4
   

Soft tissue in hadrosaur remains

 
 
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 08:03 am
http://www.icr.org/article/4621/

Discussion on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2249728/posts

Pictures of T. rex soft tissue!
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/FossilRecord/fossila1.jpg

Hydrosaur soft tissue!:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/04/090430144528-large.jpg

Quote:

Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Recently-discovered dinosaur soft tissues, and even blood cells, represent some of the biggest hurdles for long-age evolutionary belief. Soft tissue was found in the femur of a large Tyrannosaurus rex about a decade ago, and more was discovered in another T. rex a few years later. And recently, soft tissues with proteins were found in a hadrosaur from Montana.

In her study of the hadrosaur, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer was able to determine exact amino acid sequences because the proteins were in such good condition, even with a supposed age of 80 million years.1 She found all of the primary proteins of a common connective tissue called the basement membrane matrix, as well as blood cells inside blood vessels similar to what she discovered earlier in the T. rex bones.

The hadrosaur yielded two types of collagen, which are tough, elastic, self-weaving protein fibers that, among other things, give skin and bones their lightweight strength. The protein fibers elastin and laminin were also found in the basement membrane material. Though resilient, collagen fibers have been observed in laboratory settings to decay within a matter of weeks. Studies show that collagen should be unrecognizable after 30,000 years,2 a figure that is only 0.0375 percent of the standard age assigned to the hadrosaur.

Most remarkable in this sample, as well as in the T. rex discoveries, was the presence of blood vessels and blood components, such as hemoglobin.3 This protein decays even faster than collagen, so its presence inside a dinosaur carcass clearly shows that the dinosaurs cannot possibly be as old as evolutionary scientists claim.

Though Schweitzer is an evolutionist, her findings over the years have raised objections from her peers. Some have suggested that the soft tissues were made by bacteria, though this does not fit the observed data.4 In their recent study, Schweitzer’s team confirmed the presence of an amino acid called hydroxyproline, which is a component of vertebrate collagen and which bacteria do not manufacture. Other scientists have maintained that perhaps Schweitzer’s techniques were to blame for these anomalous discoveries. To answer this, Schweitzer had these hadrosaur tissues and proteins extracted and characterized by “a second set of experiments, conducted in a separate lab.”1

“The most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils,”1 meaning in short that Schweitzer and her team have taken great care to make it painfully clear that these soft tissues really exist and they’re from the dinosaurs in question. Scientists worldwide now need to reconcile their belief in vast eons with these cold, hard facts. The simplest explanation for the presence of blood vessels and their proteins in these bones is that the dinosaurs were recently and rapidly inundated and preserved, just as one would expect to observe in a world that began thousands rather than millions of years ago.

References

1. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.
2. "In bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." Bada, J. L., X. S. Wang, and H. Hamilton. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354 (1379): 77-87.
3. Boswell, E. Malta bone, MSU scientists help confirm protein findings in dinosaurs. Montana State University press release, April 30, 2009.
4. Thomas, B. 2008. Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 14.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.







  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 8,252 • Replies: 96
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 02:26 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The simplest explanation for the presence of blood vessels and their proteins in these bones is that the dinosaurs were recently and rapidly inundated and preserved, just as one would expect to observe in a world that began thousands rather than millions of years ago.



Youre an idiot.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 02:29 pm
@farmerman,
i don't know, i saw this documentary once, it was called jurassic park
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 02:41 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
A North Carolina State University paleontologist has more evidence that soft tissues and original proteins can be preserved over time " even in fossilized remains " in the form of new protein sequence data from an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at NC State with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural History, along with colleague Dr. John Asara from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, Dr. Chris Organ from Harvard University, and a team of researchers from Montana State University, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Matrix Science Ltd. analyzed the hadrosaur samples.

The researchers' findings appear in the May 1 edition of Science.

Schweitzer and Asara had previously used multiple methods to analyze soft tissue recovered from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex. Mass spectrometry conducted on extracts of T. rex bone supported their theory that the materials were original proteins from the dinosaur.

