Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Dinosaur Shocker
By Helen Fields
Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.
She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.
AdvertisementIn 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”
In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.
It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.
Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.
To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.
AdvertisementAs far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.
In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.
In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.
Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up. Instead, Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin. Collagen makes up much of the bone scaffolding, elastin is wrapped around blood vessels and hemoglobin carries oxygen inside red blood cells.
Because the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. And because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example.
Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.
Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.
But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)
Astrobiology is one of the wackier branches of biology, dealing in life that might or might not exist and might or might not take any recognizable form. “For almost everybody who works on NASA stuff, they are just in hog heaven, working on astrobiology questions,” Schweitzer says. Her NASA research involves using antibodies to probe for signs of life in unexpected places. “For me, it’s the means to an end. I really want to know about my dinosaurs.”
AdvertisementTo that purpose, Schweitzer, with Wittmeyer, spends hours in front of microscopes in dark rooms. To a fourth-generation Montanan, even the relatively laid-back Raleigh area is a big city. She reminisces wistfully about scouting for field sites on horseback in Montana. “Paleontology by microscope is not that fun,” she says. “I’d much rather be out tromping around.”
“My eyeballs are just absolutely fried,” Schweitzer says after hours of gazing through the microscope’s eyepieces at glowing vessels and blobs. You could call it the price she pays for not being typical.
Dammit!!!
Don't read my WORDS!!!
Read my MIND!!
This is where you're wrong. The skeleton of a modern human in one million year old strata. The skull of a modern mammal in one-hundred million year old strata. The distinctinve spores of a flowering plant in two-million year old strata. Two biologically similar animals with vastly different genomes. Any one of these things would *disprove* evolutionary theory, and scientists would have no choice but to go back to the drawing board.
However, scientists have not yet made such a discovery. All previous studies and fossil finds have supported the theory.
The popular consensus among certain groups of people seems to be there is a conspiricy to hide such discoveries, but, as Ben Franklin said, three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
But you see, did not have to make a guess. If you knew what tools to use, you would not have had to venture a wild guess. Instead you could have compared those unknown sequences to known data and arrived at a result with a high degree of confidence. That's science.
Did the Dinosaur also have Bush's National Guard Records?
Well, that's two comments in recent posts about fertilizer/fertile ground. Pretty appropriate, considering the level of BS....
Preposterous. There are many, many people of faith working in the sciences and engineering, including the biological sciences. One does not need to "believe" in evolution. Belief is for faith. One only needs to understand evoultionary theory, as one would understand plate tectonics or circuit theory.
It's unfair to construe Darwin's loss of faith as the sole result of his scientific work, when certainly the loss of a close family member may have shaken his faith as much as anything.
I've told you before - because they're annoying, long, quote-mined regurgitations, which contribute nothing.
You sure you're not just a troll?
You can't calculate how much 87Sr was present at the beginning without first *assuming* that it is relatively proportional w/ 84Sr, 86Sr & 88Sr. Because of this assumption, you are *assuming* the amount of 87Sr that was present when the isochron was formed. Maybe that doesn't qualify as an assumption in your mind, but it does in mine.
And yes, they did find excess helium. You do the same thing when you assume how much helium should be present. Why criticize your opponent for the same thing that you do?
And the Law of Conservation of Energy is not violated with a faster rate with lower energies per event. See Setterfield.
http://www.setterfield.org/zpe.htm#zpeandatom
When 3 of 8 isochron samples by Dalrymple return dates of 34 billion years, there are no good 'independent' reasons for discarding these anomalies.
(Dalrymple, G. B., 1984 How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to ‘Scientific’ Creationism In “Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science” vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds).)
You are the one who is backpedalling furiously. You went from 'no asumptions on radiometric dating' to a focus only on isochrons. That's a huge step backward as non-isochronic methods were once presented as reliable just as isochron methods are today.
The only difference is that science hasn't figured out all of the problems w/ isochron dating yet. But they are starting to come out and that's not good for you.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years.
You creationists are fos. Rock formation age is determined directly or indirectly by radiometric means.
