Crinoid fossil with preserved 'soft' tissues.
A report of “soft tissue” preserved in a fossil more than 450 million years old is an obvious invitation to a familiar creationist misrepresentation: soft tissue decays, therefore the fossil cannot be that old, therefore the geological timescale must be wrong. The argument may sound persuasive to anyone who imagines a palaeontologist uncovering fresh flesh inside an ancient rock. Its fatal flaw is that this is not what the researchers have reported.
The discovery, described in Royal Society Open Science by Selina R. Cole and colleagues, concerns the delicate feeding structures of an extinct crinoid, Dendrocrinus simcoensis, from the Late Ordovician of Québec, approximately 452 million years ago. Crinoids are marine relatives of starfish and sea urchins. Their tube feet normally disappear after death, leaving the hard skeletal parts to dominate the fossil record. In these exceptional specimens, however, the anatomy of the tube feet has been recorded by mineralisation: the paper describes their preservation as pyrite films.
That distinction is the whole point. In palaeontology, “soft-tissue preservation” describes the preservation of evidence of structures that were soft during life; it does not, by itself, identify the chemical composition of the fossil or mean that those structures remain soft today. Here, the reported evidence is a mineral record of delicate anatomy, not a demonstration that fresh tissue has resisted decomposition for hundreds of millions of years. An impression of a leaf does not require the original leaf to remain intact. Nor does a mineral replica of a feeding structure require the original flesh to survive alongside it.
The University of Oklahoma’s news release understandably emphasises the rarity of the find, but its language about soft tissues having “survived” can invite precisely this confusion when detached from the paper’s explanation. Anyone wishing to claim that this discovery overturns the dating must first address what was actually found. Calculations about how quickly unmineralised flesh would rot do not establish the age of a fossil in which minerals preserve the form of that flesh. They address a different material and a different process.
The scientific interest is substantial without any imaginary collapse of geology. The fossil tube feet combine lengths and spacing unlike those documented in living crinoids, providing evidence about ancient feeding strategies and the evolution of these animals. Scientists are using an exceptional glimpse of Ordovician anatomy to investigate life in ancient seas. Turning that discovery into an argument for a young Earth would require replacing the researchers’ actual finding with a claim they did not make. The first casualty of such an argument would be the meaning of “fossilised”, not the geological timescale.
How can soft tissue become a fossil? “Soft tissue” describes the original anatomy, not necessarily the material found in the fossil. Skin, internal organs and tube feet are soft structures in a living animal. Their shapes can sometimes enter the fossil record even when the original tissues have decayed or undergone profound chemical alteration. Preserving anatomical information is not the same as preserving fresh flesh.
How pyritisation preserves delicate structures
Pyrite is an iron sulphide mineral, with the chemical formula FeS2, sometimes called “fool’s gold”. Under suitable burial conditions, it can form in close association with decaying remains and record fine anatomical details.
Paradoxically, therefore, decay can help drive preservation: microbial activity supplies some of the chemistry that records the anatomy. A lack of oxygen does not stop all decomposition, and the process does not require flesh to remain unchanged for millions of years.
- Burial creates a local chemical environment. Sediment surrounds the remains. Rapid burial can help protect them from scavengers and disturbance, but burial alone does not guarantee exceptional preservation.
- Microbes break down organic matter. In oxygen-depleted sediment, sulphate-reducing microbes can use sulphate during decomposition, producing sulphide.
- Iron and sulphide react. Where suitable iron is available in the sediment’s pore water, iron sulphide minerals can form, ultimately producing pyrite associated with the remains.
- Mineral formation records anatomy. If mineralisation occurs before delicate features lose their shape, it can replicate or outline them. The resulting mineral record can persist after the original tissue has broken down.
Different kinds of preservation
These categories can overlap within a single fossil. “Soft-tissue preservation” is an umbrella description, not a claim that every specimen contains the same material or formed by the same process.