These papers were controversial, and the team wanted to demonstrate that molecular preservation of this sort in dinosaurs was not an isolated event. Based upon other studies, they made predictions of the type of environment most likely to favor this preservation, so Schweitzer and students, working with Jack Horner's Museum of the Rockies field crews, went looking for a dinosaur preserved under a lot of sandstone. Using specially designed field methodology, with the aim of avoiding environmental exposure until the fossil was inside the lab, they set aside the femur from a Brachylophosaurus canadensis " a hadrosaurid dinosaur"buried deeply in sandstone in the Judith River formation.

"This particular sample was chosen for study because it met our criteria for burial conditions of rapid burial in deep sandstones," Schweitzer says. "We know the moment the fossil is removed from chemical equilibrium, any organic remains immediately become susceptible to degradation. The more quickly we can get it from the ground to a test tube, the better chance we have of recovering original tissues and molecules."

Preliminary results seemed to confirm their methodology, as Schweitzer found evidence of the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample in the much older hadrosaur bone. Because of the rapidity of analyses after the bones were removed, the preservation of these dinosaurian components was even better. The samples were examined microscopically via both transmitted light and electron microscopes to confirm that they were consistent in appearance with collagen. They were also tested against antibodies that are known to react with collagen and other proteins.

Next, Schweitzer sent the samples to Asara's lab to be analyzed by a new mass spectrometer, capable of producing sequences with much greater resolution than the one used previously. Mass spectrometry identifies molecules by measuring the mass of the protein fragments, or peptides, that result from breaking apart molecules with specific enzymes. The masses are measured with very high mass accuracy, and then compared with existing databases of proteins to achieve a best fit. In this way, Asara was able to identify eight collagen peptides from the hadrosaur, then confirm the identity of the sequences by comparing them both to synthesized fragments and to modern proteins analyzed under the same conditions. Once sequence data were validated, they were evaluated by Organ who determined that, like T.rex, this dinosaur's protein family tree is closer to that of modern birds than that of alligators.

All results were independently verified by researchers at BIDMC, Montana State University, Harvard University, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Matrix Science of London.

The data were consistent with that of the earlier T. rex analysis, confirming that molecular preservation in fossilized remains is not an isolated event. "We used improved methodology with better instrumentation, did more experiments and had the results verified by other independent labs," Schweitzer says. "These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further."

Schweitzer hopes that this finding will lead to more work by other scientists on these ancient molecules.

"I'm hoping in the future we can use this work as a jumping off point to look for other proteins that are more species-specific than collagen. It will give us much clearer insight into all sorts of evolutionary questions."


###

Note to Editors: An abstract of the paper follows.

"Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur Brachylophosaurus canadensis"
Authors: Mary H. Schweitzer, North Carolina State University and the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences; John M. Asara, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, et al.
Published: May 1, 2009 in Science

Abstract: Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80 million year old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598). Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaur collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event.


Science has moved on, only gunga and the Cretinists are still stuck in Biblical gobbledegook. The fact that Schweitzer had to ETCH the soft tissue from the rock matrix is ignored by the Cretinists. Why let actual technical data get in the way of a good myth?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 02:55 pm
@farmerman,
Knowing nothing of Gunga's dinosaur I just have a question: isn't it possible for soft tissue to survive for a very long time if trapped in permafrost, or tar pits, or amber - anything that might seal it and preserve it? Tks for any info on this.

Btw, I'll let you know about this new exhibit in NY:
Quote:
The American Museum of Natural History is inviting human visitors to "come and meet your relatives."

The show, "Extreme Mammals," opens Saturday, featuring an assortment of strange and wondrous creatures, both extinct and living.

Specimens will range from the egg-laying platypus to the so-called walking whale, a type of giant sea mammal that developed legs and feet.

