn't allow for this, all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments we have done don't allow for this...". She knows about molecular break-down experiments, all proteins, including DNA have half-lives that can be observed and calculated for different temperatures. There is no experimental evidence to demonstrate that biomolecules can last for multi-millions of years (even when they are frozen in lead-lined containers to protect them from all external energy and radiation sources). Nielsen-Marsh, C., 2002. Biomolecules in fossil remains. Multidisciplinary approach to endurance. The Biochemical Society. published a table of protein and DNA half-life results, at max they only last a few 10s thousands years at 10C, even less at 20C. This is observable, repeatable science. To make these biomolecules last for 65 million years even half a billion years runs against all known physics and chemistry. You have a lot of faith to believe these soft tissues are really 65 million years old and older.
It is obvious to any honest and intelligent person, not a religious zealot of Darwin, that the bone isn't 65 million years old or even ten thousand. So yes the geologists and palaeontologists have waisted their lives with fanciful pseudo science.
mutabrev No, we haven't. It's you that have indulged in a flight of fancy. "Any honest and intelligent person" would read your pontificating and simply ask you for a little justification, please. How is it that YOU know the age of this fossil? Let's think. It cannot be from your knowledge of biology or earth science (coz you think they are both a waste of time). If not from science, where else? The mind boggles. Scripture then? Sadly, dinosaurs are not mentioned in Genesis (despite what Ken Ham imagines). So, perhaps, (no, surely not!) it comes from revelation from the Almighty! Am I right? Do tell.
BTW Friendly warning. Using the word "obvious" in an "argument" is a 100% indicator that BS is to follow.
You are just . . . Wow, I mean you phrased it best yourself , what do these experts in their fields, professional geologists and paleontologists know, I must be right based on my superficial understanding of the subject
Hi, how are you Alan? I see your quite upset.
I have not seen a comment devolve from logic at such a rapid rate as yours in a long time. It is clear and unambiguously plain to see The cognitive dissonance is strong in you. mghmoys
@@mutabrev Hi to you. OK, so you think I'm upset? So upset that I resort to ad hominem? No. In fact, I added a friendly warning re: "obvious" didn't I? So I must ask where did this idea come from? Well, there are only the two of us. I'm clearly not upset. So? It's only a guess, but your failure to address a single one of the points I raised, even when asked so nicely, suggests that it's you! Sorry.
Re: logic. Sorry again. You've lost me. Is your definition of the word somehow different from everyone else's? I logically went through what I saw as the alternative explanations for your assertion and simply asked you to confirm my reasoning or not. Where's the cog diss in that?
May I try again. Where do you get an age of less than ten thousand years for a fossil dinosaur bone?
The growth in your animation abilities is amazing. I love how you actually contact the scientist and get the most accurate information as well. You are truly a service to the world. We're not to the unit yet, but I'm going to show my AP Biology students this tomorrow.
+J - one if the Mao. Reasons this video looks so good us because comic artist Jordan Collver has teamed up with me. He did most of the illustrations on this one!
+Stated Clearly *the main reason
Awesome! Thank you for continuing to make these videos!
And... cue the creationist backlash of straw men and arguments from ignorance...
This woman didn't have the balls to stand up to the scientific community and say yes this proof that dinosaurs did live less than a million years ago at least my dinosaur did if you don't like it prove me wrong
Obvious Poe is obvious.
Not that I don't like that cool idea that my thousand-year old grandpa could have witnessed a Dinosaur, but having the current consensus showing models and their evidence contradicting this, it don't look like that's it. This lad even talked about how it could have lived for over millions of years, with another link showing it may not have even been from the dinosaur in his pinned comment.
Occam's razor took a hard hit here.... Iron preserved the tissue for 65 million years... oh brother, anything to avoid being proven wrong.
Yeah, assuming everything we know about geology and prehistory is wrong, is a huge assumption, compared to the iron preserving the tissue, which we can see it can preserve pretty well. Occam's razor says it's more likely it was preserved
This calls evolution into question the presence of soft tissue means these fossils are a lot fresher then we thought.
did u not watched the entire video? about why it could have been preserved?
Proof that the earth is young
Rody Davis Not really, you know.
No, an explanation why soft tissue can be preserved for a very long time.,
That is a big fat *wrong*.
