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 ...
Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms, Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler, Zbigniew Sawlowicz
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
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
ping
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.
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.
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!
2. Do we know if these scientists are secretly cloning a T. Rex?
Bacterial Collagen from a fossil is probably a Phyllis Diller discard.
.....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)
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.
“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!
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.