What are the details of the T Rex soft tissue discovery of Dr Mary Schweitzer?

Answer 1

Another answer from our community:This discovery was made in 1990 by paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer of Montana State University. The soft tissue was discovered inside a T. Rex femur. Together with this soft tissue were what are clearly red blood cells, which, when tested for characteristics typical of such cells (such as magnetic attraction due to the iron) reacted like red blood cells do.

As one might expect, this discovery has created some intense interest and a number of scientists initially disbelieved the possibility of the find. Such views are no longer held as the find is undoubtedly genuine and now the discussion is focused on the implications of the find.

As commented on by Schweitzer the soft tissue contained blood vessels.

Answer 2

Another answer from our community:

From a creationist perspective the implication is that this material is not 64 million years old. This is possibly why some evolutionists at first refused to believe that it was genuine.

The creationist explanation for this discovery would include two possibilities. The first being that the dinosaur specimen was buried in the flood of Noah around 4500 years ago or in some post-flood cataclysm - the former being the favored explanation.

As pointed out by creationists, this find will not cause many believers in evolution to change their thinking. It will merely be incorporated into the evolutionary paradigm, as described below. For creationists, the discovery brought no surprise, since such would be predicted by this paradigm and requires little, if any, explanation as to the mechanism of survival.

Scientists frequently interpret factual discoveries or data differently. This particular case is one where two totally different paradigms come into conflict. The necessity to descend into the use of emotive language on the part of evolutionists in attacking the creationist paradigm indicates that more than pure science is involved. The question is simply which paradigm better explains the evidence since neither can be conclusively proved from a purely scientific perspective since the past is not repeatable and testable in the same way as experiments such as chemical reactions can be repeated in the present.

Schweitzer's description of her own faith highlights what many others do and makes this issue an interesting case. Many Christians indeed feel the need to compromise on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and re-interpret anything they find which appears to contradict it in the light of the philosophy which is external to The Bible (in this case evolutionary theory). Other Christians take Genesis 1 as read and interpret the evidence they find in accord with clear Biblical teaching. The question in relation to this exhibit is which one fits the evidence.

______________

Another answer:

An Implication, among many other concepts that may have to be reconciled with the soft tissue find (if it continues to hold up under scrutiny), or re-examined completely is the concept of aging archeological and geological materials based on their location in the multiple layers of deposits where they were found. There is the problem that at present, as far as I am aware, no dinosaur fossils have been found in strata beyond a certain point in assumed geological age. The gap between these levels and the oldest levels containing humanoid fossils is millions of years in assumed geological time. It seems too wide a stretch to imagine that soft, even 'stretchy' tissues from dinosaurs would survive as long as the current assumptions would suggest. On the other hand, there seems to be a huge gap of assumed geological time during which there seems to be no evidence of dinosaur life on earth. There is definitely work to be done, and it is far too early to carve any conclusions in stone.

______________________

Another Answer:

Excerpt from Q&A Dr. Mary Sweitzer;

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak;

Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?

Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

A: Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, Paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary Biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.

See link below: Ask the Expert-Nova Science Now

Answer 3

The respected Smithsonian magazine says (May 2006) that Schweitzer announced last year she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside a T. rex bone - the first observation of its kind. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. Some have attempted to assert that Dr Schweitzer squeezed blood out of the fossil, as if the tissue was still fresh, but that is really a distortion of the truth. The discovery occurred when her lab technician was dissolving a bone fragment in weak acid and realised that there was some unexplained fossilised soft tissue left behind.
According to the magazine, one consequence of the publication of Schweitzer's work is that it has been misrepresented. The article goes on to say: "Schweitzer's research has been hijacked by "young earth" creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old."

Dr Schweitzer describes herself as "a complete and total Christian" but says that her work has no implications for the creationist argument, since she can see no reason to doubt that the soft tissues discovered in her laboratory are millions of years old.

It may be too early to establish the scientific implications of Schweitzer's soft tissue discovery. If confirmed, her work may open up new avenues for the analysis of very ancient fossils.

Answer 4

The respected Smithsonian magazine says (May 2006) that Schweitzer announced last year she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside a T. rex bone - the first observation of its kind. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. The discovery occurred when her lab technician was dissolving a bone fragment in weak acid and realised that there was some unexplained soft tissue left behind.
Dr Schweitzer describes herself as "a complete and total Christian" but says that her work has no implications for the creationist argument, since she can see no reason to doubt that the fossilised soft tissues discovered in her laboratory are millions of years old. If confirmed, her work may open up new avenues for the analysis of very ancient fossils