Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dinosaur fossils could contain soft tissue
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Main Front Page News
UM-Bot
user posted image rSoft-tissue dinosaur remains, first reported last year in a discovery that shocked the paleontological community, may not be all that rare, experts say. A 2005 paper in the journal Science described what appeared to be flexible blood vessels, cells, and collagen-like bone matrix from fossils of a 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. Mary Schweitzer, the North Carolina State University paleontologist who announced the finding, said her team has now repeated that feat with more than a dozen other dinosaur specimens. To make sense of the surprising discovery, scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. Schweitzer gave an update of her team's progress unraveling this mystery last Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held this year in St. Louis, Missouri. Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.

"We propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought," Schweitzer said. "All we have to do is look." The researchers have applied their original technique of dissolving away the mineral content of bones and fossils to many different specimens, from contemporary to ancient.

user posted image View: Full Article | Source: National Geographic
DeathBringer
oh noes!
QueryAnalyzer
ID followers will love this type of news... blink.gif
Bystanderr
A good article for supporting the Creatiosm issues."they are re-thinking how fossilization works." How bout just say fossils are not around 70 million years old cause the earth is only 6000 years old.Its common sense.T_T
frogfish
There have been a couple dinosaurs with intact tissue found...great find nonetheless!
Glacies
QUOTE(Bystanderr @ Feb 27 2006, 06:13 PM) [snapback]1082900[/snapback]

How bout just say fossils are not around 70 million years old cause the earth is only 6000 years old.Its common sense.T_T

those last two t's signify sarcasm right?
anywho, great article, nifty stuff. user posted image
ShaunZero
Very interesting. I bet those scientists are crossing their fingers and hoping they won't have to give fossils a new age, lol. Can you believe the sh** they'd catch? If I were them I'd lie and hide the information. wink2.gif
Blizno
QUOTE(ZeroShadow @ Feb 28 2006, 03:50 AM) [snapback]1083288[/snapback]

Very interesting. I bet those scientists are crossing their fingers and hoping they won't have to give fossils a new age, lol. Can you believe the sh** they'd catch? If I were them I'd lie and hide the information. wink2.gif


I don't think they're finding that the ages are wrong. The things are still millions of years old. The new finding is that some soft tissue may still exist after millions of years in the ground.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.