Unfossilised dinosaur bones. Proof that the Creationists are right.

[MG1962]

I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized.

Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.)

To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization.

Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed.

Has there been examples however that date back as far as the Cretaceous period. I am guessing statisically it could happen, but have their been any legitimate recorded finidngs?

 

[bluecollarscientist]

The people claiming unmineralized dinosaur bones point to (when they point to anything at all) this paper:

G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M.H.J. Knapen, C. Vermeer, M. Collins, and P. Westbroek, "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs," Geology 1992, vol. 20, pp. 871-874.

Talk.origins does the takedown, showing that these bones were definitely mineralized.

So what is osteocalcin exactly? Is it "mineralized" to begin with, as I would expect of something that has a bunch of calcium in it? (My live-in biologist/medicine consultant is currently at work.)