Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

dinosaur bones found not fossilised ?why?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#31    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 November 2006 - 01:00 AM

Quote


I can't find much more recent info so I'm assuming they are still debating what to do vis-a-vis rewriting fossilisation theory.


Indeed.  In fact, Mary Scheiwtzer was completely against releasing the report to begin with.  She knew full well that she had something quite revolutionary on her hands, and she wanted to get as much information, data, and studies to support her claims as she possibly could.  Unfortunately, her employers did indeed interfere (so, to a certain extent, IamsSon was correct  grin2.gif ).  The cardinal rule of researchers is "Publish or Die!", and so she was ordered to published what she had, despite her objections.


#32    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 13 November 2006 - 01:39 AM

Quote


Fine.. whatever.  "God" did it..

seems to be the only answer you'll ever take.  We're right back to the "If we can't explain it.. the gods. or a god.. did it" Which is sad to say the least.

It's obvious it can happen, because we have the evidence it does.  And it's assumingly *VERY* damned rare to have happen if this is the first and *ONLY* flexible tissue found.  And judgeing from the fossilized bone area... it's not that hard to see.. given how some fossilizations happen, the thickness of the bone, and the area it came from.

But.. believe whatever.. I just don't care anymore.


Hey, SC, I never brought God into this conversation.  I brought skepticism, which I think is allowed in science isn't it?  

Additionally, if you read any of the articles, they either say or imply that many other bones may have similar deposits of "soft tissue" in them if they are cracked open, but the museum curators don't seem interested in doing that.  So maybe this is the ONLY tissue found SO FAR.

Why is it that as soon as someone expresses skepticism about evolution the easy answer is, "Well you believe in God, so this doesn't make sense to you?"  There seem to be quite a few Christians that accept evolution, so it can't simply be that I believe in God, as simple as that would make it for evolutionists to dismiss all resistance to their belief.



"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#33    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 13 November 2006 - 01:58 AM

Quote

Additionally, if you read any of the articles, they either say or imply that many other bones may have similar deposits of "soft tissue" in them if they are cracked open, but the museum curators don't seem interested in doing that. So maybe this is the ONLY tissue found SO FAR.

And if you have read the articles, there is no actual soft tissue. It is fossilized tissue! It's a big deal because it is so rare, liek feather and skin imprints. The heart found in an Edmontonsaurus was pure stone.

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#34    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 13 November 2006 - 02:31 AM

Quote


And if you have read the articles, there is no actual soft tissue. It is fossilized tissue! It's a big deal because it is so rare, liek feather and skin imprints. The heart found in an Edmontonsaurus was pure stone.


Apparently, this is NOT the first time this kind of finding is made.  In fact, it isn't even the first time this particular paleontologist has made this discovery.  And it seems last time she may have gotten in trouble for disclosing what she found.  

What exactly is fossilized tissue?  and if it's fossilized, how do you get "tissue" out of it, since in my understanding fossilization involves REPLACING biological material with minerals, and what is left is something that has the shape of the biological material, but not the information contained in it.  So, if it's simply fossilized material why are they so excited about being able to learn more about the genetic nature of dinosaurs?


Quote


In the conclusion of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues noted: “However, we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality.... This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity” (307:1955). This scientific evidence does not hold up under evolutionary timelines.

In the description of one of the images included in the report the authors observed: “Round red microstructures within the vessels are clearly visible” (307:1953). The report in Science News further proclaimed: “The researchers squeezed round, microscopic structures out of the presumed T. rex blood vessels. Those small spheres, which ranged from dark red to deep brown, may be red blood cells, says Schweitzer” (Perkins, 2005, 167:195). When I asked Schweitzer if the contents of the blood vessels were indeed blood cells she gave a carefully guarded answer. She stated: “I don’t know what any of it is until I do tests. I have been in paleontology enough to know that just because something looks like something we recognize does not mean that it is” (Harrub, 2005, emp. in orig.)—a wise response, given the negative response from the scientific community to her 1997 discovery in which she mentioned blood cells from dinosaur tissue. In that article she described the moment in the laboratory in which it became apparent:

    The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells’” (Schweitzer and Staedter, 1997, p. 55).