Like the empirical evidence for the rock formation's age?
Had you posted raw date, we would see the real variability and 'convergence' would be seen as the manufactured result that it is.
Dalrymple had 3 of 8 samples that tested at 34 billion years old (p 79). How do you 'norm' that?
(Dalrymple, G. B., 1984 How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to ‘Scientific’ Creationism In “Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science” vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds).)
These guys are making this stuff come out the way they want it to. That much is patently obvious.
But... what about blasting SANTA???
Which may explain the accusation (on another thread) that evolutionists engage in genocide.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference.
Hi Heartlander! Jeepers, that's just what evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker says: “Ethical theory,” he writes, “requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused.” Yet, “the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events.” It's all matter in its motions, according to physical laws. (Not that science has yet defined what matter is, nor has it given a plausible origin for physical laws. No matter! Smuggle in the presuppositions and just go on from there.) Pinker, too, obviously thinks that ethics cannot have a ground in traditional understandings.
Well, of course this would perhaps be true if ethics were reducible to material causes, which is what science investigates. The fallacy is to believe that the universe reduces to what science studies. There are very real things in the world that are non-phenomenal, ethics beings one of them. This is true even in the sense that Wilson gives; for he sees this non-phenomenal thing called ethics as having positive selection value for reproduction and therefore the survival of species. Yet he cannot directly observe "ethics"; it's not something you can put under a microscope, or view through a telescope. The scientific method -- which involves a subject (observer) intending an object for investigation -- is not equipped to deal with the issue, since ethics is not an object that can be "intended" in this sense.
And neither is God. Neither, in fact, is the whole of the universe, which cannot be observed in its entirety, as it is in and for itself; for observers have only perspectival views of it, given that they are bodily-located consciousnesses at given space-time coordinates within the whole, and thus can never stand outside of the whole of which they are the parts and participants, so to view it "entire," spatially and temporally.
Plus arguably that part of the universe which we do directly observe is confined to three spatial dimensions and one of time. At least, that seems to be our general expectation. But then humans are strongly visually oriented/conditioned, and so may just naturally tend to doubt the existence of things that cannot be visually detected.
Yet many mathematicians and physicists -- unlike most biologists I gather -- conjecture there are more than four dimensions in the universe. Though they show up "in the math," so to speak, they have thus far not been observed directly. (Certainly string theory advances this idea.) Such extra dimensions may possibly include dimensions that we simply cannot observe owing to the limitations of the human mind.
I am amazed at the "arrogance" of thinkers such as Wilson, Pinker, et al., who suggest we might just as well accept the "fact" that ethics is an illusion, rather than simply admit that it is something that science cannot "get at" with its method.
In short in the italicized remarks at the top and Pinker's comment, we are here dealing with a fallacy that Whitehead called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness." I gather it arises because modern science assumes and then asserts that everything there is in the universe is amenable to scientific description and explanation. So in effect, with this expectation, they must shrink the universe to fit their method.
But this, of course, is an assertion not yet proved.
Only philosophy and theology have methods to deal with things that, though real, are "unseen." It takes a deliberate act of intellectual oblivion to not see the reality of non-phenomenal things has empirical validation through the the intellectual activities and products of man over the course of some three millennia of human history, at least.
I gather, however, for some modern-day scientists, the human past no longer "counts." And if they keep going on with their "ethics is an illusion" business, soon the human present and future will not "count," either.
Well, FWIW. Thanks so much for writing, Heartlander!
Ahh, scientists, the ultimate human 'priesthood'.
Claiming to understand that which is not understandable and ridiculing all who disagree.
Even those who believe must do so on faith because the basis for the position is so esoteric that you would never know where they are fudging and they certainly aren't honest enough to tell you.
Nice.
A fascinating analysis.
I'd like to ask your take on:"...evening and morning a ..day"
That's a half day, more or less, and depending on season and how far from the equator. OR...first "evening and morning then - a day after that. A puzzlement.
A
cool!
There has?
But Genesis sure did Darwin in!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.