Preservation type What is preserved? Mineral replication or replacement Minerals record the shape of biological structures. In the crinoid study, the tube feet are described as preserved through partial pyritisation and as pyrite films. Impressions and moulds An outline or surface relief remains in the sediment, even if the original biological material has disappeared. Carbonaceous films A thin, carbon-rich residue derived from the organism preserves aspects of its form. This is chemically altered material, not fresh tissue. Surviving organic molecules Some fossils retain identifiable biological molecules or their altered remnants. Such claims require chemical evidence and checks for contamination; they cannot be inferred merely from a recognisable shape.
Why this does not overturn the dating
Two separate questions must be answered: “How was the anatomy preserved?” and “When did the organism live?” The first concerns fossilisation; the second concerns geological context and dating. Fossil ages can be constrained by stratigraphy, correlation between rock sequences and radiometric dates from suitable associated rocks. Not every fossil is dated directly.
A mineral film preserving the shape of a tube foot is not a sample of unaltered flesh to which an ordinary decay rate can be applied. The crinoid paper places the specimens in the Late Ordovician, approximately 452 million years ago. Their exceptional preservation provides information about anatomy; it does not establish a younger age.
Short glossary
- Taphonomy:
- The study of what happens to organisms’ remains after death, including decay, burial and fossilisation.
- Mineralisation:
- The formation or deposition of minerals; in fossilisation, this can preserve structures by infilling or replication.
- Pyritisation:
- Preservation involving the formation of pyrite in association with an organism’s remains.
- Pore water:
- Water occupying the small spaces between sediment grains.
- Lagerstätte:
- A fossil deposit notable for its abundance or preservation. A Konservat-Lagerstätte preserves exceptional anatomical detail, often including soft structures.
OU Paleontologists Make "One in a Million" Discovery of Soft Tissue Preserved in 450-Million-Year-Old Fossil
Before the oldest dinosaur, before animals or even plants had expanded onto dry land, ancient relatives of starfish called crinoids, resembling stalked sea flowers, were among the first creatures to flourish in Earth’s earliest coral reefs over 450 million years ago. The study of fossilized crinoids helps scientists understand how these animals evolved and offers rare insight into the origins of complex life. However typical fossilization preserves only the hardest parts of an animal, like shells or skeletal plates, leaving soft tissues and much of their biology a mystery. Now, an extraordinarily rare discovery by University of Oklahoma paleontologists provides a nearly unprecedented look at some of the ocean’s first animals.
After an animal dies, soft tissues like skin, eyes, or internal organs are the first things to decay. Most fossils are only made up of hard parts like bones, teeth, or shells. Soft tissues are only preserved when the environment acts almost like a natural refrigerator or vacuum‑sealer—conditions that are incredibly rare.
Dr. Selina Cole, lead author
Invertebrate Paleontology
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History
Norman, OK, USA.
The nearly impossible natural conditions required to preserve soft tissue as fossils mean that the preserved tube feet of Dendrocrinus simcoensis, described by Cole and her colleagues in a groundbreaking new study, represent one of only two known examples of fossilized soft tissue in crinoids. It’s also the oldest example discovered to date.Preservation like this is truly one in a million. Crinoid fossils number in the millions, and this is only the second time soft tissues have ever been found.
Dr. Selina Cole.
The Oldest Crinoid Soft Tissue Ever Found
It’s incredible these soft tissues have survived more than 450 million years. For reference, these soft tissues are more than 200 million years older than the oldest dinosaur.
Dr. David Wright, co-author
Invertebrate Paleontology
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History
Norman, OK, USA.
Tube feet are essential for how crinoids feed, interact with currents, and occupy ecological niches. Their size, spacing, and structure vary depending on habitat and feeding strategy—much like how the shape of a mammal’s tooth reflects its diet.
Since crinoid tube feet are used for feeding, you can think of them in a similar way to how we think about teeth in mammals. Differences in their structure tell us about what kinds of environments a species lived in and how it fed.
