Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soft tissue in fossils still mysterious: Purported dinosaur soft tissue may be modern biofilms
Science News ^ | July 29th, 2008 | Sid Perkins

Posted on 08/01/2008 9:48:00 AM PDT by SunkenCiv

Three years ago, a team of scientists rocked the paleontology world by reporting that they'd recovered flexible tissue resembling blood vessels from a 68-million-year-old dinosaur fossil...

Subsequent analyses by many of the same scientists -- including Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh -- indicated that the fossil contained small bits of collagen, a fiber-forming protein that's the largest non-mineral component of bone...

Schweitzer and her colleagues, of course, take issue with the new findings. "There really isn't a lot new here, although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at and repeat the studies we conducted," she notes.

For one thing, says Schweitzer, she and her team dismissed bacterial biofilms as a possible cause of the tissues she and her team observed. Such coatings probably would be thicker along the lower surfaces of the vascular spaces, but the flexible structures that her team recovered had walls with an even thickness. Also, she notes, there's no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study.

The material purported to be T. rex collagen in the Schweitzer study had the appropriate microscopic structure. Tests also revealed the material's similarities, such as its ratio of glycine and alanine, to chicken collagen. These results bolster the notion that dinosaurs are related to modern birds, Schweitzer and her colleagues reported.

Furthermore, says John M. Asara, an analytical chemist at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a colleague of Schweitzer, the type of collagen found was bone-specific and isn't a common protein contaminant.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...


TOPICS: History; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: biofilm; biofilms; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; maryschweitzer
Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms, Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler, Zbigniew Sawlowicz

1 posted on 08/01/2008 9:48:01 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

PRESERVED T. Rex Soft Tissue RECOVERED (Pic)
Star Tribune | 03.24.05 | Randolph Schmid
Posted on 03/24/2005 3:04:54 PM EST by wallcrawlr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369945/posts

Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus Rex
[Surviving soft tissue w/ pics]
Science Now | 10/1/2006 | staff
Posted on 10/01/2006 11:12:10 AM EDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711619/posts

Ancient T. rex and mastodon protein fragments discovered, sequenced
National Science Foundation | 12-Apr-2007 | Cheryl Dybas
Posted on 04/12/2007 3:43:57 PM EDT by AdmSmith
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816333/posts

- cre/vo “great divide” -

Dinosaur Shocker
(YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)
Smithsonian Magazine | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields
Posted on 05/01/2006 11:29:14 AM EDT by SirLinksalot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1624642/posts

The scrambling continues (Fallout over T-rex bone tissue continues)
Answers in Genesis | March 6, 2006 | Staff
Posted on 03/10/2006 9:25:07 AM EST by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1593799/posts

Dino Skin Preserved in Rare Fossil Find
Discovery News | November 21, 2006 | Jennifer Viegas
Posted on 11/23/2006 12:43:21 AM EST by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1742984/posts


2 posted on 08/01/2008 9:48:47 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


3 posted on 08/01/2008 9:49:26 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

ping


4 posted on 08/01/2008 9:51:13 AM PDT by null and void (Barack Obama - International Man of Mystery...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

evolutionites grasping at straws as usual....


5 posted on 08/01/2008 9:57:10 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; medved
evolutionites grasping at straws as usual....

Doing science, as usual. Science doesn't mind correcting errors. With each error corrected, science becomes more accurate.

But those poor creationists, who focused on this as proof positive of a young earth are sobbing in their beers.

6 posted on 08/01/2008 10:00:44 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
evolutionites grasping at straws as usual....

Huh? Both sides of this accept evolution as a fact. Evolution hasn't been the subject of any scientific controversy for well over a hundred years.

That's like pointing to bats hanging from a cave ceiling as "evidence" against gravity.

7 posted on 08/01/2008 10:02:46 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Let's see where the data takes us before anyone counts coup here.

Even Especially because 65,000,000 million years is an improbably long time for organic matter to survive this stuff is very interesting.

No matter where the data goes, our understanding of all of creation will be improved.

Perhaps that will mean fossilization and decay processes are far different that we thought.

Perhaps it will mean that everything we know about radioactive decay, geology, cosmology, anthropology, time, and biology needs major revision.

Perhaps our understanding of subterranean bacterial growth in incomplete, and we confused what something looks like for what something is.

Me? I'm hoping it is really bits 'o dinosaur.

That would be way kewl!

8 posted on 08/01/2008 10:08:25 AM PDT by null and void (Barack Obama - International Man of Mystery...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: null and void
1. Will this give people pause when determining how they want their love one's bodies handled after death. .

2. Do we know if these scientists are secretly cloning a T. Rex?

9 posted on 08/01/2008 11:21:43 AM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Bacterial Collagen from a fossil is probably a Phyllis Diller discard.


10 posted on 08/01/2008 11:23:26 AM PDT by wildbill ( FR---changing history by erasing it from memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

.....such as its ratio of glycine and alanine, to chicken collagen....

I’m sorry, can’t resist..... the bottom line is T Rex tastes like chicken

(wolfpack bump where I studued genetics)


11 posted on 08/01/2008 11:44:09 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Conservation? Let the NE Yankees freeze.... in the dark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
For one thing, says Schweitzer, she and her team dismissed bacterial biofilms as a possible cause of the tissues she and her team observed. Such coatings probably would be thicker along the lower surfaces of the vascular spaces, but the flexible structures that her team recovered had walls with an even thickness. Also, she notes, there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study.

The material purported to be T. rex collagen in the Schweitzer study had the appropriate microscopic structure. Tests also revealed the material’s similarities, such as its ratio of glycine and alanine, to chicken collagen. These results bolster the notion that dinosaurs are related to modern birds, Schweitzer and her colleagues reported.

Furthermore, says John M. Asara, an analytical chemist at Harvard Medical School in Boston and a colleague of Schweitzer, the type of collagen found was bone-specific and isn’t a common protein contaminant.

Schweitzer sounds more convincing to me.

12 posted on 08/01/2008 2:12:53 PM PDT by Bellflower (A Brand New Day Is Coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

“2. Do we know if these scientists are secretly cloning a T. Rex?”

This would have been my number one question...modified to how many scientists and where are they working? It’s just irresistible!


13 posted on 08/02/2008 7:35:58 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG... McCain wasn't my choice but Obama is a nightmare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson