22 replies to this topic

[agnophilo123]

Organs are made of tissues, however tissue doesn't constitute an organ, hence my statement no organs in fossilised bones. Additionally tissue have been found in many more fossils, hence is repeatable. It's amusing that you avoid the evidence.... I thought being scientific meant following the evidence WHEREVER it leads, you may not like the conclusion, but that doesn't mean its false.

I'm not avoiding anything, I was asking you for the actual evidence. A study about x dinosaur does not prove y dinosaur remains had macroscopic soft tissue. And for the record the skeletal system is considered an organ system, and our bones (specifically the marrow) produce white blood cells. They're not just scaffolding for our bodies.

[gilbo12345]

I'm not avoiding anything, I was asking you for the actual evidence. A study about x dinosaur does not prove y dinosaur remains had macroscopic soft tissue. And for the record the skeletal system is considered an organ system, and our bones (specifically the marrow) produce white blood cells. They're not just scaffolding for our bodies.

You were asking about finding organs inside the bone, since that is what we are looking at, structures INSIDE the bone... You complained before because the study was talking about proteins and tissues, rather than organs, I commented that one wouldn't hope to find organs in bones (since that is absurd), now you're attempting to shift the focus, (yes bones are considered as organs for the proliferation of white blood cells, however this doesn't mean that we should find organs within the bone itself.

As I said this has been repeated over and over and over and the same results occur its not an isolated case. To my knowledge T-Rex, Hadrosaur and Archeopteryx have all had tissue identified within multiple replicates

[goldliger]

I think we're just not on the same page here. I was talking about a specific discovery - you're citing papers about other specimens and seem to be arguing that microscopic chemical traces of dinosaurs can survive in-tact which is not what I was talking about.

Other specimens are perfectly valid. They're still dinosaur fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old. And I didn't say anything about "microscopic chemical traces."