Posted on 04/12/2007 12:43:57 PM PDT by AdmSmith
68-million-year-old T. rex proteins are oldest ever sequenced
Scientists have confirmed the existence of protein in soft tissue recovered from the fossil bones of a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex) and a half-million-year-old mastodon.
Their results may change the way people think about fossil preservation and present a new method for studying diseases in which identification of proteins is important, such as cancer.
When an animal dies, protein immediately begins to degrade and, in the case of fossils, is slowly replaced by mineral. This substitution process was thought to be complete by 1 million years. Researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and Harvard Medical School now know otherwise.
The researchers' findings appear as companion papers in this week's issue of the journal Science.
"Not only was protein detectably present in these fossils, the preserved material was in good enough condition that it could be identified," said Paul Filmer, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. "We now know much more about what conditions proteins can survive in. It turns out that some proteins can survive for very long time periods, far longer than anyone predicted."
Mary Schweitzer of NCSU and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences discovered soft tissue in the leg bone of a T. rex and other fossils recovered from the Hell Creek sediment formation in Montana.
After her chemical and molecular analyses of the tissue indicated that original protein fragments might be preserved, she turned to colleagues John Asara and Lewis Cantley of Harvard Medical School, to see if they could confirm her suspicions by finding the amino acid used to make collagen, a fibrous protein found in bone.
Bone is a composite material, consisting of both protein and mineral. In modern bones, when minerals are removed, a collagen matrix--fibrous, resilient material that gives the bones structure and flexibility--is left behind. When Schweitzer demineralized the T. rex bone, she was surprised to find such a matrix, because current theories of fossilization held that no original organic material could survive that long.
"This information will help us learn more about evolutionary relationships, about how preservation happens, and about how molecules degrade over time, which could have important applications in medicine," Schweitzer said.
To see if the material had characteristics indicating the presence of collagen, which is plentiful, durable and has been recovered from other fossil materials, the scientists examined the resulting soft tissue with electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. They then tested it against various antibodies that are known to react with collagen. Identifying collagen would indicate that it is original to T. rex--that the tissue contains remnants of the molecules produced by the dinosaur.
"This is the breakthrough that says it's possible to get sequences beyond 1 million years," said Cantley. "At 68 million years, it's still possible."
Asara and Cantley successfully sequenced portions of the dinosaur and mastodon proteins, identifying the amino acids and confirming that the material was collagen. When they compared the collagen sequences to a database that contains existing sequences from modern species, they found that the T. rex sequence had similarities to those of chickens, and that the mastodon was more closely related to mammals, including the African elephant.
The protein fragments in the T. rex fossil appear to most closely match amino acid sequences found in collagen of present-day chickens, lending support to the idea that birds and dinosaurs are evolutionarily related.
"Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's based on the 'architecture' of the bones," Asara said. "This finding allows us the ability to say that they really are related because their sequences are related."
"Scientists had long assumed that the material in fossil bones would not be preserved after millions of years of burial," said Enriqueta Barrera, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences. "This discovery has implications for the study of similarly well-preserved fossil material."
"The 14C activity in a sample of gas or oil depends mainly on the natural radioactivity of the surrounding rock in which the sample was stored for long periods and from which it was extracted. These rocks, inevitably, contain neutron and alpha particle emitting isotopes of uranium, thorium and their daughters. The reactions expected [ 3 ], in order of importance, to contribute most to the production of 14C in deep underground geological formations are: 17O(n, a)14C, 14N(n,p)14C, 13C(n, g)14C and 11B( a,n)14C."
To sort out what that means, the "17O(n,a)14C" means O-17 absorbs a neutron and then emits an alpha particle, converting itself to C-14. n is neutron, p proton, g gamma radiation, and a alpha particle.
"The old carbon project: how old is old?" Beukens, R. P.; Gove, H. E.; Litherland, A. E.; Kiesler, W. E.; Zhao, X.-L. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 2004, 223-224, 333.