Curators note that despite the vast differences among mammals, "we all still have a few things in common " like three tiny bones in our middle ear."

http://www.nyctrip.com/_uploads/images/AMNH_IMAX_seamonsters.jpg
http://www.nyctrip.com/Pages/Details.aspx?TourID=138
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 03:02 pm
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/431306643_528c65a6b3.jpg
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 03:07 pm
@High Seas,
LOL Joe - the story about soft tissue of the hadrosaur is true, but the poor critter was still about 80 million years old:
Quote:
Horner, a paleontologist at the Museum of the Rockies, excavated the fossil femur of the dinosaur's hind leg two years ago. It was a hadrosaur named Brachylophosaurus canadensis, and the single bone had lain "untouched and protected" under 23 feet of hard sandstone, Schweitzer's team said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/04/MNVM17E5N2.DTL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 03:51 pm
@High Seas,
The problem is that nowhere else in the earth has "soft tissue" been xposed in fossils of dinosaurs of the Cretaceous . What Schweitzer found in the HEll CREEk Formation, was a "knee joint " that contained dense mineral deposits and some evidence of stringers in the "dense mineral "Matrix". They carefully etched this matrix away using a combination of Oxalic and Hydroflouric acids (I believe, Im not certain about the Oxalic). That etching removed the matrix and left the collagen material behind.
The rocks are easily dated by coprrelation, magnetic data, radioisotopes and a number of other means. SO there is no doubt about the age of the rock that contained the T Rex (and the Hadrosaur).
What gunga is trying to do is cast doubt on several methods of age dating to try to make his Cretinist point that the earth IS NOT old.
None of the Cretinists has been able to cast doubt on the datig techniques as hard as they try. This eaves us with the realization that we have a "new kind of fossil material"

Ancient collagen is not unknown but its environment of preservation is very limited. It leaves one to deduce that, not only has Schweitzer discovered a new fossil material, she has provided us with a decent "Paleoenvironmental indicator"

Im just sitting on the idelines and reading as new stuff is found. Most of it is real arcane stuff that I have to run to paleo colleagues to decipher for me. The chemistry is not unlike the collagen like material responsible for the Green River "Oil shales" in Montana and Wyoming. This stuff has the attributes of a fatty acid with a heavy "wax" like structure. Its not unlike the process result that mummies undergo to form a soap like material, except taht these molecules of the T rex are more flexible than waxy.

Theres going to be a series of work sessions at the next several GSA meetings and SEPM.
Its not my field but Im closer to it than gunga. Hes just someone who first has a conclusion to which he is trying force fit some data.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 03:51 pm
@joefromchicago,
DAMN Jesus rode sidesaddle. Very gay.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 06:06 pm
@farmerman,
http://nachodonut.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/jesus-piece1.jpg
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 08:12 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i don't know, i saw this documentary once, it was called jurassic park

Hahaha, that cracked me up Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 08:30 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:

Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

(...many paragraphs of contrived propaganda...)

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

A "Science Writer" at the ICR Smile
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 08:59 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
The simplest explanation for the presence of blood vessels and their proteins in these bones is that the dinosaurs were recently and rapidly inundated and preserved, just as one would expect to observe in a world that began thousands rather than millions of years ago.

Youre an idiot.


That was material from the article in an obvious quote. As you should be aware, I am not exactly a young earth creationist or at least not somebody who believes the universe is 6K or 7K years old.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 01:30 am
@farmerman,
quote="farmerman"]
Quote:
The simplest explanation for the presence of blood vessels and their proteins in these bones is that the dinosaurs were recently and rapidly inundated and preserved, just as one would expect to observe in a world that began thousands rather than millions of years ago.


farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Youre an idiot.

Tho Gunga 's claim that this planet is less than 1,000,000 years old
may not be plausible, your characterization of him is off topic, and ad hominem.
U choose to kill the messenger and the horse he rode in on.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 01:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The age of hadrosaur remains doesn't really tell us much about the age of the planet but, then, neither do the dating schemes which f-man believes in and the people who tell us the Earth is 4B years old are the same people who go on telling us that hadrosaurs died out 70M years ago which is plainly ridiculous in the light of the new evidence.

Bob Bass once redid Lord Kelvin's heat equations for our own planet WITH a maximum possible figure for radioactive elements included and got an upper bound of around 200M years and recent studies tend to confirm that.

