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.
Can you do better than that? I don't know, may cite the specific instance? (I don't happen to have Mr. Linsay's telephone number off hand) I should warn you that I think your elephant anecdote is almost certainly bogus.
I am still waiting for the citation showing the basis for Hal Linsay's claim. I asked for it some days ago, but have had no reply.
I tend to distrust creationists' claims regarding science as I have found many such claims, in the few fields with which I am familiar, to be misrepresentations, wishful thinking, or gross exaggerations. Many of the claims I have examined in these fields have turned out to be simply bogus--an attempt to make science match scripture.
Well you must look for them ost obscure off the wall ones to ‘investigate’ and determine the whole field of creation science must therefore be littered with bogus science because most of what I’ve read has proposed facts that get met with ‘counterpoints’ constructed of assumptions and generalizations- you know, suppositions that make the science fit their scriptures (of darwinism)
not sure how that rebuttled what was written- but oh well
Your post makes no sense. Please try to use better grammar, spelling, and composition. I am not looking to engage in a scavenger hunt to figure out what you are trying to say.
If you can't do better than that, don't bother to post to me.
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.-- About Answers in Genesis
(A) PRIORITIES-- AiG Statement of Faith1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ...(B) BASICS1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. ...(D) GENERAL
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. ...1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. ...
6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
AiG relies on apologetics --defense of faith instead of scientific research as it's argument.
Science; Learn it. live it. love it.
it was perfectly readable and understandable- not sure what you didn’t understand there-
Ahahaha- yep- scientific evidence that shows another equally plausible conclusion such as design and might suggest creation automatically disqualify the scientific evidence- Sorry fella- biological evidences do suggest design more so than random mutations- Evolution relies on apologetics to defend the hypothesis of evolution every bit as much- so, if you’re trying to assert that apologetics disqualify the science- I guess you’re willing to disqualify evolution science as well.
You can make all the ‘apologetics’ accusations you like- the soundness of the science stands and can’t be waved away with such glib ignorance of what is presented.
Tell me, how’s the ‘missing link’ situation coming in eovlution? or the macro-evolution argument? or the abiogenisis argument? I ask because all the arguments put forth by evolutionists HAVE to rely on the very SAME OPINIONS that you villify creation scientists for having- so please- do keep making the broad dismissal accusations of ‘apologetics’- it just further shows the same biased head in the sand attitudes that can’t deal with coutner evidences..
Now, if you’d like to take on the specific science that is presented- I’d be more than happy to engage in a discussion about the facts- if not- then I’ll simply assume the problems with evolutio nare too much for some to handle and necessitate petty attacks on organizations simply because they -gasp- have opinions about the facts that are discovered.
Science- learn it, live it, love it.
You have presented no scientific evidence, merely unsupported statements.
As usual.
But if you want to present scientific facts and theories, be my guest.
(But you won't find them at AnswersInGenesis.)
Tell me coyote- is it scientific fact that the tissue found in this thread links dinos with birds? Has that been established? No? Then I guess we should discount ALL evo sites that state ANY thing that even resembles ‘dinos might be related to birds’ because all they’re doing is presenting OPINION and not scientific fact- right? All they’re doing is playing apologists for the evo movement.
You’ll find PLENTY of sound scientific fact on answersingenesis as well as several other Creation/ID sites, as well as equally valid OPINION about what that science means- but if you need to wave the hand about it to feel more secure in your own stance on teh matter- then by all means keep waving, and keep those biased blinders on and crying there’s no sound science to be had anywhere outside of the rank and file evo hypothesis/dogma
Care to tackle any of the following from AIG?
“Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.
In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.
Chimps have 46 chromosomes and humans have 44 chromosomes (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.”
Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that ‘vestigial organs’ are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:
“Seems to regulate the function of other important glands—including the pituitary, the gonads, the adrenals and the thyroid.
Plays a central role in the circadian (night and day) rhythm. The synthesis of various compounds in the gland is markedly affected by exposure to or deprivation of light. The pineal undergoes a transformation immediately after birth which seems to be affected by depriving the organism of light.
Has a relationship (not understood) with some malignant tumors.
Affects the contractility of several types of involuntary muscle.
Far from being a useless hangover of antiquity, we see the pineal as an extremely active organ.”
Or is it juts easier to wave the magic dismissal wand and declare that there is no sound science presented on AIG, and that the study of the sound science is illigitimate because folks at AIG have opinions about the scientific facts that don’t jive with your own assumptions you’ve formed without any proofs to back those assumptions up?
To tell you the truth, I think that the process that they have for telling ages is bogus, I really get a kick when I read that something is 2 or 3 million years old, scientist are such guessers.
That's fair enough, you have every right to believe anything you want to believe, regardless of the evidence.
But what I object to is you making false, and possibly dishonest, claims about what the evidence suggests. I'm about 99% sure your elephant story is made up out of whole cloth (either by you or by Mr. Lindsay) and I'm still waiting for you to justify or (at the very least) adequately cite your assertion.
But what I object to is you making false, and possibly dishonest, claims about what the evidence suggests. I’m about 99% sure your elephant story is made up out of whole cloth (either by you or by Mr. Lindsay) and I’m still waiting for you to justify or (at the very least) adequately cite your assertion.
If your really want to know the truth then do more research, I really don’t have time for this, I’m a busy man, but I can assure you that I am not a dishonest one.
I can't research it, because you didn't provide enough information. If you at least cited your claim, I could look into it. If you can't cite it, retract it.