I’m not sure. Are the courtiers the court jester’s followers?
“Your problem is that you don’t understand well enough to realize that you’re defending the ridiculous.”
Pot, meet Kettle; Kettle, this is Pot.
Some of the creationists are using this kind of residual C14 to argue for a young earth (see the RATE project).
You are the lead dog for your ping list, but for the rest of them the scenery never changes.
“The personal comments in this thread are getting a bit above and beyond even their normal churlish nature, so, barring any further comments of an intellectual nature, the jester is leaving the building.”
I agree with you. I do have a comment about this article. I find it amazing that when intact protein is found in follized bones, which previous “scientific opinion” said was impossible, they just say, “well we need to rethink the “impossbile statement.” What occurs to me, is that they should at least consider that it is indeed “impossible” and draw the possible resulting conclusion that those bones may not be millions of years old as thought. But that would upset the paradigm and therefore is not even considered.
Bottom line is that anything that messes with basic evolutionary assumptions will be tossed. The bones must be millions of years old in order for the theorized evolution of dinosaurs to birds to have occurred. So, the prefectly reasonable thought that protein should not last millions of years is tossed out. Patterns of thought, both evolutionary and creationist (et. al.) are both rigid. I must ask if the evolutionary theorist is really that much less biased in his approach that the stereotypical “Bible believing creationist”? It is my opinion the ET is just as biased as the BBC he/she calls silly.
The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.
For one observation to switch from "protein can't last millions of years" to "protein can last millions of years" is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.
This is particularly true as there is currently no good evidence for a young earth (ca. 6,000-10,000 years). That age estimate is a religious belief, not something based on science.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Dan Rather's fatal failing wasn't "elitism," it was running with a false, fabricated story that he wanted to believe was true, and thus didn't bother to do the legwork to research it and determine for himself whether it really was true, while cluelessly overlooking glaring signals that it was a lame and amateurish put-up job.
He didn't have even the simple knowledge that millions of ordinary people have that allowed them to recognize the bogus nature of the claim on sight. And then he refused to back down and admit he was wrong, instead clinging to the steaming pile of BS, even after its failings were pointed out in painful detail.
This does not sound like a description of scientists working in their particular fields of expertise. It does, however, seem to describe some of the anti-science folks we meet on these threads.
Not at my house...
“The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.”
“For one observation to switch from “protein can’t last millions of years” to “protein can last millions of years” is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.”
My friend the actual “bottom line” is that “scientists” are people too, and subject to the same prejudices and biases as the rest of the human race. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the so called “millions and millions” of obeservations you mention to be tossed because of one conflicting piece of evidence. My point is that it wouldn’t ever be even remotely considered because it doesn’t fit the paradigm - not because of the “millions and millions” of observations you mention - which like most observations are interpreted in light of what the person wants to see. That is true of both sides of the evolution/creation debate.
I’m certainly not adverse to admitting my falibility and bias, why are not those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens, etc. not so willing? That is a rhetorical question, and I really don’t expect an answer.
I’m not seeking an arguement or to insult. I just want there to be a little “intellectual honesty” to be shown - by ALL parties.
Yes, quite agree.
I’m sure it will also be a busy year for the “bloodbath” graphic. ;’)
Individual scientists do have biases. But there are tens of thousands of hungry individuals in almost every field all wanting to make a name for themselves. One way to do that is to show one of the leaders in their field to be wrong. Its not easy to do, but it happens. Scientists are not sheep -- they will go where the evidence leads. (The global warming extremists seem to be politicians more than scientists.)
However, the willingness to look at new evidence is much more a characteristic of science than religion. The field of apologetics (defense of religion) was not founded to explore new revelation or dogma, but to defend the status quo. Science modifies theories when the evidence requires it. That happens all the time. (Those who hold to unchanging religious belief seem to be muchly bothered when science modifies a theory to be more accurate.)
