What are the odds blood cells, blood vessels and collagen could survive for 65 million years?
Under most conditions, scientists would answer with an unequivocal, “No way!” But when the question involves a dinosaur fossil some claim is 65 million years old…and which contains these blood materials including hemoglobin and collagen, suddenly the answer gets much more murky.
Since when did “science” become so shifting and unsettled?
A recent article from Carl Wieland at Creation Ministries International examines the case of a tyrannosaurus rex fossil found in 1990 which was taken to the Montana State University lab for examination.
Remarkably, evolutionist Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team found parts inside a long leg bone that were not completely fossilized.
Creation Ministries International quotes Dr. Schweitzer on her find:
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!'”
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, “So far, we haven’t been able to.”
The skeptical evolutionists compiled considerable evidence that they had indeed found hemoglobin in the dinosaur bone:
- The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
- Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
- Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
- To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.
The problem here is that (under most circumstances) most scientists would agree that complex protein molecules–even if hermetically sealed–should break down long before 65 million years had passed.
So, in the “objective” manner common with evolutionary scientists who are so “open minded” that they cannot possibly consider the slightest chance that they could be wrong, many skeptics set out to construct a framework of reality in which this find could be explained away, retaining the theoretical construct of millions of years of evolution.
Even though it was reported in 2007 that Schweitzer’s team had managed to sequence the collagen, evolutionists were not ready to revise their worldview.
In 2008 evolutionists came up with an idea to explain this discrepancy involving bacterial formation of biofilms which mimic actual blood vessels and framboids which mimic blood cells (have you ever noticed how the most obvious answer is never acceptable if it contradicts the evolution worldview? that new and increasingly unsubstantiated theories are required to hide the nakedness of the theory of evolution?).
But now Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues have published additional evidence in the journal Science which reinforces her previous findings.
This time a hadrosaur estimated by evolutionists at 80 million years old contained the same soft unfossilized tissues. They used a new mass spectrometer and sent samples to two other labs. This time tests revealed not only collagen but two other proteins: elastin and laminin. They again found structures “coincidentally” resembling blood cells and hemoglobin.
Hmmmm. Now let’s take a closer look at the worldviews and “objectivity” involved here. Typically, when someone finds evidence which apparently contradicts their assumptions, they modify their assumptions accordingly. Not so with “objective” evolutionists who rely only on firmly established and thoroughly tested “science.”
Creation Ministries International outlines the circular reasoning of these evolutionists:
- We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
- Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.
- Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
- There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because
- We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
Notice the joining of the circle between #1 and #5?
Think about it: if we can test with observational science that collagen could not survive for 80 million years, and we find surviving collagen in a situation we thought indicated it was 80 million years old (based on assumptions, not observational science), does it not stand to reason that the observational scientific evidence would trump the assumptions? And in this case, indicate that there is something seriously wrong with our assumption that these dinosaurs are 65-80 million years old?
Don’t get me wrong. I once believed pretty confidently in evolution theory…because I was largely ignorant about its insurmountable flaws, and ignorant to the fact that there were other scientifically viable theories which actually better fit the evidence.
Accordingly, when I found out about these things, I adjusted my beliefs about the origins of life and the universe. As Lord John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”
Some folks, however, are either so invested in being viewed as always right, or so ideologically invested in what they hope is right about origins, that they hold fast to a sinking theory even in the face of contradictory evidence.
People across the world have understandably placed a lot of faith in academia and the scientific world to provide accurate, reliable information upon which to formulate their own opinions. Unfortunately, the theological and ideological bias of many in academia and science have led them to deceive the public.
Not only is evolution painted as beyond question and totally settled in the media and pop culture, it is also presented this way in the public schools which teach our children. And worse, many of the textbooks used not only paint a glossy picture in favor of evolution theory, they contain outright errors, many of which have been exposed as errors for decades if not more than 100 years (see video below).
Is this an accident that, after all these decades, these textbooks continue to be printed with scientific errors? Could such an “oversight” continue so widely for so long? Or is it a “helpful” oversight which aids in maintaining the illusion of reliability for a shaky theory which grows more obsolete with each passing year?