The age of the Earth as a collection of rocks is relatively uninteresting; the age of our living world is the real question and it plainly is short enough to rule out evolution as anything other than an ideological doctrine for yuppies.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 04:59 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The age of the Earth as a collection of rocks is relatively uninteresting; the age of our living world is the real question and it plainly is short enough to rule out evolution as anything other than an ideological doctrine for yuppies.
You have to be a bit more sophisticated to attempt to dismiss the central core of the planets calendar.
1All of life is inexhorably linked to the events and cataclysms that have affected the planet through geologic time. Life is frequently consequent to or , in a limited number of occasions , is actually a causative factor for the earths environment. The presence of
Oxygen, CO2, and Atmospheric Nitrogen are all linked to life forms respiration. Neutral pH water, available to all life as a media and as food, is mostly consequent of the respiration and metabolism of hard shelled animals in the PAleozoic.

The biostratigraphy of the HEll Creek is a continuous and accurate age recording of a regional deposit that is bounded by several other deposits . All these deposits are correlatable for mining and resource development purposes and theyve all been frequently age dated by several means. SO, unless that T Rex' skeleton with the soft tissue was snuck into and buried within the Hell Creek marix (sometime during the night), we agree that the formation and the fossil are linked by deposition RIGHT?

The deposition has shown that the age of the formation and hence, the fossil,point to around a late Cretaceous age (Campanian epoch, Chron 31(r)).
Are you saying that ALL the scientific data regarding isotopic, geomagnetic, stratigraphic, cosmogenic exposure dating,Thermoluminescence,OSL, and ESR, are all "Bullshit"?
I wonder how you manage to dance around all the supportive science to enable you to continue your idiot beleifs
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 05:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Tho Gunga 's claim that this planet is less than 1,000,000 years old
may not be plausible, your characterization of him is off topic, and ad hominem.
U choose to kill the messenger and the horse he rode in on.


Im reprehensible aint I? I oughta be ignored. I gotta be me, so when gunga continues spewing his irrational fact free ****, some of us usually would call him out . Ad Hominems get his attention frequently. Since gunga has ignored everyone else, Im all thats left (of a select group of scholars). I must carry on the work, "They" would want me to.

Gunga is stuck with a conclusion that has no basis in fact. His attachment to the soft tissue issue is a feeble attempt to call into question the data re: the ages of the earth and life. He is , however, stuck in a corner in which none of any facts that would otherwise support his belief, are there. A fact basis for his beliefs just doesnt exist. Hes gone to try to support Kelvins calculations of the earths age based upon cooling rates. The "Bob BAss" character (Im not familiar with him so I looked him up), appears to be some Creationist "scholar" who likes to write from the hip and publishes crap on the web. Hes been highlighted by several internet folks as being "A nut", (A characterization that I am unable to either affirm or deny). The age of the earth has been suitably established by isotopic , landmass, and geologic data to be comfortably residing about 4.5 B y , with the initiation of the Archean at about 3.8 By. http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf (You can dowload a geo time scale at that site.

Theres no equivocation from science, there is no disagreement among the bulk of scientists re: the age of the earth or the methods used to measure it.
Only te Cretinists have a vested interest in preserving a Biblical view of the earth and thats truly a shame. Defiant ignorance is , to me, only worth ad hominems.

(And, I may get myself ignored by this clown )
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 06:20 am
@farmerman,
quote="farmerman"]
Quote:
Tho Gunga 's claim that this planet is less than 1,000,000 years old
may not be plausible, your characterization of him is off topic, and ad hominem.
U choose to kill the messenger and the horse he rode in on.


Quote:
Im reprehensible aint I? I oughta be ignored.

Well, the infraction was relatively mild,
since everyone is getting called an idiot anyway, including me.



Quote:

I gotta be me, so when gunga continues spewing
his irrational fact free ****, some of us usually would call him out .

Well, I imagine that he probably expects to be challenged,
but is it OK to be polite, and hopefully to avoid scatological references ?
May we presume that in your classroom,
u like to keep it clean, and possibly polite ?



