Posted on 10/23/2012 10:22:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.
Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.
Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
“Soft tissue in a supposedly 70-million-year-old bone? How did that survive? “
Easy. So John Hammond could discover it, extract it, and create a dinosaur zoo.
Just think. Millions of years from now scientists and other diggers will find 6 inch pvc tubes sealed at both ends with all kinds of cool stuff inside.
Ping.
(and a bookmark, I’m trying frantically to get caught up)
I think you have me confused with someone who believes in young Earth Creationism. I don’t. I am not a Christian and I think anyone who believes the Earth is only thousands of years old is a fool. I believe in evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming. In fact I have given up on even arguing with creationists. You can’t argue with faith. The only proper thing to do is not deal with irrational people unless they try to force you to accept their irrational beliefs. However if they come onto science threads with their nonsense then they should be ridiculed.
I know your views.
I was only pinging you because I thought you might be interested in the discussion.
Sorry for jumping on you. I do appreciate reading the info. Wish I had more time to read. I just don’t want anyone thinking that I am one of those people who believe in talking snakes and big floating zoos.
No worries.
Thanks. You being from Australia is kind of appropriate being that it is living proof of divergent evolution. You have some strange critters down under.
No kidding. It must be scary to live there. Great white sharks, poisonous fish and shellfish, funnel web spiders, salt water crocks, deadly snakes and lethal jellyfish.
We get by...
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.