Soft tissue found in T-Rex fossil

That is totally amazing.

On the surface it would certainly seem to advance the Dinosaurs into Birds theory that a great deal of evidence is pointing to lately.

This will piss the creationists off.

Wow!!!

(Nothing pisses creationists off - religious-pseudo-science simply assimilates and new counter-evidence into further proof of its schema - it is unfalsifiable)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html


http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html

.......Since current data indicates that living birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group, Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present, and many of the small microstructures present in the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample.

Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs’ original molecular material may still be present.

“We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer. “Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place.”......

nooooooooooo.........

The answer is simple: the earth is about 6000 years old.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Not Patio - not run mad! Noooooooooooooooo!

Wish I knew more about bird anatomy so I could analyze what they're talking about with the vessel patterns...

well.one of the more recent arguments about bird evolution is that both birds and dinosaurs arose separately but from a common ancestor that was more birdlike (dromaeosaur) this is cool, it is similar but different to what we were talking about over at the Evolution "How?" thread.There is really no work done as to how old adiposere can last. Im amazed that its pliable. Of course,in te East US and France there are parts of the Cretaceous near shore and swamp deposits that are still clay and not hard rock, and they routinely find old wood that isnt petrified.


Pdog, Im hoping that they can extract some small section of DNA or osteocalcin.

No PD. 4,000.

The complete dichotomy between birds and dinos seems unnatural, saying that the former survived and that the latter perished. Some dinos may have survived and live in the form of birds now..

p dog is correct. Archbishop Ussher stated that the earth was created on October 27 4004BC that would be approximately 6008 years ago, so pdog just rounded down.

You mean... like, they possessed them?

I agree with Satt, most likely the souls of the dinosaurs longed for bodies, and would latch onto whatever they could get, but birds would be a prime candidate because of their similar anatomy.

This is a debate among specific scientists who have nothing to do but argue birds. There are 21 features that are common to modern birds and synapsid dinosaurs. Nobody is certain which came first. Creationists make this out to be a major argument about evolution when its just a scholarly disagreement on a model of evolution. It keeps grants coming to U of South Carolina and Yale

Why are they arguing? Archeopteryx already disproved evolution.

From what I understand he was some sort of scholarly bird that lived in Aristotle's time.

No - that was Archiomedes.

Hate these triangular arguments.



Well, I got the figure from a helpful lady who disagreed with the age I gave the tour group for some surrounding sandy deposits in the Santa Cruz Mts. in 1999. It was a more accurate figure then.

A sequence of anything would be very cool. Makes you want to crack open those other dino bones, don't it? Any notion, f-man or anyone else, on the morphology of dino bones as compared to bird bones and reptile bones?

There is now going to be a huge fight between curators, trying to preserve their collections, and microbiologist who will want to bust everything in sight. The fun has just begun.