Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

Researchers are now suggesting that iron embedded in blood proteins preserved the still-soft tissues, cells, and molecules discovered inside dinosaurs and other fossils after the creatures were buried in sediments. The ability to justify millions of years is at stake, and this study promises to do just that. What are its merits and demerits?

Publishing in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Mary Schweitzer led a team that showed how iron atoms from blood adhere to and preserve blood vessels.1 The team placed ostrich bone blood vessels in water and watched them disintegrate in less than a week. They then treated another set of ostrich blood vessels with concentrated blood, and the treated blood vessels still looked fresh after two years of sitting on the lab bench.

They postulated that iron generates chemically reactive oxy radicals that help adjacent proteins bond, preserving their overall structure in a process called cross-linking. The way a fried egg resists rotting longer than a raw, cracked egg might illustrate this effect.

“Oxy radicals also facilitate protein cross-linking in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion,” according to Schweitzer and her colleagues.1

These results are unique and compelling. But do they really justify the study authors’ claim that this iron preservation phenomenon explains how dinosaur tissues lasted for tens of millions of years?

The study authors wrote, “The HB [hemoglobin]–oxygen interactions investigated here explain both the association of iron with many exceptionally preserved fossils and the enhanced preservation of tissues, cells and molecules over deep time.”1

For an experiment to really explain an effect lasting for millions of years, shouldn’t it gather enough time-related measurements to estimate the maximum time that iron-treated soft tissues could last? Only then could researchers directly compare that maximum time with fossils’ evolutionary ages. Schweitzer’s report did not show these kinds of results.

The scientific community has long shown its desperation to defend mainstream fossil ages against the short shelf-life of soft-tissue fossils. Will they now call upon blood iron to have preserved fossils in a way that these results don’t justify?

Iron does appear to preserve tissues, even keeping blood vessels intact at room temperature for two years. Could iron keep soft tissues intact for millions of years? At least four reasons show why the study’s results, amazing though they are, answer with a clear “No.”

First, “Ostrich vessels were incubated in a concentrated solution of red blood cell lysate,” according to the study authors.1 Their procedure involved extracting and purifying iron from blood. But ancient dinosaur and other fossils did not have the advantage of scientists treating their carcasses with a blood-soup concentrate.

Second, many of the still-fresh fossil biochemicals described in the literature do not show evidence of nearby iron. For example, researchers have encountered bone cells called osteocytes locked inside dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops horn core.2 These cells have fine, threadlike extensions that penetrate the bone’s mineral matrix through tiny tunnels called canaliculi. Could concentrated blood penetrate and preserve those almost inaccessible bone cells?

Schweitzer and her coauthors think so. They wrote, “In life, blood cells rich in iron-containing HB [hemoglobin] flow through vessels, and have access to bone osteocytes through the lacuna-canalicular network.”1 Yet, the study authors did not demonstrate this supposed access, they merely asserted it.

For example, have experiments shown that canaliculi can wick blood puree, despite having tiny diameters on the order of 0.0004 millimeters? Also, how could iron-rich preservative “have access to” tiny tunnels already clogged with osteocytes? Other examples of original soft tissues without these iron particles include mummified dinosaur and lizard skin.3,4

Third, for experimental control, the Royal Society authors kept ostrich vessels in water to watch them rot.1 Does this resemble the burial conditions of dinosaurs, which are mostly dry today and have been primarily dry perhaps since the day of burial? Water accelerates tissue decay by providing for microbes and by facilitating degradative chemistry. So by adding water, these scientists may have rigged their “control” sample to show a higher-than-expected decay rate difference.

The researchers then compared their hemoglobin-soaked samples to the watered-down samples and wrote, “In our test model, incubation in HB increased ostrich vessel stability more than 240-fold, or more than 24000% over control conditions.”1 If both their control and test models used unrealistic conditions, then they dulled the edge of their entire argument.

Fourth, just because this iron increases the “resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion” does not necessarily mean that it increases resistance of these “fixed” biomolecules to degrading chemical reactions.1 In other words, these authors have again shown that iron inhibits microbes, but they did not show that it inhibits the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions known to relentlessly convert tissues into dust.

Plus, though they showed how iron ups resistance to microbes for two years, they did not show that it does so for millions of years. Getting these tissues to resist enzymes and microbes is the lowest hurdle. These results fail to demonstrate the next step—getting tissues to resist the laws of chemistry for unimaginable time spans.

While the study does show that iron helps preserve soft tissues, the results fall far short of the authors’ claim that this explains soft tissue persisting for millions of years. Concentrated blood and extra water may not approximate real conditions, iron is not always present with known original tissue fossils, and the scientists did not produce a useful time-to-dust estimate for their iron-encrusted tissues.

By showing that iron particles stuck to dinosaur blood vessels look similar to those attached to ostrich vessels, this research may explain how soft tissues have resisted disintegration for longer-than-expected intervals—for example, thousands of years.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print, November 27, 2013.

Armitage, M. H. and K. L. Anderson. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica.115 (6): 603-608.

