Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Fossils: What Schweitzer Found and Why It Was Resisted
For decades, the idea that any original tissue could survive in dinosaur fossils was dismissed as impossible. Proteins, cells, and blood vessels were believed to decay far too quickly to last more than a few thousand years, let alone tens of millions. That is why Mary Schweitzer’s 2005 report of soft, flexible vessels in a Tyrannosaurus rex bone was so shocking. It challenged one of the most basic assumptions of deep time. Two decades later, discoveries like these are not rare but routine. A 2025 Scientific Reports study of a Tyrannosaurus rib from Saskatchewan again described vessel-like structures in detail, noting that such reports are now commonplace. Yet instead of questioning the timescale, the study explained the vessels as mineralized iron-rich casts. Since 2005, each one of these discoveries raise the same question: how can delicate tissues remain if the fossils are really 65 million years old?
In March 2025, NC State published an article under the headline, “Soft-tissue samples can survive in several different dinosaur fossils.” At first glance it reads as though science has made an exciting new breakthrough. Yet from the title to the final line, the piece is framed in such a way that the most obvious conclusion is never allowed to be considered.
The wording of the headline tells the story. By declaring that soft tissue “can survive” in fossils, the writers are not describing what the evidence shows, but what the Materialism requires. No one has ever demonstrated in controlled conditions that blood vessels, proteins, and cell-like structures can remain intact for tens of millions of years. Laboratory studies show the opposite. Collagen, elastin, and DNA all decay rapidly, with half-lives that make survival beyond a few thousand years impossible under ordinary circumstances. If soft tissue is found in fossils, the straightforward conclusion is that those fossils are not as old as claimed. Yet the article begins by assuming deep time and then forces the evidence to support that assumption.
The subtitle reads, “Research from NC State University provides further evidence that soft tissues and structures can be preserved for 65 million years or more.” The subtitle doesn’t simply report the finding, it interprets it for the reader. It assumes from the start that the fossils are tens of millions of years old, then interprets the discovery of pliable tissue as proof that such longevity must be possible. The very thing under debate, the claimed age, is imposed on the reader as a settled fact. Instead of the tissue calling the timescale into question, the assumed timescale dictates how the tissue must be understood making the assumption the science.
The article also treats the discovery as routine and unsurprising, as if flexible tissue in ancient bone has long been an accepted fact. That is misleading. When Mary Schweitzer first reported blood vessels in a Tyrannosaurus femur in 2005, the reaction was shock and even ridicule. Explanations were scrambled together, from contamination, to bacterial biofilms, to iron preservation. Each explanation was meant not to follow the evidence wherever it led, but to defend the old-earth framework from collapse. Now, years later, the NC State release tells the story as though such preservation is normal and should be expected in any fossil, across all environments and time periods. This is rhetorical damage control that’s commonly seen on this topic.
This reveals a deeper pattern. Whenever discoveries threaten the prevailing story of deep time, the story itself is never re-examined. Instead, new auxiliary explanations are added. The fossils must be ancient, therefore the tissue must have survived. Galaxies must conform to the Big Bang, therefore invisible dark matter must exist to fix the math. The expansion must fit the narrative, therefore dark energy must be invoked. In every case, the paradigm shields itself from challenge by absorbing contradictory evidence rather than allowing it to overturn the model.
When read without the prior commitment to deep time, the dinosaur tissue discoveries make sense in a much more straightforward way. The problem is not the soft tissue itself but the implications it carries. Those implications are obvious, and the defenders of materialism know it. If the evidence is allowed to stand on its own, it undercuts the long ages their framework demands. That is why they break out in hives at the very thought of it. They do not treat the finding as neutral data to be weighed, but as a danger that must be contained. Their efforts to reinterpret, deflect, or suppress are not driven by ignorance but by the recognition that the implications cannot be allowed.
When Mary Schweitzer first reported soft, flexible blood vessels inside a Tyrannosaurus rex bone in 2005, she openly admitted she did not want to be labeled a “creationist tool.” In time she advanced chemical preservation theories that would keep the deep-time framework intact rather than allow the evidence to raise questions. History shows this was not an isolated incident but a recurring pattern of materialist politics at work.
In geology, early nineteenth century figures like William Buckland regarded a global flood as the best explanation for the vast fossil-bearing layers. Under the influence of Charles Lyell, flood geology was ridiculed and abandoned. Yet the evidence did not change. The rock record still showed widespread, catastrophic deposition. What changed was the framework, and some of those same geologists shifted their public stance to fit the new narrative even while the data continued to point toward catastrophe.
In cosmology, Edwin Hubble disliked the idea that an expanding universe implied a beginning. He personally preferred an eternal cosmos, yet the data forced him to accept expansion. Later, Halton Arp challenged the Big Bang model by documenting galaxies physically connected despite having radically different redshifts. Instead of a fair hearing, Arp was denied telescope time and his work pushed to the margins because it threatened the dominant cosmology. In biology, the narrative of “junk DNA” dominated the mid twentieth century. When functions began to be discovered in this so-called junk, researchers were met with resistance because their findings undermined a key evolutionary talking point. Only after decades of work has it become accepted that much of the genome is functional after all.
Ford Doolittle’s work on horizontal gene transfer belongs in the same story. For over a century, Darwin’s tree of life was the central icon of biology, presented as if neat branches of descent from a single ancestor could explain all life. Doolittle’s research into microbial genomes highlighted that the evidence does not form a neat branching tree at all. Genes appear in patterns that cross supposed boundaries, undermining the claim of a universal tree of descent. This finding should have demolished the picture of a universal tree, yet it was resisted, attacked, and eventually absorbed. Textbooks began to replace the single tree with imagery of a web, a network, or even a bush, softening the problem rather than admitting the tree itself was fundamentally flawed.
For his part, Doolittle later went beyond softening. He attacked creationists directly and then clarified his own claims, insisting that what he had shown was not really evidence against evolution but only a reminder that the tree metaphor must be adjusted. In this way, his work, like Schweitzer’s, was pulled back under the protection of the Darwinian framework.
So, the pattern repeats again and again: a discovery is made, resistance follows, personal attacks and career threats ensue, reinterpretations are devised, and eventually the evidence is framed to fit into the prevailing paradigm in a way that blunts its original challenge. The story of dinosaur soft tissue at NC State is not unique. It is simply the latest example of a system that refuses to be corrected, no matter what the evidence shows.
For questions for S. A. Cooper, or if there’s a topic you’d like him to cover, you can send a message here.
Follow me on Facebook for updates and new articles.
