dinosaur bones found not fossilised ?why?

[IamsSon]

Have you ever thought that these too are fossilized. Blood vessels would of just been channels in the marrow of the bone Nothing still organic.

Flexible, stretchy, transparent fossils?

[SilverCougar]

Flexible, stretchy, transparent fossils?

hip bones are very good at perserving things.. if the conditions are correct. They're still fossilized...

*shrugs* Notice how we're not finding a few hundred a year, only the one? Conditions were faveratible to preserve such tissues to be fossilized the way they were.

[IamsSon]

hip bones are very good at perserving things.. if the conditions are correct. They're still fossilized...

*shrugs* Notice how we're not finding a few hundred a year, only the one? Conditions were faveratible to preserve such tissues to be fossilized the way they were.

Frankly, I'm amazed anything that has been in the ground for 65 MILLION years is still flexible and stretchy.

[Leonardo]

I'm not being sarcastic IamsSon, but I believe oil is organic, has been in the ground for millions of years and is definitely not fossilised.

I do remember this being brought up in another thread and there was reference to scientists beginning to question our understanding of the fossilisation process. Obviously if their is any misunderstanding of that we cannot rule out the fact that organic material inside a large bone like the upper leg may survive the fossilisation process.

This might sound convenient for the scientists, but I'd be inclined to follow a 'wait and see' attitude. This article from National Geographic explains there was no unfossilised bone, and the soft tissue was unmineralised and still flexible when the fossil was originally broken. It did not have to be acidified to 'recover' it's flexibility, the acid was only used to dissolve fossilised bone surrounding the soft tissue. The article also speculates that other fossil specimens may have similar internal feature, they simply haven't yet been examined for this yet (as it's been assumed to have been impossible).

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.

[SilverCougar]

Frankly, I'm amazed anything that has been in the ground for 65 MILLION years is still flexible and stretchy.

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.

[aquatus1]

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 ). The cardinal rule of researchers is "Publish or Die!", and so she was ordered to published what she had, despite her objections.

[IamsSon]

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.

[frogfish]

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.

[IamsSon]

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?

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

[Leonardo]

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.

[Eu_citzen]

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..

[Pistolero Dave]

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

...I mean, I would.

[SilverCougar]

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)

[Shaftsbury]

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:

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.

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

Also:

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.

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:

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

[Pistolero Dave]

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.

[frogfish]

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

[SilverCougar]

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 November 15, 2006 by SilverCougar

[Pistolero Dave]

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 November 16, 2006 by Pistolero Dave

[frogfish]

Oh, that was hilarious

[ivytheplant]

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.

[capeo]

The most ridiculous thing about all these T-Rex "soft tissue" threads is the idea that this somehow changes the grand timeline. It doesn't. The bone was still 65 million years old. Its fantastic because we could learn a lot from it. Specifically about the process of fossilization. You might see a lot dino hip bones being cracked open and demineralized in the coming years though.

That said, I think you will find, as has been stated in the most recent report that the structures said to look like blood vessels and cells will turn out to part of the mineralization process and whats left will be devoid of real cell structure or DNA. Would be great if they could extract DNA but I doubt it.

Oh, Iamson, there is no such thing as an evolutionist by the way. There is no field called Evolutionism. Evolutionary Theory is part and parcel, completely inseparable, from every field of biological study today though. Its not going away because it explains everything we see from the cellular level up to greater morphology. Its predicitions are testable and have withstood years of scrutiny from just about every field of science, and I mean every field, and its only become more supported by such scrutiny. Why are you so afraid of it?

[ivytheplant]

The most ridiculous thing about all these T-Rex "soft tissue" threads is the idea that this somehow changes the grand timeline. It doesn't. The bone was still 65 million years old.

I know, that drives me up the freaking wall. People take new info and run with it, claiming that the new evidence means all the research we've done until now is completely invalidated and we might as well give in and proclaim Christian Creationism as the one true creation story (which I'm sure the hundreds of other religions of the world might have a few things to say about).

What people don't seem to understand is that science is always changing. The very first thing we were taught in geology is that tomorrow what we know could be different because of new research and new evidence. However, that doesn't mean what we learn today is completely worthless. Today is merely the foundation of what we'll learn tomorrow. Just because we have to change our way of thinking about a piece of bone doesn't mean the rest of it is completely meaningless.

The other thing is how when one little piece of evidence that changes how we view the world (remember when we realized dinosaurs weren't lumbering swamp creatures?), it's as if a free license has been given for the "other side" to go nuts and scream that our entire world view has been torn apart and everything before was false. Which is just ridiculous of course. Just because we find a bone that is fossilized differently than another doesn't mean that suddenly we have to rewrite the laws of physics and declare the entire field of paleontology to be invalidated. Sheesh.