Soft tissue found in T-Rex fossil

People tend to get stuck in the old "dinosaurs were reptiles" view of things. But that isn't accurate. Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, mammals or birds. They were Dinosaurs, a different and unique form of life which existed on this planet for a very long time. And they may have had unique psyological processes which likewise, don't exist today. They may even have had the ability to shift between warm and cold bloodedness depending on conditions. Or some may have been cold blooded and others warm blooded. Or they may have been warm blooded when young and cold blooded as they got older and larger. There are lots of things about them which we simply don't know, and it's sometimes limiting to try to fit them into the pigeon holes of psysiology exhitibed by existing species.

just like certain families of fish can demonstarte a kind of developing "warm bloodedness" (tunas ,) .
I saw in yesterdays Lancaster Paper that the Carnegie Museum is rebuilding its entire hall of dinosaurs and will deconstruct and rebuild their entire collection in accordance with the Bob Bakker (et al) ideas that dinos were thermo regulators and didnt walk with that headand tail dragging idea hat our Victorian ancestors assigned to them. .

Im beginning to hear that the "soft structures' were hydrolyzed calcium kerogen kind of material similar to coal wax. Im not sure but since they couldnt get any xra signatures off the initial samples, it meant that it was either a hydrolyzed glass(like siloxane), a wax salt, or like a soap salt. My idea is that they should send some of the material to one of Duponts material science centers . They have all the equip to test and see what its like from structure to chemistry.
Even the Creationists should be allowed to handle it . Its more important to find out its properties than to deduce some origin and time right now. We know what strata it was found embedded within, so the age , as rosborne said, is not an issue (to most people who try to keep up with this sort of thing). Its all about the makeup for now.

As far as being surprised, remember that , in coal beds are entire layers of waxy lipids and also in oil shales and in petroleum traps. This stuff could be a minor homologue of petroleum synthesis.

Exactly. I'm a bit surprised that they even released their findings claiming that it was "soft tissue" without knowing for certain what it's chemical structure is. Just because it's flexible and seems to retain vascular structure doesn't necessarily mean that it's actual tissue.

What would it take to be considered actual tissue? DNA? Cell walls? Mitochondria?

Farmerman, since oil is a residual of organic matter, is there DNA floating around in natural oil? How much structure from the organic components which formed "oil" are still in the oil? I guess I don't know what oil is exactly.

theyve been looking for homologous chemical signatures like osteocalcin in petroleum "deposits", but even that has a fixed life. I was wondering (not certain here) whether kerogen deposits themselves could be looked at for some kind of "fossil" genetic material.
Petroleum, like coal,has been heated during formation and emplacement so right inside the trap, theres not much except macerated long chain carbon/nitrogen bonds, while along the edges are some biological materials We have to think totally outside the box and try to imagine whether there is some way that such material could , at least , have its structure preserved . Love to hear from someone in Paleo genetics like Svante Paabo

Proteins from soft tissue confirm link to chickens

BM. I'm reading with great interest--and limited understanding.

Cluckasaurus.

I bet they tasted like chicken too

I understand that this is about amino acid sequences of collagen not about DNA. Amino acid sequences are determined by genes. This can be an indirect evidence of the genomic link of T.rex to birds or chickens.

Very Interesting.

The soft tissues were encapsulated in the bones so the natural processes of decomposition were minimized much like the mummies in the pyramids except much better as it is covered over with dry sedimentary soil and kept cool underground. The fact that they obtained amino acids prove that it is genetic material and not mineralized replacements.

So cool.

Have these samples been carbon dates
Does anyone know if they've carbon dated these samples yet? If they have samples of amino acids they certainly could carbon date these samples to detect the level of C-14 remaining. Couldn't they?

Hopefully there shouldn't be any measurable C-14 remaining if this really is dinosaur flesh. Could shut the creationists up.

Face it, those trex bones are a few thousand or a couple of tens of thousands of years old, tops.

Evo-loser dating schemes are basically all fubar. Try doing a google or youtube search on 'p38' and 'glacier girl' for the P38 which the Amalekites or Canaanites crash landed on the ice in Greenland 3400 years ago (at least according to Evo-loser dating schemes which figure one ice layer per year).

That's right, according to Evo-loser standards, that P38 was part of the Amalekite Air Force (AAF).



Amelekite Air force P38, circa 1400 BC

ros wrote-



Has he been advised to go into psychoanalysis. It seems not only a bit kinky but quite un-necessary to resort to T-Rexes when there's all those gorgeous girls out there egging you on.

Gungas years of experience and training in the areas of protein geochemistry and racemization makes him uniquely qualified to opine the ages of the " Hell Creek T-Rex.


The fact that he must resort to feeble attempts at childish name calling and sillier "evidence-free" assertions shows how bankrupt his beliefs are.

Summers coming gunga, time to book yer trip to Mt Arrarat so you can hunt for the ARK with all the other distingusihed Creation Scientists.

Is "Dr" Hovind in jail for mail fraud yet?

As far as the P-38 is concerned, Im not familiar with the site where iit crashed or its context, but, if some glaciologist found the plane, he would obviously date the plane as coming "after" the ice layers into which it landed (since I dont know the exact situation, Im guessing that glaciologists did nothing but see how far the plane may have moved from its original crash site in the 70+ years since they made the plane.

However,, Using your logic ,because the plane has the Confederate AirForce insignia, it was probably used in the Battle of GEttysburg against the Yankees.

When you have some "key" manufacture and squadron ID information such as the numbers on the engine block and insignias , you dont need to invest time in "dating'. The paint job on the reconstructed fuselage makes it a later p38-"J fighter-bomber-paint job"[It was actually listed as a P38-F that was lost in 1942- I couldnt tell from the photo whether it has the "beard" on the radiator] ( as opposed to a P38-D,P38E,F/G P38-L,P38- M, P5-B or "Pathfinder" versions[ there was no P38 B and C and I ). So we sorta know that it was used in the early WWII era. (Sometimes ya have to go slowly with these Creationists or they start hallucinating ).

Dating always first involves a contextual analysis of the "fossil and its matrix", as well as any chemical/physical/or radioisotopic means for "real date" determinations. In the case of the P-38, we probably want to know what its state of preservation had done to affect its rebuild. We can see the stampings and insignias. We ca also see which generation engine was used and probably date it to the month of manufacture(since only about 9900 of the damn tings were ultimately built) Also, wed go back to any other similar specimens and see how theyve fared in preervation.(As far as we know the Amelekites didnt have an AIr Force--that we have from other contextual artifacts--Im still going slowly enough for you?).

So, you see, gunga, by using a single data point or some whacko site observation like your "glacial contemporeneity point", youve only reinforced how robust science can really be, and further, youve shown how naive the Creationist "Science base" really is..

While your feeble attempts at mischaracterizing real science only make us question your overall capabilities, you always avoid making similar standups for Creationism and its "science basis" I mean, if you are so assiduous in attempting to miscast science with your ridiculous "evidential metaphors" why havent you spent an equal time at validating the Bibles Science ?

Im sure we al know why, but its something that you dont wish to discuss without getting creamed.

C.S. Lewis said it best: "Above all else, the devil cannot stand to be mocked".

Likewise evo-losers are immune to logic, but they are clearly not immune to ridicule, and they have richly earned it. Having to explain raw meat inside trex bones and P38s under 260' of ice is just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't suppost that, say, burning fuel, might have melted a little snow....

Crash landing on ice and snow, you'd probably cut the engines before you touched down. Any rate, the pilots all got out alive and the planes were found intact, so that you can assume the fuel didn't burn.