The colleague that “took one look” was University of Montana professor, “Dinosaur Jack” Horner, one of America’s best-known paleontologists, who discovered his first dinosaur fossil when he was eight years old. So in the past it was red blood cells. But now we have soft tissue—including blood vessels!


LINK

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#35    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,401 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 13 November 2006 - 07:31 AM

frogfish,

I must disagree with you regarding whether the soft tissue discovered in the t-rex bone was fossilised.

According to the articles I have read, the majority of the bone was fossilised, however some of the blood vessels, cells and collagen structure within the bone had not mineralised. This was exposed once the fossilised bone was dissolved in acid.

IamsSon,

I don't know that any of the actual genetic material has been preserved. I didn't pick that up from the (few) articles I have read on this topic. Protein sequences from collagen perhaps, which is incredible enough, but not nuclear genetic material. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.  original.gif

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#36    Eu_citzen

Eu_citzen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 15 November 2006 - 04:12 PM

Quote


me again' unfossilised bones have been found in antartica'not sure if anymore have been found'i also herd aboult someone finding a dinosaur jaw bone not fossilised

If I remember correctly ice is good a preserving stuff, so why not..  unsure.gif

We must become the change we want to see. --Ghandi

"Dip your tongue in wisdom, then give counsel"

Fear less, hope more; Eat less, chew more; Whine less, breathe more; Talk less, say more; Love more, and all good things will be yours

#37    Pistolero Dave

Pistolero Dave

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2006
  • Location:St. Paul, MN

Posted 15 November 2006 - 06:59 PM

If they found a T-rex frozen, with meat on it, how many of you would want to try some?

...I mean, I would.

*All insults in the post have been pre-removed for the convenience of the moderators*

#38    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 15 November 2006 - 07:24 PM

Quote


If they found a T-rex frozen, with meat on it, how many of you would want to try some?

...I mean, I would.



Would you eat a steak that has a years worth of freezer burn?

BLICK

Besides.. I've always had this strict "No preditors" in my diet. X)  (Save fish.. mmmm fish)

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#39    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 15 November 2006 - 07:42 PM

Quote


I can't find much more recent info so I'm assuming they are still debating what to do vis-a-vis rewriting fossilisation theory.


There have been a couple of articles out since then, not much additional information but here are some interesting quotes:

Quote

Schweitzer agrees. "I am a slam-dunk scientist," she says. "I would have much rather held the paper back until we had reams and reams of data." But without publishing a journal article, she says, she could never have hoped for funding. "Without the papers in Science, I didn't stand a chance," she says. "That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding." Since publishing, Schweitzer has conducted many of the analyses Poinar suggests, with initially promising results.

For a scientist, the ultimate test is having independent researchers replicate your results. So far, there hasn't been a mad rush to do so—few have expertise in both molecular biology and paleontology, not to mention the passion needed to carry out such work. But there is activity. Patrick Orr at University College Dublin is bringing together geologists and organic geochemists to look for soft tissue in a 10-million-year-old frog fossil. Paleontologists at the University of Chicago are setting up a laboratory to look for similar tissue in more T. rex remains; Horner is starting to decalcify other dinosaur bones. In the dinosaur lab at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, Bakker has taken some peeks. "I haven't found anything yet," he says, "but wouldn't be a bit surprised if soon somebody comes up with more sticky, bouncy stuff."


So contrary to comments made in other posts, there are indeed other scientists and museums working to confim the soft tissuse preservation.  thumbsup.gif

Source: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/feat...aur-dna/?page=1

Also:

Quote

Oct. 27, 2006
NC State Paleontologist Receives Packard Foundation Fellowship
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology at North Carolina State
University with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has been
awarded a five-year, $625,000 fellowship from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Schweitzer was one of 20 researchers nationwide to receive Packard Foundation
fellowships this year. The Packard Foundation administers one of the nation's largest
nongovernmental programs of unrestricted grants to faculty members in science and
engineering.
Schweitzer, whose discovery of soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bone was cited by
Discover magazine as the 6th most important science story of 2005, will use the grant to
further her research into the biogeochemical interactions that lead to fossil preservation.


