Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Researchers have decoded proteins from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, the oldest such material ever found. The unprecedented step, once thought impossible, adds new weight to the idea that today's birds are descendants of the mighty dinosaurs.
"The door just opens up to a whole avenue of research that involves anything extinct," said Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
While dinosaur bones have long been studied, "it's always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs, she said.
So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T. rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.
And now, researchers led by John M. Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston have been able to analyze proteins from that bone.
The genetic code that directs the development of living things is the DNA, but that is more fragile and they didn't find that.
"But proteins are coded from the DNA, they're kind of like first cousins," Schweitzer said
What Asara's team found was collagen, a type of fibrous connective tissue that is a major component of bone. And the closest match in creatures alive today was collagen from chicken bones.
Schweitzer and Asara report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
"Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that's all based on the architecture of the bones," said Asara. "This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."
"The fact that we are getting proteins is very, very exciting," said John Horner of Montana State University and the Museum of the Rockies.
And, he added, it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."
To scientists that's a big deal.
In science, a hypothesis is an idea about something that seems probable, while a theory has been tested and is supported by evidence. Previously, the bird-dinosaur relationship was based on similarities in the shape of bones, now there is solid evidence of a relationship at the molecular level.
Horner, who found the bones studied by Schweitzer and Asara, said this is going to change the way paleontologists go about collecting specimens — they will now be looking for the best preserved items, often buried in sand or sandstone sediments.
This summer, he said, his museum is organizing nine different field crews involving more than 100 people to search for fossils in Montana and Mongolia.
Asara explained that he was working on a very refined form of mass spectrometry to help detect peptides — fragments of proteins — in tumors as part of cancer research.
In refining the technique, he had previously studied proteins from a mastodon, and when he heard of Schweitzer's finding soft tissues in a T. rex bone he decided to see if he could detect proteins there also.
He was able to identify seven different dinosaur proteins from the bone and compared them with proteins from living species. Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog.
Co-author Lewis Cantley of Harvard Medical School noted that this work is in its infancy, and when it is improved he expects to be able to isolate more proteins and seek more matches.
"Knowing how evolution occurred and how species evolved is a central question," Cantley said.
The Smithsonian's Carrano, who was not part of the research teams, said the report is an important confirmation of Schweitzer's techniques and shows that "the possibility of preservation is more than we had expected, and we can expect to see more in the future."
Matt Lamanna, a curator at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, called the finding "another piece in the puzzle that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are related to birds." Lamanna was not part of the research team.
So, does all this mean that a T. rex would have tasted like chicken? The researchers admit, they don't know.
Both research teams were supported by the National Science Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. Schweitzer had additional support from NASA and Asara had added support from the Paul F. Glenn Foundation.
If that's the case, wouldn't finding protein as diverse as chicken and newt in the same sample be even MORE remarkable? I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I was a political science major, which is as close as I got to biological science.
Now I'm really confused.
I don't really know enough about this to answer. In principle, though, if the sequences are short enough they might match those of other taxa just by chance. Also, I'm guessing here, because the collagen fufills a simple mechanical role, and therefore doesn't have to "co-evolve" in complex ways with other proteins, there would be more freedom for (noncrucial portions of) the protein sequence to evolve randomly in this direction and that, increasing a bit the likelihood that sequences from different taxa -- from different times -- might match by chance.
Both of the above are especially true of collagen isn't a particularly complex protein, which I suspect from it's structural nature, that it probably isn't.
That makes sense. But further reduces the value of what was discussed in the article. If the identity of the proteins was determined by chance, then there is just as much likelihood the seven protein fragments evaluated could have matched dolphins as chickens.
Could you check the Hal Linsey book and see if he cites a source for this information?
Sorry, I don’t have the book handy, I just remember reading it years ago.
Sorry, I don’t have the book handy, I just remember reading it years ago.
You are citing a book you read years ago, whose original citation you therefore do not have, as evidence that some living elephant was radiocarbon dated to 3,000 years ago? And this is supposed to show that the radiocarbon method is not accurate?
I would need more evidence than that before I made such a claim.
Unless you can provide some support, such as a reference to the original article that supports your claim, I am going to regard your claim as unsubstantiated.
Psuedo-science ping.
Argumentum ad chutzpah.
Meet our #1 freerepublic creep. This is what zarf considers intellectual.
Only a complete moron would. If curing cancer became legal, the entire disease industry would go broke.
Paul Crouch, is that you?
.
.
Really? As I stated at the very start of my very first comment on this thread, I have zero interest in an evolution/creationism debate. No offense, but I am certain I could not care less about what any Freeper thinks regarding evolution or creation. You can scan my entire posting record and note that I have never participated in any of the countless "debates" on this site on that topic. Instead, my comments were directed specifically at what I read in this AP article. Let me offer some highlights here...
"This allows you to get the chance to say, 'Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related.' We didn't get enough sequences to definitively say that, but what sequences we got support that idea."
" it "changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory."
"Three matched chickens, two matched several species including chickens, one matched a protein from a newt and the other from a frog."
So this AP article describes research that looked at seven fragments of protein and determined three matched chickens, two matched "several species" (ducks, whales, naked mole rats?!!?), one matched newts and one matched frogs. Short of them being all living creatures (assumed considering they are studying collagen) that is about as conclusive as grabbing seven items at random from a supermarket, discovering four contain chicken and declaring the supermarket is a chicken ranch. Even the scientist quoted in the article states they don't have enough data to definitively say anything. And this stunning breakthrough has raised the level of their work from hypothesis to theory. Which prompts one of the more ridiculous phrases I've read in a long time..."This allows you to get the chance to say...".
Soooo, I highlight in my first post that this absolute non-conclusion could hardly be more broad. For that comment I am labeled "a mouth breather", called "scarey", and accused of being afraid of scientific research. This, presumably from someone who considers himself well educated in these matters. I respond to that person and you accuse me of not understanding "scientific text" and being an unsafe pilot. And now you are lecturing me on "logical analysis"?!!?
If this thread was the result of someone posting an article from Scientific American, your comments might have some merit. But it isn't. If my comments were a statement for or against evolution or creationism, your comments might have some merit. But they weren't. Instead, your comments, and several others on this thread smack of a defensive knee jerk reaction related to a topic I clearly stated I had no interest in.
I'll read the link you sent me out of personal interest. But my comments regarding THIS article on THIS thread stand as posted.
Posted originally by Rokke
I know of some lovely home sites that you'd likely be interested in, just a few furlongs off the coast of florida...
Science at its best, I see.
Wow, what a mind-numbingly convenient concept!
Never mind the fact that such a situation proves the fact that dating is based in completely circular reasoning.
Wow, what a mind-numbingly convenient concept!
Never mind the fact that such a situation proves the fact that dating is based in completely circular reasoning.
And you have some evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?
Perhaps you could share it with us. Please include the details which would lead us to believe your claim, as opposed to mainstream science.
You must be related to that other thick-headed Al, Gore.
No, the T-Rex bones that have yielded the material for this venture in propaganda are quite solid to the core.
Dinosaurs never existed, its a trick by Satan and liberals.
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.