Ink found in Jurassic-era squid (150 mya squid "can be dissected as if they are living animals")

BBC ^ | August 19,2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Palaeontologists have drawn with ink extracted from a preserved fossilised squid uncovered during a dig in Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.

A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink...

[SunkenCiv]

:’) While looking for the chemistry of squid ink, I found a *lot* of stuff about its use in cooking; seems that the only squid ink so used comes from the cuttlefish, which is a relative of the squid. The real squid ink tastes like ka-ka.

[count-your-change]

Since there's a shortage of red pixels in the world I won't waste any here,

unbusted:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], “The Blind Watchmaker,” [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1).

[count-your-change]

Unbusted Part Two:

Couldn't get your link to work but I did find this quote from Dawkins at the site:

“Darwinism is the explanation of life on this planet, but I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.[1]

1] Dawkins, Broadcasting House, BBC Radio 4, Sunday January, 2005”

[Pelham]

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/07/dinosaur_soft_tissuejust_bacte.php

“Tara,
This is interesting.
Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.

Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone.

Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them.

Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is “difficult to identify with current technology”. Dr Pavel Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be “much bigger news [than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.”9

Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique used in Schweitzer’s analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study “was ‘done the right way,’ with more stringent controls to guard against contamination”, for one thing.

There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from mastodon fossils and her T. rex sequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instance—results which would also confirm her previous identification of T. rex collagen.

The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as well.

As Schweitzer says, “These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.”

Pretty amazing. I hope that I am not considered a “creationists troll”. Oh well, I have been called much worse,

Tom Severson

Posted by: Tom Severson | June 10, 2009 12:20 PM

[RFEngineer]

“Pretty amazing. I hope that I am not considered a “creationists troll”. Oh well, I have been called much worse,”

You come with facts and an interesting article, how can you be a troll?

However, there is no claim of soft tissue being found. There is a claim of something “resembling it” but no scientist is willing to say explicitly it’s actual soft tissue (except for “creation science” types, but they aren’t actual scientists).

So thanks for the article. Dino soft tissue has not been found, only possibly “proteins” or “structures” or “collagen”, but no soft tissue. ever. Can we agree on that at least?

[count-your-change]

The 65 million year ago dino die off has become such an entrenched dogma that the critics just couldn't wrap their minds around what Schweitzer's work might indicate.

Must be error, misinterpretation, contamination, biofilms over everything, minerals, anything but....

[UCANSEE2]

; seems that the only squid ink so used comes from the cuttlefish

If you have ever studied the cuttlefish, it makes the idea of random mutation seem a little far-fetched.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Hmm, I guess you missed this. (from last June). No tears shed over an absurd idea laid to rest.

Impressive. Zero Sum succeeded where all others failed. He defeated the agent. He is the One.

Has LeGrande recanted some of his other absurd assertions since then? Such as 'we are made of waves of nothing' and 'you can't prove the Earth is rotating', and 'the stars that you see in front of you could be behind you', etc?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Tell me this isn't just another case of deminerilized soft-tissue STRUCTURE like the last batches.

Sounds like a massive, catastrophic flood and rapid burial (and not "poisoning") to me.

False unscientific conclusion. Sounds to me like a mass kill by algae bloom toxins.....you know....like still happens to this day. Ever been to Ft. Myers when there's an algae bloom and thousands of fish wash ashore and the toxins in the air irritate your lungs? You think algae blooms are limited to today?

Gymnodinium breve algae mass fish kill:

Karenia brevis

Prymnesium parvum

When there's a rational scientific explanation, I see no need to make up a story of Man walking the land with vegetarian T. rex...don't suppose you've ever heard of Red Tide.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I wouldn't go believing that they found "soft tissue" in that T. rex bone. If you read the actual paper written by Schweitzer, you can see right there in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that she DE-mineralized the fossil.....that means "dissolving the rock", in a manner that leaves the visible structure intact....meaning it was fossilized soft tissues.

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution.

The Discovery Magazine article left out that first phrase for a reason. "Removal of the mineral phase" means demineralizing, dissolving the rock in a solvent.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I don’t get it, doc, if it was stone how was it used to draw a picture?

The same way they got "soft tissue" from a T. rex......by demineralizing the fossil, dissolving the "rock", using a solvent.

[ElectricStrawberry]

So, how can you have fossilized ink?

When they demineralize the fossilized ink sac in a solvent, the ink is reconstituted. Probably not quite the original chemical structure, but good enough to stain paper.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Are you one of those people who still maintain, in the face of all the evidence, that they haven’t found dino soft-tissue?

Yes. If you read the actual paper, you will read that they DEMINERALIZED the fossil to reveal the "soft tissue structures".

What the heck do you think DE-mineralize means? Hint: it has something to do with taking the minerals out of the fossil....dissolving the "rock" in a solvent.

I get it, your YEC/ID/ICR source left out the part of demineralizing the fossil.

[ElectricStrawberry]

.pdf of the chemical composition of mollusk inks.....lots of amino groups, organic acids.....and ammonium.

[ElectricStrawberry]

The electron micrograph came from a so-called “Jurassic” squid.

Guarantee that EM came from a DEMINERALIZED fossil of a Jurassic squid.

[ElectricStrawberry]

She demineralized the contents of the dino bone, and found soft tissue still intact.

False, she demineralized a fossil and found soft tissue STRUCTURE. You DO know what "de-mineralize" means......right?

[ElectricStrawberry]

In my amateur fossil hunting, I have seen black fossils...and red, tan, white....

I'd presume that whatever makes the ink sac fossil "black" is a pigment that is not mineralized during fossilization.

[ElectricStrawberry]

The main componant of squid ink is melanin. Melanin is organic, and if found, it is not fossilized by definition...because it’s still melanin!

So, why should I be surprised that they can demineralize a fossilized structure, including the melanin.....and write with it?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Finding soft tissue in dinos only stengthens that evidence

Except they didn't find "soft tissues" in any manner. They found fossilized soft tissue structures and demineralized them.

[ElectricStrawberry]

From recollection, their tests showed that “amino groups were present”....but they stated they didn’t find intact proteins.