Source: http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/2006/oct/documents/186.pdf

I think it's fair to say that contrary to comments made in other threads, her research has not been "swept under the rug", in fact she seems to be doing well for herself because of it.  thumbsup.gif


Quote

Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells’” (Schweitzer and Staedter, 1997, p. 55).

The colleague that “took one look” was University of Montana professor, “Dinosaur Jack” Horner, one of America’s best-known paleontologists, who discovered his first dinosaur fossil when he was eight years old. So in the past it was red blood cells. But now we have soft tissue—including blood vessels
!


I'm sorry IamsSam, I doubt it very much if Jack Horner would ever jump to such a conclusion after "one look", and make a comment like that.  I wasn't able to reasearch your quote but it dosen't look like it was written for publication in any of the magazines I've read on the subject. Here's an alternate version of the same story:

Quote

Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”


Source: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/...ay/dinosaur.php

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#40    Pistolero Dave

Pistolero Dave

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2006
  • Location:St. Paul, MN

Posted 15 November 2006 - 09:21 PM

T-rex was a scavenger, wasn't it?  Not much of a preditor.  You probably saw the mockery King Kong made out of all those T-rex's...  

I think you could prepair the meat to cover up the freezer burn- I mean, I wouldn't cook it myself.  An expert would be brought in of course.

*All insults in the post have been pre-removed for the convenience of the moderators*

#41    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 15 November 2006 - 09:53 PM

T-rex was actually a hunter. Jack Horner did not back up his claim that it was a scavenger.

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#42    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:00 PM

Quote


T-rex was a scavenger, wasn't it?  Not much of a preditor.  You probably saw the mockery King Kong made out of all those T-rex's...  

I think you could prepair the meat to cover up the freezer burn- I mean, I wouldn't cook it myself.  An expert would be brought in of course.



Actually skippy.. I've read many research articles.. I've seen documenturies...  I've never watched either king kong movies... ;P (nice of you to ASSume though..) So no, that little work of fiction with a big giant gorilla did not influence my calling Rex a preditor.

And scavangers also hunt.  Sometimes it's just small animals.. but they do hunt. So hey, if you want to think Rex as a scavanger, even though those claims went no where...  Meat eaters are off my diet.

And no matter how well you cook it and cover it up.. freezer burned meat is tough and stringy and has a horrible after taste to it.

Edited by SilverCougar, 15 November 2006 - 10:01 PM.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#43    Pistolero Dave

Pistolero Dave

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2006
  • Location:St. Paul, MN

Posted 16 November 2006 - 09:24 PM

Children, children...  I probably know more about the T-Rex (Or Tyranosaurus)  that both of you combine- I actually own one of the T-Rex toys from the recent King Kong movie.  

T-Rex was not preditor, in fact, he was a peso-vegitarian.  Some were even vegan.   I'd be happy to provide sources to prove this.





























Or, in other words, I wasn't serious the first time either...

Edited by Pistolero Dave, 16 November 2006 - 09:26 PM.

*All insults in the post have been pre-removed for the convenience of the moderators*

#44    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:12 PM

Oh, that was hilarious laugh.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#45    ivytheplant

ivytheplant

    Knows what you're up to

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ivytopia

  • Nothing is impossible, only improbable.

Posted 22 November 2006 - 04:30 AM

IAmson,

Do you remember a few months back in a thread about evolution? You insisted evolution wasn't fact and in a fit of "GARGH!" I defined the basics of evolution (do you remember evolution = change?) and how evolution is indeed fact.

I don't remember if it was the same thread, but I've also addressed that absolutely nowhere does evolution explain the origin of life and absolutely nowhere does evolution mean that God cannot exist. Proponents of the theory of evolution by natural selection do themselves a disservice when they allow their personal religious (or non) beliefs to interfere with the facts. By saying "blah blah we weren't created by God blah blah we were evolved etc etc" they shoot themselves in the foot around people who are very religious and are more attracted by the idea of creation.

In fact, I did say in that thread that there is nowhere in evolution that denies the existence of God. And nowhere in the Big Bang theory does it mean God does not exist. The issue I have is people insisting they know exactly how God created the world. I guess I missed "How to be God 101" in bible school.

And to think I used to believe it was an impossibility for a devout Mormon to be a paleontologist.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage, Mythbusters




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users