Ichthyosaur Soft Tissues Troublesome for Evolutionists

While ichthyosaurs are not classified as dinosaurs, they lived in those periods. Dinosaur soft tissues are increasingly problematic for believers in fish-to-fool evolution and deep time, just as biblical creationists predicted. Here we have soft tissue again, this time in an ichthyosaur fossil.

From Wikimedia Commons / Heinrich Harder, 1916

Those critters have troubled evolutionists for quite a spell, sometimes prompting them to dodge important questions. Indeed, if one was to strip away naturalistic and deep-time assumptions, the evidence would indicate support for the Genesis Flood. Here we have a fossil that after demineralization, pigment cells indicated that ichthyosaurs were dark on top, lighter on the underside. Fossil blubber (not as in blubbering over a dropped lollypop, but a kind of fat) was found, adding to the warm-blooded or cold-blooded controversy. Other tissues were identified and studied.

The problem remains — is exacerbated — as to how it was preserved for millions of Darwin years. Answer: it wasn't. This is yet more of the accumulated evidence of rapid burial by the Genesis Flood a few thousand years ago.

A stunningly preserved skin of a fossil ichthyosaur, Stenopterygius, has revealed a wealth of original soft tissue and proteins.1 However, this fossil, from Germany’s Holzmaden Posidona shale quarries, was found in Jurassic strata ‘dated’ to 180 million years old (Ma).

The researchers claim this is the most in-depth study of a soft-tissue fossil ever. There were still remnants of the original skin—apparently scaleless in this species, unlike many other ichthyosaur types that appear smooth-skinned but have microscopic scales.

To read the rest, see "Soft tissue preservation in a ‘Jurassic’ ichthyosaur".