Lingham-Soliar, T. and G. Plodowski. 2010. The integument of Psittacosaurusfrom Liaoning Province, China: taphonomy, epidermal patterns and color of a ceratopsian dinosaur. Naturwissenschaften. 97 (5): 479-486.

Edwards, N. P. et al. 2011. Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278 (1722): 3209-3218.

The Rocks Begin To Speak

The stones give mute testimony to the fact that man walked with dinosaurs. I was certain that in the laboratory, the rocks would break that silence and communicate in the language of scientific assertion, that they are ancient carved canvasses.

I brought three stones to Mason Optical, Inc. for analysis. Mason Optical invented a revolutionary stereoscopic microscope that costs between eighty to one hundred thousand dollars. The three stones included in the study:

A) The fake stone carved by Basilio
B) An Ica stone from Cabrera’s Collection
C) The stone from the tomb in Rio Grande, Nazca
The laboratory results revealed several defining characteristics of the stones:

A) The first stone, under microscopic investigation, showed very shallow incisions with small scratches and chips from the stone. Minute specks of blue metal (steel) were found on the stone. The incisions were clean and angled. There was no patina or film of oxidation on the stone; no microorganisms or salt peter were found on the stone. The laboratory conclusion was that the stone was of recent manufacture. Someone had used a metal blade or tool with short strokes to carve the grooves in the stone. The tool left behind the minute specks of metal that could be seen under the optical microscope. The laboratory’s discovery was consistent with the truth. I had watched Basilio with a four-inch piece of blue steel hacksaw blade making short, hard strokes on the stone.
....
B) The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica Stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright-white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone.

The stone has an outside layer of coloration and weathering. When an incision (cut) is made, it breaks that layer. If the weathering has been scraped away and the stone’s natural color shows at the base of the incision, the cut is probably new. If the incisions have become weathered and the stone’s coloration extends down into the incisions, then the stone’s incisions are at least “old” to some degree.

Any attempt to date the stones is a doomed exercise. The stones themselves are eons old. We can’t date the stones, and we don’t even want to try. We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age.
.......
In the American Southwest, archaeologists regularly dig up pottery or other artifacts that show no patina or very little patina. F.G. Hawley, a chemist with years of experience in archaeology wrote, “Many (artifacts) in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years.”

Anyone who has studied Andean archaeology and been involved in excavations in the southern desert of Peru knows that the textiles, pottery, and other artifacts from the tombs are in an astonishing state of preservation. The fact that the Cabrera rock had any patina on it may mean that it is much older than seven or eight hundred years.

C) The third stone from the tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca, was examined under the stereo zoom microscope. This stone had a heavy coat of patination and oxidation. Microorganisms could be seen in the grooves and the incisions. There is a uniformity of coloration and weathering. The incisions and cuts are as dark and weathered as the rest of the stone. There are several thick concentrations of salt peter that are so full of salt buildup that it covers parts of the carving with a white layer obscuring the image below. There are seriations and slight fizzures in the grooves. This could only happen over a considerable period of time with the change of heat and cold through the seasons in the desert. There is a notable irregular wear on the edges of the incisions that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stone had undergone considerable wear. Lichen growth was also found on one section of the stone. Dirt and sand were embedded in the grooves, cracks, crevices, and orifices of the stone. There is a dark blackish stain covering the body of one of the dinosaur zoomorph images. The salient conclusion of the laboratory is that the stone is of some age, in fact, of antiquity of hundreds or thousands of years old.
......
The three stones were subjected to a blind test by Richard Sutcliffe who trains others in the use of the ROI video probe. The results were both revealing and conclusive. The fake stone carved by Basilio had grooves that showed up as white under the magnification and lights of the ROI. The surrounding area of the stone was covered with patina. The ROI also picked up the smallest of particles of quartz and pyrite that sparkled when the zoom microscope was at high magnification. The grooves had to be recently cut to break the layer over the quartz and pyrite causing them to shine. The microscope at 25x to 75x caught the telltale signs of cuts made at right angles and minuscule blue metal flakes. There was no evidence of rotary powered tool use.

The second stone from the Cabrera Museum was thoroughly examined. The groove did not appear bright or fresh but dull and slightly gray. This was verification that they were not of recent manufacture. The stone had no pitting or pock marks in the grooves which are the result of saws or rotary powered tools. The stone had an even wear to the grooves except in one area where there was considerable wear. The worn area may have been caused by constant handling before it was buried.

The third stone from the tomb in the Nazca desert had grooves that were dark gray, weathered, cracked, and embedded with salt peter. The salt peter under 75x magnification looked like a growth of algae all over a section of the stone. No doubt this stone had been buried for centuries. There were five patches of lichens growing on the stone. The image of two dinosaurs, a sea creature, and some unknown animal were calculated to be 1/16th of an inch on average above the stone. The figures were done in bas relief. How the stone was carved away to make the figures higher than the stone is a mystery. Richard Sutcliffe, who performed the microscopic probe, is an expert in machine made tools. Richard theorized that the ancient people might have used a tool with a diamond-type bit.
......
By Dr. Dennis Swift – Courtesy of The Dinosaur Institute

http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/are-the-ica-stones-fake-skeptics-under-fire/

full article

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.