Dr. David Wright.Comparisons with living crinoids show that the anatomy of this ancient species was very different,” Cole added. “This gives us new insight into how crinoids evolved and how their feeding strategies changed over hundreds of millions of years.
Dr. Selina Cole.
Insights into Ancient Oceans
While the discovery is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of ancient crinoids, its true value may be the clues it provides about the ecology of early Paleozoic oceans, when crinoids were among the many early animals to flourish in reef environments.
Because so few soft tissues are preserved in early echinoderms, each new discovery dramatically expands what scientists can deduce about ancient ecosystems, feeding strategies and evolutionary pathways.Fossilized remains of long‑extinct species can show features well outside the range of variation we see in living species. By comparing ecological ways of life for extinct and modern species, we can understand how patterns of adaptive evolution have changed through time and what factors shaped the modern biosphere.
Dr. David Wright.
A Discovery Made Possible by Museum Collections
Breakthroughs in paleontology are often thought to happen outdoors during field expeditions. While this is sometimes the case, many of the most important discoveries are made among specimens already collected, cataloged and preserved in museum collections.
New fossil discoveries ultimately come from fieldwork, but museum collections play a significant role in this kind of integrative research. We don’t always know the full significance of the specimens we collect. New technologies, ideas or expertise often find surprising ways to utilize existing specimens to make new discoveries.
Dr. David Wright.
The fossilized soft tissue of Dendrocrinus simcoensis had been preserved for years at Montréal’s Musée de paléontologie et de l’évolution, a small institution supported entirely by community donations. However, when crinoid specialists Drs. Cole and Wright examined it closely during a research visit, the specimen’s true scientific importance became clear.
This discovery highlights the importance of museum collections and the community support that keeps them alive. Without the dedication of many people caring for these collections, this research would never have been possible.
Dr. Selina Cole.
The invertebrate paleontology collections curated by Drs. Cole and Wright at the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History are home to more than a million specimens, with new fossils added every year. With so much material at hand, it becomes clear why new species and discoveries are still waiting to be found within museums.
This is why we work to make our collections accessible to researchers around the world. There are simply too many fossils to study over one person’s career. There’s more than a lifetime’s worth of discoveries waiting to be found.
Dr. David Wright.
Publication:
Modern Crinoid - Feather Star
The significance of these fossils lies in what they reveal about ancient life, not in any supposed failure of the geological timescale. Approximately 452 million years ago, Dendrocrinus simcoensis was collecting food from an Ordovician sea using delicate tube feet whose anatomy would normally have vanished after death. Exceptional mineralisation preserved details of those structures, giving scientists access to information that the skeleton alone could not supply. What has survived is a record of soft anatomy in pyrite, not a cache of fresh flesh awaiting a creationist explanation.
The researchers make sense of that anatomy through evolutionary relationships and comparisons with living crinoids. The unusual combination of tube-foot length and spacing provides clues to feeding strategies and suggests a posture different from that adopted by most modern stalked crinoids. This is the theory of evolution doing useful scientific work: providing a framework within which similarities, differences and ecological adaptations can be investigated. The proposed feeding posture remains an inference to assess against further evidence, rather than a certainty imposed on the fossil in advance.
For young-Earth creationism, the chronological problem remains untouched. An organism living hundreds of millions of years before the supposed Creation Week cannot be brought within a biblical timescale merely by confusing fossilised soft structures with undecayed tissue. Any serious challenge to its age would have to address the geological evidence that places it in the Ordovician. An argument about how quickly flesh rots does nothing of the sort when the structures under discussion are preserved as mineral films.
Nor does the rarity of the discovery turn it into evidence for a miracle. Rare preservation is a reason to investigate the chemistry and circumstances of fossilisation, not a licence to replace them with a preferred religious narrative. Science gains knowledge by asking what the specimen actually preserves and how it fits the wider evidence. Any creationist claim that these fossils prove a young Earth would begin by discarding that distinction. Pyrite may be known as fool’s gold, but mistaking it for fresh flesh would be a particularly revealing way to defend biblical literalism.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.