Dinosaur Skin Discovery Threatens to Debunk Long-Held Evolutionary Assumptions

dinosaur_skin Credit University of ReginaGRAND PRAIRIE – The discovery by Canadian researchers of well-preserved dinosaur remains has proven to be a direct challenge to longstanding evolutionary assumptions.

In June of last year, a group of scientists with Canadian Light Source (CLS)—a research team dedicated primarily to studying the composition of matter via synchrotron science—unearthed a fascinating dinosaur fossil in western Alberta. Much to the researchers’ astonishment, a piece of well-preserved dinosaur skin was attached to the hadrosaur fossil.

One of the scientists on the team, University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi, was thrilled about the discovery, commenting that the specimen could be a key to learning more about what dinosaurs looked like.

“If we are able to observe the melanosomes and their shape,” he explained in a CLS press release, “it will be the first time pigments have been identified in the skin of a dinosaur. We have no real idea what the skin looks like. … There has been research that proved the color of some dinosaur feathers, but never skin.”

Barbi also wants to learn more about the theoretical evolution of the hadrosaur from studying this particular fossil.

“As we use high technology to understand the inner structure of these things,” he told the Leader-Post, “I can contribute to the understanding of our animals and how they evolved.”

Meanwhile, as some scientists are elated by this discovery’s implications, others are asking a very basic question: How could this dinosaur skin—which, according to evolutionary models, is at least 60 million years old—have possibly remained intact without decaying away?

  • Connect with Christian News

Many Biblical creationists say the answer is simple: It couldn’t have.

Brian Thomas, head science writer for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), recently published an article for ICR, in which he details why it is absurd to believe that dinosaur skin like this could have possibly survived for tens of millions of years.

“Who, upon entering a room and encountering a burning candle,” he wrote, “would immediately begin to wonder what special something about that candle enabled it to continually burn for a million years? Would it not make more sense to first question how long such a candle could potentially burn before going out?”

In an interview with Christian News Network, Thomas explained that skin is primarily comprised of collagen, which is a tough, insoluble protein. Despite its resilience, rigorous tests have shown that collagen (like other proteins) decays steadily over time, and—even in ideal, “best case” scenarios—could never last more than one million years. In fact, under realistic conditions, collagen’s maximum “shelf life” is probably closer to 300,000 years.

Given the constant decay rate of proteins, Thomas compared the collagen in dinosaur skin to an egg timer.

“When the timer ‘dings,’ there should be no skin left,” he stated. “Even if it’s encased in rock, it turns into dust right in the middle of the rock, because of the nature of the chemistry. So … the timer should have ‘dinged’ long before the millions of years that evolutionists have provided for these kinds of fossils.”

Even though findings like the one in Alberta are rare, Thomas mentioned that there have been several other discoveries of soft tissue and proteins in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. A list from the ICR website chronicles numerous peer-reviewed journal articles over the years that have reported such findings.

On the other hand, a much better explanation for the existence of these animal remains, Thomas remarked, would be the young-earth Creation model. According to this belief, based upon the Scriptures, most dinosaur fossils were buried during the Great Flood around 4,400 years ago.

Nevertheless, despite what he sees as mounting evidence, Thomas pointed out that evolutionists still dogmatically claim that these animal remains are millions of years old.

“They do, they have, and they will,” he said.

Photo: Canadian Light Source/University of Regina


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Nixak*77*

    Finding intact soft tissue in any fossil that’s alleged to be several million, 10s of millions let alone over +100 mn yrs old; has been a real issue for the Darwinian Macro-evolutionary paradigm since Dr Mr Sweitzer made her discovery of intact soft-tissue in dino bones about a decade ago. At first they thought she was likely faking the data or at-least mishandling the samples. After rigorous review, they had to accept her findings. But they still tried to force fit this clear challenge to the standard Darwinian paradigm into that standard. IMO the obvious position to take would be to question if that Dino bone was really +65 mn yrs old, & then C14 date the sample [apparently NOT done].

    So Dr Sweitzer came up w an ‘out’ for them [& her], by claim ironing globules in the soft tissue sample had a preservative effect. There just a few issue w this ‘excuse’ masquerading as an ‘explanation’: -1} the so-called ‘iron globule preservative effect’ has NOT been shown to be effective past several yrs or perhaps a few decades in the open environment- let alone 1000s 10s & 100s of thousands yrs, & most definitely NOT MILLIONS, 10s to +100 MILLION YRS, as would be needed to preserve dino bone soft tissue allegedly over +65 Mn Yrs old!
    – 2} Iron is a common constituent in blood, hemoglobin gives blood its red color & iron is what makes hemoglobin red. So if iron is all it takes to preserve soft tissue for millions of yrs, then many / most or even NEARLY ALL bone-fossils [dinosaur or NOT] should have intact soft tissue in them, yet it is quite the contrary!!

    Now they’ve found preserved dino skin & even a nearly intact whole dino-fossil… Yet act if everything just Okee Dokey w such findings, when IMO they represent MAJOR challenges to the prevailing Darwinian paradigm [the nearly whole intact dino fossil looks quite reptilian like a heavy armour-shielded crocodile, NOT like a bird]. IMO it is blatantly obvious that either Darwinist dating methodology is NOT fool-proof &/or their ASSumption & ASSertion that ALL dinos went extinct 65 mybp must be WRONG [IMO both are wrong]!! And one does NOT have to be a YEC to come to such an obvious conclusion.
    – IMO most but NOT all Dinos may have been wiped out by a theorized meteor strike off the Yucatan circa 65 mybp [assuming that such an event did indeed happen]. But from that point to the onset of the last ice age [estimated circa 2 – 3 mybp] some dinos may have made a ‘semi’ come-back [but NOT to the previous levels in numbers & variety] -But- The sudden onset of the past ice-age effectively finished them off, w most / nearly all of them trapped under a thick blanket of ice & snow [some glaciers reached 1 – 2 miles thick]. It’s a well known fact that a semi-permanent blanket of ice is an excellent preservative of organic material, it’s estimated soft tissue could be preserved in a glacier of ice [which both freezes the tissue & blocks its exposure to O2] for up-to 2 – 3 Mn Yrs. IMO w the end of the last ice-age circa 8000 – 10,000 Yrs ago [IMO this likely triggered the Noahtic Flood] these bones became uncovered & those that were at-least partially fossilized by being imbedded in mud, would avoid having been eaten by scavengers. At that point maybe Dr Sweitzer’s iron globule preservative effect came into play.
    – IMO under this scenario a few [but NOT most] dino bones & other fossils w soft-tissue could be expected to be found her & there, yet would still be a major challenge to the standard Darwinian paradigm re: macro-evolution. #1} It shows the dating methodologies for fossils allegedly several million yrs old is unreliable. #2} Basically cuts the ‘limb out from under’ Darwinists’ ASSertions that birds ‘evolved’ from dinos. The other thing I’d do is C14 date each & every fossil w intact soft-tissue in it [including amber fossils] that’s alleged to be millions of yrs old. If they can’t be dated via the C14 method then so be it, but if they can be… Then apparently such fossils can NOT be millions of yrs old!!