Rare Discovery: Fossilized Bone Marrow is 10 Million Years Old

Live Science ^ | 24 July 2006 | LiveScience Staff Writer

[Sopater]

Scientists have extracted intact bone marrow from the fossilized remains of 10-million-year-old frogs and salamanders.

The finding, detailed in the August issue of the journal Geology, is the first case of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered and only the second report of fossilized soft tissue. In June of 2005, scientists announced they had found preserved red blood cells from a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone.

"It pushes back the boundary for how far [soft tissue] fossilization can go," said study leader Maria McNamara of University College Dublin in Ireland.

Why it matters

Preserved soft tissue could provide insight into the physiology of ancient beasts that can't be gleaned from their fossilized bones alone. If scientists could find bone marrow from dinosaurs, for example, it could help resolve the debate about whether the creatures were warm-blooded or not, McNamara said.

Both the frog and salamander species are long extinct, but the families to which they belonged still thrive today. The animals were found in the Teruel province of Spain, a region that was once a deep lake.

The researchers suspect that the bones of the amphibians formed protective microenvironments that prevented bacteria from seeping in and rotting the tissues.

Hopes raised

The discovery raises hopes for finding soft tissue in other regions and from other animals, including mammals, McNamara says, because the amphibian bone marrow was discovered in an environment vastly different form the one in which the T. rex soft tissue was found.

It's also possible that already exhumed fossils contain soft tissue, but that they've been missed because detection requires breaking the bones apart.

"Any reasonable museum curator isn't going to let you go around smashing up the bones in their collections," McNamara told LiveScience.

[Sopater]

And just how do they know its 10 million years old?

The researchers suspect that the bones of the amphibians formed protective microenvironments that prevented bacteria from seeping in and rotting the tissues.

But how do you explain the minerals not seeping in and replacing the organic materials?

Notice how its the decay and fossilization process that is called into question, not the age of the fossil that is considered questionable. How interesting.

[pillut48]

>cue "Jurassic Park" theme...

[Dracian]

how do you explain the minerals not seeping in and replacing the organic materials?

Because they did seep in and replace the organic materials -- that's the definition of fossilization.

[Dracian]

how do they know its 10 million years old?

That's case specific, but some ways include knowing the age of the strata in which things are found.

[Sopater]

Because they did seep in and replace the organic materials -- that's the definition of fossilization.

Dude, read the article. Its all about the preservation of soft tissue. Soft tissue that was NOT fossilized over a supposed 10 million years. That's the definition of soft tissue.

[Red Badger]

... already exhumed fossils contain soft tissue, but that they've been missed because detection requires breaking the bones apart.

An MRI scan won't detect it?........

[Sopater]

That's case specific, but some ways include knowing the age of the strata in which things are found.

"Case specific" meaning that the age of the rock is based on the types of fossils that are found in it. That's not science, that's circular reasoning.

[ASA Vet]

the first case of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered

RIF

[Dracian]

Dude, read the article. Its all about the preservation of soft tissue. Soft tissue that was NOT fossilized over a supposed 10 million years. That's the definition of soft tissue.

"is the first case of fossilized bone marrow ever to be discovered and only the second report of fossilized soft tissue."

Some poor writing in the article, but it's claiming it is fossilized soft tissue.

The structure of soft-tissue is usually lost within a few days, weeks, due to bacteria and so forth. The structure isn't around long enough (usually) for mineralization to replace it. So the structure is lost. Only longer lasting hard bones remain intact long enough, in some cases, to allow fossilization.

[Zavien Doombringer]

That's case specific, but some ways include knowing the age of the strata in which things are found.

And knowing the age of the strats is based on a premis that it must be of a certain age. This age has to be exagerated to provide a standard to which no one can actually debunk, and to provide debate with creationists.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[ASA Vet]

Deliberate ignorance is such a sad thing to observe.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Dude, read the article. Its all about the preservation of soft tissue. Soft tissue that was NOT fossilized over a supposed 10 million years. That's the definition of soft tissue."

I read it. Dracian is right. You're wrong. The article specifically says "fossilized bone marrow".

[Tzimisce]

Jurassic Park.

[GraniteStateConservative]

This is the only frog I know who could survive that long in those conditions.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Uh, you need to re-read the article... You are wrong. The article deliberatley eludes to fossilized bone marrow. Hense fossilized soft tissue (Which wouldn't be soft)

[Drawsing]

Scientists have extracted intact bone marrow from the fossilized remains of 10-million-year-old frogs and salamanders

First it says it is intact and then it says it is fossilized. This does not compute.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Sure it computes....If they can extract bone marrow (soft tissue) from what they believe is fossilized remains of a 10,000,000yr old frog... then it can't be 10,000,000 yrs old. What you are looking at maybe only 6000 yr old frog not finished with fossilization.

[Sopater]

The article specifically says "fossilized bone marrow"

Indeed you are partly correct, it does say "fossilized bone marrow", but it also says "intact bone marrow from the fossilized remains" and "Preserved soft tissue", which indicate that the "preserved" soft tissue was not mineralized. The article ends with "The researchers are currently testing to see if DNA or other organic molecules were also preserved".

"Fossil", as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is

A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.

Therefore, it does not necessarily have to be "mineralized" to be "fossilized". The article clearly indicates the preservation of bone marrow, that is still in it's soft tissue state, and not mineralized. So, Dracian was not right, and you are only partially right.

[Coyoteman]

What you are looking at maybe only 6000 yr old frog not finished with fossilization.

Do you have any evidence its only 6000 years old?