Dino Discovery
#1
HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery
Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex.
[Image: T-rex_tissue_fragments.jpg]
Dinosaur fossils are relatively rare, so scientists donâ€t like the concept of cutting them apart. However, now that that paleontologists have found soft tissue (above) inside a 70 million year old T. rex bone, more scientists may start to drill into their dino fossils.


When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.
A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is todayâ€s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.
Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

[Image: T-rex_illustration.jpg]
Credit: "Awakening of Hunger" (Tyrannosaurus rex) Â 1985 Mark Hallett
Reply
#2
Quote:
Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either
 
Well, duh, gee George.  Do ya think it might be because they aren't 70 million years old to begin with?[Image: dunce.gif]
Reply
#3
LIz, thanks for posting this, I've always been extremely fascinated by paleontology.
 
Sophia Wrote:Well, duh, gee George.  Do ya think it might be because they aren't 70 million years old to begin with?[Image: dunce.gif]

 
LOL, my thoughts exactly. They're going to have to invent a hypothesis on the phenomina of soft [pliable even] tissue surviving even beyond 15,000 years let alone 70 million [I dont believe the earth is that old anyways]. What really caught my eye is the avian relation in the vascular structure. It's extremely likely and highly probable that they were indeed warm blooded.
 
Cold blooded reptilia share some common characteristics;
  • Their bones [when young] are not very porous because they have a slow rate of growth.
  • Their limbs are positioned on the outside of their bodies indicating that they are slow moving creatures.
Warm blooded creatures have share some common characteristics;
  • Their bones[when young] are very porous because they have a fast rate of growth.
  • Their limbs are positioned directly beneath their bodies indicating they are fast moving creatures.
Juveniles dinosaur specimens have been found with very porous bones indicating they are fast growing creatures and their legs are positioned directly beneath their body which indicates they were fast moving creatures. I would also be very interested in the details of exactly how their leg vasculature relates to an ostrich. I wonder this because because avians like this have an interesting arterial makeup in their legs.
 
Every wonder how come the little ducks with the naked skin legs can stand on the snow and ice or be submerged in that ice cold water and not freeze? because they, like ostrich have arteries in their legs that run alongside and in contact with one another. The artery carrying the warm blood from the heart is pumped down into their legs and feet while it's up against the colder blood that is on its way back up to the heart - thus a radiator in their legs and feet.
 
It's interesting that dinosaurs have much more in common with birds than with reptiles. Another interesting thing - dino crap has been found with coniferous material in it which means they may have even been up in higher country and not wading in the swamps as they used to be portrayed. The paleontologist Bob Baker has some most fascinating theories about them, many of which I described, in his books, one of which is titled "The Dinosaur Heresies".
 
 
 
Reply
#4
This is way out there, but what if they found a relation to human DNA?
 
Not because of evolution, but because these are the Nephilim referred to in Genesis and wiped out with the flood.
 
I need to stop listening to Art Bell....
 
Sometimes I think the dinos co-existed with Eden because while we know what was going on in Eden, we don't know what was happening down the road.  It's possible that God make the dinosaurs to prepare the Earth and let them die off when their job was done.  You know, like earthworms make the soil fertile and aerated, and maggots and vultures clean up rotting flesh reducing the spread of disease, etc.  Most animals seem to have a particular job in caring for Creation.  I think they must have had a particular purpose.
Reply
#5
Hmm, but I heard there were no carnivores until AFTER the Flood.

And the T Rex has carnivore teeth.

Reply
#6
CampeadorShin Wrote:Hmm, but I heard there were no carnivores until AFTER the Flood.

And the T Rex has carnivore teeth.

So do dogs and cats.  What then?
Reply
#7
Dunno, the Bible doesn't mention them for a while.

EDIT

The point I'm making is that the T Rex fossils have teeth for eating meat, and the meat eaters didn't exist before the Flood.

So... The T Rex might've been around AFTER the Flood.
Reply
#8
CampeadorShin Wrote:Hmm, but I heard there were no carnivores until AFTER the Flood.

And the T Rex has carnivore teeth.

I thought it was no carnivores until after the Fall, not the Flood.
Reply
#9
Hmm, you sure?  We should ask lumen.
Reply
#10
This discovery was published in the prestigious magazine SCIENCE 18 months ago.
(Science 25 March 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5717, pp. 1952 - 1955)
 
Free subscription required:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu.../1952#FIG4
 
Samples
 
Quote:A newly discovered specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) specimen 1125] was found at the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements. The specimen was incorporated within a soft, well-sorted sandstone that was interpreted as estuarine in origin. Although some bones are slightly deformed or crushed, preservation is excellent. MOR 1125 represents a relatively small individual of T. rex, with a femoral length of 107 cm, as compared to the Field Museum (Chicago) specimen (FMNH PR2081) that has a femoral length of approximately 131 cm. On the basis of calculated lines of arrested growth (LAG), we estimated that this animal was 18 ± 2 years old at death (1).
 
Quote:The elucidation and modeling of processes resulting in soft-tissue preservation may form the basis for an avenue of research into the recovery and characterization of similar structures in other specimens, paving the way for micro- and molecular taphonomic investigations. Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain. However, we have identified protein fragments in extracted bone samples, some of which retain slight antigenicity (3). These data indicate that exceptional morphological preservation in some dinosaurian specimens may extend to the cellular level or beyond. If so, in addition to providing independent means of testing phylogenetic hypotheses about dinosaurs, applying molecular and analytical methods to well-preserved dinosaur specimens has important implications for elucidating preservational microenvironments and will contribute to our understanding of biogeochemical interactions at the microscopic and molecular levels that lead to fossilization.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)