“Number 1......can’t be young, cuz we REFUSE to expose our bullshit dating method.......which amounts to circular reasoning.....”
yup..got to keep the dream going
I was a young earth creationist when this story came out however many years ago. It so obviously confirmed that scientists were wrong about everything and dinosaurs lived with humans. My pastor totally agreed and used it to make me even more skeptical of the scientific elites... great vid! I think either potholer or viced rhino have both touched on this subject, but this is the most complete version of the story
Rick Turner that line about scientists being obviously wrong and humans living with dinosaurs made my mind cringe. Glad to see you are no longer a young earther. Congrats!
It's depressing how often YEC's cherry-pick interesting facts, assert the interpretation that fits their pre-existing worldview (never mind what the context says about that interpretation), and ignore the mountains of evidence _against_ that interpretation...before accusing the scientific community of ignoring evidence against their "scientific dogma".
Rick Turner
Dinosaurs still live with humans...
All members of Aves are descendents of the raptor dinosaurians.
But... Humans weren't around during the jurassic, and Jurassic dinosaurs weren't around when the first ancestors of modern man came down from the trees.
Nothing about these findings lends any credence to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, or that the earth is young, and Mary herself has stated this.
It is now well known, since the Stanford experiments of the 70s, that cooperation is more important to our brains than evidence. Confirmation bias is the road to cooperation. Look at the stories of people leaving extreme liberalism or extreme conservativism: near the end, these people were apologetic of their groups despite obvious bias all the way up until the point where they could no longer reconcile the obvious truth with their beliefs. Admitting you are wrong in these circumstances often gets you ejected from your group of friends, family, etc. It's hard.
Propaganda based on assumptions.
Assumption that it is Propaganda based on assumption
So much flawed logic in this vid
Like?
Is everyone stupid...obvious answer dinosaurs are not millions of years old....
And the Earth is flat,obvious.
Yeah. Dinosaurs are still alive deep in the Amazon Jungle. Oh, and almost everywhere else. One shit on my car the other day. Bloody birds.
Looks like someone didn't watch the video.
gallo916
No, everyone is not stupid.
Just the ones that think man hunted dinosaurs.
No you science illiterate, religious moron. If you put down the silly book of fairytales and picked up a science book, you would know that carbon 14 is limited to about 4500 to 5000 years.
Of course in your brainwashed, science illiterate, reality denying head you twist evidence like this to fit into your silly beliefs. Geology, paleontology, genetics, and biology ALL destroy your silly flood myth. The biblical flood never happened. Dinos died out millions of years ago. Not thousands.
Fake Science.
Confirmation bias at its best.
Explain please.
Yes, do please explain.
Please explain
If your referring to this video you'll need more than a simple statement to refute these findings (not to mention how hot the presentation is).
Fascinating story
Braddon Schulze it’s not a story though
That T-Rex was found in the Hell creek formation the portion of which was in Montana, the Hell creek formation is sandstone, a very porous material that allows water (a solvent) to penetrate and percolate through it, now it does not matter what kind of special preservative they try to cook up, time (68 million years) plus water is going to destroy it, it cannot last that long no matter what you try to cook up to do so, you are dealing with porous sandstone and water over 68 million years, there is no way any tissue in the that ground will survive the water and time, oh and something they forgot to mention is that time and water with minerals is supposed to replace the bone turning it into rock, you would think that if the bone had been replaced by mineralization, that the contents of the bone would have also been replaced...
evolutionists downright denied what
4:43
Schwitzer said she discovered so
4:46
unlikely was her claim given the
4:48
evolutionary time
4:50
scale I had One reviewer tell me that he
4:52
didn't care what the data said he knew
4:55
that what I was Finding wasn't possible
4:57
says Schweitzer I wrote back and said
5:00
well what data would convince you and he
5:02
said
5:04
none ....
They know that there is no way soft tissue could survive 68 million years in very porous sandstone.
One video had staked out a dead deer so that it could not be dragged away, and mother nature reduced it to bones in just 7 days, when the researcher had estimated a month just to remove the hair and skin.
Animals that die do not last long, unless they are buried rapidly where natural processes are prevented, (maggots and scavengers.)
Take your confidence and turn it into a paper for scrutiny by the relevant experts.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect
Do you have a problem with the facts, that 68 million years in sandstone with water over that time would completely destroy any soft tissue, I mean the secular scientists have said that under the best conditions 900 thousand years would be tops for soft tissue to survive.
For soft tissue to survive 68 million years in porous sandstone... That is a miracle!!!
Also there have been plenty of "papers" done, and some from young earth creationist's have given them nightmares. soft tissue in supposed 68-million-year-old fossil, that does not speak of millions of years but mere thousands.
Good thing they found FOSSILS
Was the fossil preserved in sandstone or found in an area with sandstone? And how deep was it? I wish they had mentioned these things in the video buts its probably stated in one of the papers.