Quote:

Ad Hominems get his attention frequently. Since gunga has ignored everyone else,
Im all thats left (of a select group of scholars). I must carry on the work, "They" would want me to.

That is expected in a forum for debate, such as this one.




Quote:

Gunga is stuck with a conclusion that has no basis in fact.

He appears to have confidence in the propositions that he alleges.


Quote:

His attachment to the soft tissue issue is a feeble attempt to call into question the data re: the ages of the earth and life. He is, however, stuck in a corner in which none of any facts that would otherwise support his belief, are there. A fact basis for his beliefs just doesnt exist. Hes gone to try to support Kelvins calculations of the earths age based upon cooling rates. The "Bob BAss" character (Im not familiar with him so I looked him up), appears to be some Creationist "scholar" who likes to write from the hip and publishes crap on the web. Hes been highlighted by several internet folks as being "A nut", (A characterization that I am unable to either affirm or deny). The age of the earth has been suitably established by isotopic, landmass, and geologic data to be comfortably residing about 4.5 B y, with the initiation of the Archean at about 3.8 By. http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.pdf (You can dowload a geo time scale at that site.

Theres no equivocation from science, there is no disagreement among the bulk of scientists re: the age of the earth or the methods used to measure it.
Only te Cretinists have a vested interest in preserving a Biblical view of the earth and thats truly a shame. Defiant ignorance is, to me, only worth ad hominems.

Well, if one of your students, asked u whether or not
people with whom we disagree shoud be treated politely,
what 'd u tell him or her, professor?

Quote:
(And, I may get myself ignored by this clown )

Presumably, there is a lesser degree of chance of getting ignored
if debate is offered with respect. Too frequently, people deviate
from discussion of subject matter to award their listeners with
unsolicited evaluations of their mental abilities.
It seems unlikely that personal insolence strengthens your credibility.

Permit me to suggest that instead of using impoliteness as your weapon of choice,
that u employ logical, dispassionate factual analysis.
U have already done that here, to some degree.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 06:58 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:
The age of hadrosaur remains doesn't really tell us much
about the age of the planet

Presumably, we can surmise that the planet must be at least as old
as its fauna.





Quote:
but, then, neither do the dating schemes which f-man believes in
and the people who tell us the Earth is 4B years old are the same people
who go on telling us that hadrosaurs died out 70M years ago
which is plainly ridiculous in the light of the new evidence.

If it were "ridiculous" then what is the reason that this is not
deemed an issue of significant controversy in the public press?

How do u respond to the allegations
that your opinion is conclusion oriented?




Quote:

Bob Bass once redid Lord Kelvin's heat equations for our own
planet WITH a maximum possible figure for radioactive elements
included and got an upper bound of around 200M years and recent
studies tend to confirm that.

If recent studies confirmed that the Earth is NOT 4.6 billion years old,
but only a few 1,000 years old, then this woud hit the press,
in all of its major organs in a very major way; BIG headlines.



Quote:

The age of the Earth as a collection of rocks is relatively uninteresting;

I can 't agree with that.
To my mind, the age of the rocks of Earth is very interesting.
The age of the Moon has been deemed about 4 billion years,
a little younger than Earth; do u dispute the Moon 's age?



Quote:

the age of our living world is the real question and it plainly is short enough
to rule out evolution as anything other than an ideological doctrine for yuppies.

If I remember accurately, microbial life has been dated back
to around c.3.5 billion years ago. Evolution of fruit flies can be
swift n brief; there is active concern as to how fast the swine flu virus
will mutate and get milder or more severely threatening humans.
Evolution can take a long time or a short time.
Do u deny genetic mutation of viruses? of mammals?
Do u deny extinction of earlier species?



I doubt that belief in evolution implies atheism.
I doubt that most scientists or mathematicians are atheists.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 08:01 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
(And, I may get myself ignored by this clown )

You wish. I think you're on his "best buddy" list Wink
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Soft tissue in hadrosaur remains
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 09:43:46