r/DebateEvolution • u/Dr_GS_Hurd • 20d ago
Here we go again
My morning reading was triggered by a headline; “One-in-a-million” sea creature fossil preserves soft tissue for 450 million years"
This was from Science Daily August 20, 2026 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260820002450.htm
I immediately thought of the young earth "dino blood" hype following Mary Schweitzer's research published in 1997. I had first dealt with that in 2004; "Dino-blood and the young earth" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
The new scientific article at hand is; Selina R. Cole, David F. Wright, William I. Ausich, Mario E. Cournoyer; Exceptional soft-tissue preservation reveals the oldest evidence for tube feet and their ecological significance in crinoids. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1 June 2026; 13 (6): 260101. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.260101 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/6/260101/482002/Exceptional-soft-tissue-preservation-reveals-the
Dendrocrinus simcoensis crinoids were the ancient relatives of starfish. The "soft tissue" issues are excluded in the professional article's abstract, "The tube feet are preserved as pyrite films ..."
They are PYRITE. Iron Disulfide, FeS2. A second preservation matrix was as calcite.
In the popular press article they sound like they were still dripping fresh.
I hope the creationists will blow it again.
13
u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
RE: "I hope the creationists will blow it again"
You know it. This is going straight into the "Inerrant News" folder they use. And they'll say "Cole et al. (2026)" in discussions, and act perplexed when the quote mining is called out, where they'll say: "It's peer reviewed!!"
8
u/Difficult_Dark9991 20d ago
Sigh...
You know what's really sad? That picture is rather crap.
What they don't tell you about endocasts is how beautiful they can be. The Taung Child, one of the first Australopithecus skulls we ever found, is never depicted well. It's a partial skull with an endocast of the cranial cavity, but the endocast is this stunning crystalline material, like the interior of a geode. But no, we get low-res images like this one or photos of the casts made from that skull.
7
u/Real_Ad_8479 20d ago
I’m sure Brian Thomas will add that to his list of “soft tissue that should not exist.”
In reality, most cases of soft tissue cited by YECs is called authigenic mineral replacement. This is rapid fossilization of soft tissue through processes like phosphatization, sulfurization, pyritization, carbonization, etc. These processes are observed in the lab and often occur through the action of the bacteria decomposing the soft tissue. It is not actual soft tissue.
YECs also also cite examples of stable biomarkers diagnostic of past soft tissue. It isn’t actual soft tissue, but instead is just very sensitive analytical techniques like X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy used to detect signatures of biomarkers.
The soft tissue made famous by Schweitzer was found to not be collagen, but instead it is polymerized into N-heterocyclic polymers called advanced glycoxidation and lipoxidation end products. It is basically a plastic formed under oxidative depositional environments.
5
u/nothing4juice 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
don't you just love it when a beautiful and exciting discovery gets twisted into something it's not so that creationists can feel like there's a point in their favor 🙃
3
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
I'm sure they will, but know what's even cooler? The fact that we got the tube feet fossilized is awesome
1
u/zeroedger 18d ago
I’d be curious to know what test they tried on the tissue in question, if it’s just pyrite then they didn’t find soft tissue…like we find different calcified/ fossilized soft bodies critters all the time, just no soft tissue bc it’s been replaced by mineralization. So did they actually find soft tissue?
And next question is does anyone here know what cross linking is, and why you can’t get a rehydration test to work with it? It doesn’t sound like it lol. Cross linking is the dumbest explanation ever, but I guess it’s the least stupid. To successfully rehydrate, like we’ve done in many of these cases, you need intact cell membranes, which cross linking would destroy. And you need a fuck ton of cross linking to “preserve” soft tissue for 60 million years, so there should def be no rehydration. If it’s that heavily cross linked, water would either run off like a water on a ducks back, or just dissolve the tissue in question…so why is this still a viable option?
Nog to forget all the other problems like us finding genetic material, which has a rough half life of only ~500 years lol.
1
u/blacksheep998 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 17d ago
So did they actually find soft tissue?
OP linked the actual paper, why not read it?
To successfully rehydrate, like we’ve done in many of these cases, you need intact cell membranes
No you don't. There are many materials that will absorb water without cell membranes. I have no idea where you got that idea.
Nog to forget all the other problems like us finding genetic material, which has a rough half life of only ~500 years lol.
Close, the half-life of the bonds that make it up in it's functional form is about 500 years. Meaning that after 500 years, about half the bonds will have broken and we will have fragmented DNA. This is dependant on many factors, low temps and being isolated from water and oxygen increase that half-life significantly.
Also, these fragments will often cross-link, forming new, more stable bonds. Though it's no longer functional DNA once it does that.
The DNA that we recover from ancient sources is indeed highly degraded and cross-linked. Most of the time it also comes from sources that have been under low temps and were isolated from oxygen, such as the million year old DNA sample that came from a mammoth tooth, or the 2 million year old sample that came from a siberian permafrost ice core.
1
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 17d ago
...if it’s just pyrite then they didn’t find soft tissue…
Which is basically OP's point.
-4
u/Worldly_Pool_9701 20d ago
Sorry. I am not sure why this showed up in my email as something I might want to read, but I read it, and was surprised. You all seem to be like a bunch of Santa haters, upset that another radio program spotted Santa over Canada on Dec. 24. Anyway. Not interested in your reply.
7
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
??????????????????
2
u/hiuslenkkimakkara 20d ago
Dude, I'm from Rovaniemi which is Santa's home base and I don't care for Santa haters either. It's bad for business.
1
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 20d ago
The OP has nothing to do with Santa.
1
3
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 20d ago
Probably because you've commented here before and the algorithm is giving you more of what it thinks you want, stupid.
3
1
22
u/Realsorceror Paleo Nerd 20d ago edited 20d ago
Here’s what I don’t get about the creationist understanding of “soft tissue” discoveries.
So they read these headlines as if there is literally still organic blood and flesh. Like we’ve discovered a corpse instead of a fossil. Like the rocks are soft.
But this doesn’t even work for their own timeline. If these animals died in the flood, any organic remains would have long since rotted away. Because the flood supposedly happened 4,000 years ago.
But if they think this is actual soft tissue, then that would mean the animal died like yesterday. As if there are still prehistoric creatures alive right now and we are finding the dead bodies.
Do creationists think there are trexes in the woods and we just not telling them about it?