@@alexwilson3133 Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery try that, it mentions a cliff
Evolutionist: ''Evolution can easily account for the finding of soft tissue inside dinosaur bone... which is tens of millions of years old. All that's happend is some amazing chemistry. That's right. Simple chemistry. Rocks and chemicals and acids and bases and stuff. There. What a good answer that was! And if anyone doesn't think so, all I have to do is demand to see their degree in Paleontology, Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Archaeo-Meteorology and Biology! See how easy that was, boys and girls? Now we can all can hold on to our Evolutionist-No-God-Needed Theory and still show off thinking we're smarter than all those dummy Creationists!''
Dr Schweitzer is herself a Christian, and certainly doesn't think evolution is a no-God-needed theory.
It's a shame you think Mary, a trained professional, would be so disingenuous. As for being "ostracised" check out @5:37...
Apologies, I thought you said that Mary developed her cross-linking hypothesis to satisfy Evolutionists and keep certain faction in the Scientism community from ostracising her (as opposed to genuinely seeking answers to her own earnest questions). You're right that 2 years isn't conclusive, but it does at least provide a plausible explanation for how the tissue has been preserved for so long. That's going to be one long experiment if it needs to run for millions of years!
You're right that it is challenging, which is why it makes for such an interesting topic for a video. But remember that just because something doesn't seem possible doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't happen... just look at quantum physics! So much of what we learn about the natural world surprises us and runs counter to our human intuitions, which is why science is so exciting!
Also remember that the "received wisdom" of science does change with better evidence (even in the face of what you refer to as aggressive Scientism)... so if you are right and the Earth is actually much younger than we previously thought, you can take comfort that the truth will eventually win out. I don't think that will ever happen in this case, but I'd like to think I'd be willing to change my mind if it did.
v1e1r1g1e1 Maybe you should watch the video dumbass.
(insert Jurassic Park theme here)
2 years is not 65 million. Not even close. And in a lab environment. Perlease!
Paladin
No sign of degradation was found.
What other explanation do you have?
I would have thought it was obvious in my statement. 2 years in a lab environment can't be used as a serious test, surely? was the tissue surrounded by the same fluid for 65 million years? Wouldn't something have coagulated/drained off/become adulterated? I can't take this test as proof.
Paladin
The test isn’t pretending to be proof.
What other tests do you suggest?
"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," - Mary Schweitzer
No cell decay in 2 years.... Has anyone checked the experiment since?
What about collagen? that can apparently last millions of years as well. Amazing. The science we all relied on has been overturned. I believe this new corrected science though.
Another channel owned by [...enter your favorite evil elite here...], ^^
The fossil was just 6,000 years old, obviously...
So much for Mary's hemoglobin theory, and this video......
__________________________
Alleon, J. et al. 2016. Molecular preservation of 1.88 Ga Gunflint organic microfossils as a function of temperature and Mineralogy. Nature Communications. 7: 11977.
______________________
1.88 billion year old protine and no blood.
تطور الخليه إلى سمكه E
Have you ever heard of the evolutionary theory of living beings? . . We ask you to publish a video about the ancestors of the fish (Haikouichtys) ،I hope you posted a video Stages of cell evolution from chemistry to fish ،We ask you to mention the names and history of living organisms . The theory of evolution is the correct interpretation of the appearance of living beings . I want to know the ancestral forms of this fish (Haikouichtys) , We need a video about cell evolution From chemistry to fish We ask you to write their date and names in RUclips video
.
Some people just believe stupid shit. Option 1 is not plausible due to misconceptions about dating methods. Not one method can be verified as remotely accurate because most of them can only be used on rocks that are >100,000yrs old. There is nothing that can be verified as being that old to start with. All dating methods are condition dependent. Do the equations account for these conditions or even make assumptions about them?
Perhaps you should look into Mary's experiment, which was poorly executed and unscientific. Do you really think iron preservation is feasible? you are on your own there.
Except you miss problems about iron prevesing. Her experiment is not great. It need to be aleast 10 years to observe if blood cell survive for long time. Her experiment was limited by well prevese area not nature. Not many scientists are buying her explanation. It need more work.
What about the blood vessels found in these bones? Which under a microscope where elastic and stretched when pulled? How does biofilm account for these blood vessels found inside the bones? Also why does everything have to fit into this millions of years time frame? Birds and mammals and modern day reptiles were fond in the fossil record buried along side dinosaurs. There has even been a mammal found fossilized inside of a dinosaur stomach!