I’m certainly not adverse to admitting my falibility and bias, why are not those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens, etc. not so willing? That is a rhetorical question, and I really don’t expect an answer.
Scientists are willing to admit their assumptions -- but you need to look in the technical journals, as the popular literature produced by "science" journalists will not often convey that part of the publication. It is not interesting, and is among the first things to be left out. But if you go to the original sources, you will find a lot of effort to identify and separate assumptions, conjecture, and guesses from what is more conclusively demonstrated.
But from the tone of your post, you are probably looking for scientists ("those holding to strictly naturalistic explainations of origens") to accept non-naturalistic evidence. But that approach would be violating the entire approach of science, which is concerned only with the natural world and the physical evidence that allows us to study that world.
If scientists were to try to address the non-naturalistic evidence, how would they do that? They would be dealing with revelation, dogma, belief, superstition, magic, and other fuzzy subjects for which there are no possible measurements. There is no god meter.
When you cross the threshold from natural to non-natural, from the measurable to the unmeasurable, you leave science and enter the realm of philosophy or theology.
You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science. If there are new fields that come to light with new methods, science will move into them. It may be that some day science will be able to measure and describe, and theorize about, fields that today are considered magic or superstition. In fact, it would be amazing if this were not the case.
But don't expect scientists to accept religious belief, with no supporting or measurable evidence, as a valid field of study.
Some creationists, noting Schweitzer’s evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. “It is high time that the ‘Scientific’ community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled,” reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.
These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”
Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer’s faith. “My God has gotten so much bigger since I’ve been a scientist,” she says. “He doesn’t stay in my boxes.”
Hey, I can't touch you on that. I would never try to claim the whole scientific community and their scientific forefathers were in error and I alone had the Truth.
The personal comments in this thread are getting a bit above and beyond even their normal churlish nature, so, barring any further comments of an intellectual nature, the jester is leaving the building.
You're a kid taking on scientists in their own field when you don't even know the basics. You've got to expect some flack for that.
That would be amazing, but they just found sad little scraps of collagen. It was not intact. Fortunately, enough little scraps can provide valuable information!
“But don’t expect scientists to accept religious belief, with no supporting or measurable evidence, as a valid field of study.”
Actually, and I say this with no rancor, I don’t expect them to.
What you wrote about apologetics is true. In Greek an “apology” means a defense. Religious belief - at least its fundamentals - are not subject to change. Strictly speaking “science” should be the most open to change in light of new discoveries, etc. It is to a degree - it still has its “fundamentals” that one cannot challenge without rocking the boat to much - until a major paradigm shift occurs. Science is a human endeavor, and subject to the inherit weaknesses of the human condition.
Whatever, although we may both draw different conclusions from what we observe, I do not hold you in any contempt for the differences. Ultimately, an individual must chose how they want to approach things. I am formally trained in science and have for almost 3 decades worked in various fields that require the practical application of science. So, I do understand what you are saying. I have made the conscience decision to look beyond just the “natural” or “chance” to understand how things got here - because I am more interested in “truth” than what one would call “fact” - which I guess is philosophical or in my case theological. However, to be honest, I don’t really concern myself with that much anymore. It is pretty much settled in my mind - I guess that is how the religious thinker functions. Fortunately, I am not professionally interested in theoretical (like cosmology or biological origins) science per se, but in the application of knowledge/technology. I have feet in both worlds.
“That would be amazing, but they just found sad little scraps of collagen. It was not intact. Fortunately, enough little scraps can provide valuable information!”
It had to be more than just “scraps” for the amino acids to be “sequenced” and in lengths long enough to be identifiable as a specific protein. Plus, it had to be long enough sequences to be able to compare with currently existing creature’s collagen proteins to be able to make the assertion that it was similiar to collagen one would find in a chicken. If that is what was actually alledged-the press has a tendency to simpify was was actually published in the literature.
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.