Good move. When you’re losing an argument, the best thing to do is declare victory.
Nothing else remotely like avian medullary bone has been found in any non-bird species. This was unmistakably medullary bone. And that makes it more than slightly important. :-D
As well, this goes offtopic (not that it isn’;t slightly important) from the main issue of how old the bone is- to which the scientific comunity has to make a cop-out statement that there ‘must have been a fairly remarkable preservation system inplace in Montana’ and that “geochemical and environmental factors” that could have preserved the tissues are “as yet undetermined,” Boy howdy I’ll say!
It's only recently that we've had the sophisticated methods necessary to go searching for ancient molecules. People have been working on it for the past 30-some years with variable success. You're basing your objection upon both (it appears) a misunderstanding of the level of preservation involved and (like most people including scientists) the absence of prior evidence that such preservation is possible. We haven't had this evidence before because we haven't had the sensitive analytic methods needed nor have scientists been willing to turn over fossils to be destroyed in search of these molecules.
Science moves on, and research is ongoing in the process of molecular decay and preservation of detailed morphology over short periods of years, longer periods of hundreds of thousands of years, and up to millions of years. Mary Schweitzer (who found this fossil and has been working in molecular paleontology for years) already has proposed molecular conditions needed for preservation and that this type of superb preservation will be more likely in fossils preserved in sandstones, while not as likely in mudstones and marine environments. Future research will show if this hypothesis is correct.
Sometimes the responses to these finds make me scratch my head. Are we just supposed to give up research? Should we be happy with what we know and think we know? Or should we have a post-modern fit and say it's all unknowable, so why even bother? It almost seems like that's what creationists think people should do.
I'm sorry, but this is wisdhful thinkin- As the article stated, there would have had to be extraordinary circumstances at play in Montana to preserve this material- we can have all the 'sensitive analytical methods' in the world, but we've only found a few instances of such material and this does infact indicate natural biological laws at work. You state Mary has a hypothesis, which may or may not hold true, but you didn't mention that these are extremely difficult to preserve through the supposedly endless climate and natural dissaster events this world would have experienced if it were billions of years old.,Sometimes the responses to these finds make me scratch my head. Are we just supposed to give up research? Should we be happy with what we know and think we know?
Noone is suggesting we just give up- it is exciting work no matter the position one has on the issue. I just find it odd that the Creation model is so vehemently ostracized and dismissed as 'apologetics' and accused of 'fitting the evidences' when it's quite clear that instances like this tissue issue are clearly trying to fit it to a hypothesis that supports the evolution stance. I'm not saying you feel this way about oposing views of evidences, but it's quite clear some on this thread can't get over trhe fact that certain scientists could have any other position about what the evidences might mean. And just for the record, Creationists don't 'fit evidences', they assert that the evidences agree with a design model- we're not twisting evidences to fit the model- we';re presenting it and stating that it's just as plausible that the evidence suggest a design that couldn't have arisen from random non-directional mutations, and they've got some powerful evidences to support htis.
Don't confuse the feelings of certain folks outside of science with htose in the sciences- there's plenty of creation/ID scientists that do not feel that way at all- Although there are folks within the evolution science camp that simply refuse to even take a look at anythign that doesn't agree with their model of evolution, I wouldn't for one minute suggest that all evolutionists are afraid of opposing views and won't investigate objectively- although that is what it seems like :b
Try quotemining from AIG's radiocarbon pages and I will be happy to address them for you.
it's a far far leap to suggest that dinos without birds unique flight capabilities and anatomical structures could take to the air.
No one has suggested that dinosaurs such as T. rex flew.
I'm sorry, but this is wisdhful thinkin- As the article stated, there would have had to be extraordinary circumstances at play in Montana to preserve this material- we can have all the 'sensitive analytical methods' in the world, but we've only found a few instances of such material and this does infact indicate natural biological laws at work. You state Mary has a hypothesis, which may or may not hold true, but you didn't mention that these are extremely difficult to preserve through the supposedly endless climate and natural dissaster events this world would have experienced if it were billions of years old.
Suppositions, suppositions. Please provide evidence that such samples have been exhaustively searched for and not found. Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer's recent work). Please provide evidence that undamaged fossils such as this femur found in sandstone inevitably suffer "endless climate and natural dissaster events" while buried. Your objections are based on handwaving and wishful thinking.
I just find it odd that the Creation model is so vehemently ostracized and dismissed as 'apologetics' and accused of 'fitting the evidences' when it's quite clear that instances like this tissue issue are clearly trying to fit it to a hypothesis that supports the evolution stance.
I was forced to leave the ranks of the young earth creationists several years ago when it became amply clear that the evidence did not support this notion. An ancient universe and earth are supported through a variety of different lines of evidence (here's a good book that summarizes them in a relatively easy-to-read manner), and evolution as an active process is supported by multitudes more. Meanwhile I can't even get two different creationists to agree upon a definition of "kind", nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind (I almost got one creationist to agree that it is possible that dogs and cats could once have been one kind, others won't even say dogs and foxes are in the same kind). I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence, but about nitpicking mainstream science.
In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can't possibly be 68 million years old. So how about this--if this T. rex is 4000 (Flood death) to 6000 (pre-Flood) years old, why is the preservation so abyssmal when other fossils 4000-6000 years old have comparatively excellent preservation? Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation? If the majority of fossils on earth originated in the Flood, certainly some of the dinosaur fossils we have should appear quite young. For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory. That's the fallback position for when the evidence isn't really going your way.
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.