T-Rex Soft Tissue Reportedly Found

[blike]

Reuters is reporting that paleontologists have observed what they believe to be soft-tissue, including blood vessels, inside of a T-Rex thigh bone. The scientists were forced to break the bone in half because of transportation limitations. It is unknown whether it will be possible to isolate DNA fragments from the tissue.

[Guest dmtness]

I just heard that they are closer to clearifying that they have in fact located what appears to be red blood cells from a T REX!!!!!!!! Unbelievable news...

Has anyone heard this, I heard it on the radio. There's so much discussion about this subject if in fact this is true. Just think if there's red blood cells found that means they can create dna!! Which would inevetably end up being cloned. Which would let us actually witness what the t rex looked liked!! WOW! (also a side note, creationists are arguing that if this is in fact the case, it would prove dinasours are only a few thousand years old, cause there's no way red blood cells could stay intact for 65 million years)

[blike]

Perhaps,

 

WOW! (also a side note, creationists are arguing that if this is in fact the case, it would prove dinasours are only a few thousand years old, cause there's no way red blood cells could stay intact for 65 million years)

That's because they don't understand "observation -> hypothesis -> model". Their version looks something like "model -> find observations that fit". That's why they get themselves all worked up when we find observations that don't fit our model. Just because we don't have a current model for how that could happen doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, or that the dinosaur bone is less than 10,000 years old.

 

It is very interesting news though. If they do find DNA, with some overlap analysis they might be able to reconstruct some of the genome. This would be a huge breakthrough which would allow many more things (such as phylogenic relationships) to be clarified. Of course, in the back of all our minds is the faint hope that it could be cloned. Highly unlikely, but scientists can dream too.

[ydoaPs]

i doubt that it is real. doesn't dna degrade somehat quickly after death? cells break down, ect. why would they break the "bone" in half?

[Newtonian]

Unless a specimen has been encased in ice,hence not a fossil.Soft tissue cannot be present.Anyone who understands how fossils form would realise this.

[Phi for All]

why would they break the "bone" in half?

The link says the thighbone was too big to lift in their helicopter, so they broke it.

 

If fossilization doesn't go completely through the bone, will other samples yield similar tissue? Could it be that other large bones may not be completely fossilized?

[Newtonian]

Soft tissue almost always rots before mineral replacement can take place.There are cases were fossilized impressions of internal organs and muscles, including the intestines, colon, windpipe, liver, etc.However very rare.

Unless frozen in ice and hence not a true fossil,soft tissue will rot and not be evident 65million years later.

[whap2005]

I hate to break it to you guys, but has anyone considered that maybe it wasn't a T-Rex bone??? There is not way any DNA survived 65 million years unless the bone was somehow preserved in some kind of super deep freeze (like near absolute zero).

[whap2005]

"Tyrannosaurs were famously huge predators. This one, estimated to have been 18 years old at death, was not as large as most. Its femur, or thigh bone, was 3 ½ feet long; some T-rex femurs are at least a foot longer. But the creature was large enough so that some of the rock-encased long bones had to be broken in half to fit a helicopter rig - not a thing paleontologists like to do."

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html?ex=1112331600&en=5a88279207414f4b&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

 

 

Some support for my theory that it probably wasn't T-Rex...

[coquina]

I hate to break it to you guys, but has anyone considered that maybe it wasn't a T-Rex bone??? There is not way any DNA survived 65 million years unless the bone was somehow preserved in some kind of super deep freeze (like near absolute zero).

 

http://museum.montana.edu/2003/skeletons/skeletons.html

 

Here are some of the earlier finds - there are several T-Rex fossils. The new article doesn't say how much of the fossil was found, but they have found enough complete or nearly complete ones to identify them from just a few bones.

 

This one was thought to have been about 18 years old. That would probably be a juvenile - reptiles live a long time - especially those at the tip-top of the food chain. Mokele can tell us for sure, but I think reptiles continue to grow throughout their life span.

 

Finally - Dr. John Horner was co-author of this report. I have seen a lot and read a lot about him - he is one of the most respected people in his field. I don't think he would risk his rep by blowing off steam.

[Skye]

"Tyrannosaurs were famously huge predators. This one' date=' estimated to have been 18 years old at death, was not as large as most. Its femur, or thigh bone, was 3 ½ feet long; some T-rex femurs are at least a foot longer. But the creature was large enough so that some of the rock-encased long bones had to be broken in half to fit a helicopter rig - not a thing paleontologists like to do."

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html?ex=1112331600&en=5a88279207414f4b&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

 

 

Some support for my theory that it probably wasn't T-Rex...[/quote']

That part of the article is saying the bone is of a 18 year old T. rex though.

[Mokele]

This one was thought to have been about 18 years old. That would probably be a juvenile - reptiles live a long time - especially those at the tip-top of the food chain. Mokele can tell us for sure, but I think reptiles continue to grow throughout their life span.

 

Well, reptiles and birds do tend to live unusually long for animals of their size. Parrots and crocodiles can both live over a century. It's reasonable to suspect that dinosaurs had similar lifespans.

 

However, growth isn't so easy. Yes, most reptiles technically never stop growing, but they slow down dramaticly at adulthood. For small and short-lived species (relatively speaking), the post-maturity growth doesn't really add much. However, bird and mammals stop growing at adulthood. A recent article in Nature shows that dinosaurs had a similar tendency, but I am unable to access the full-text, so I don't know if this is just theropods. The diversity of Dinosauria, as well as the very early split between Saurischians and Ornithischians, makes me a bit skeptical of anything that supposedly applies to dinosaurs as a whole.

 

--------

 

As for this topic as a whole, first, Newtonian is wrong: scraps of protien can and have been recovered from many fossils, just nothing more than a few amino-acids long before. Fossilization *can*, in theory, lead to what has just been found, just not very commonly.

 

Personally, the biggest use I see of this is in phylogeny. Previously, if we wanted to make a phylogenetic tree, we had to rely on morphological comparisons (which can be difficult on account of having to "eyeball" for convergences but have the advantage of using both fossil and living taxa) or genetic comparisons (which are strongly quantifiable with nice discrete data, but could not use extinct taxa). Now, we can incorporate molecular data from extinct taxa, which hopefully will yield interesting results and, just maybe, will clear up some long-standing conflicts.

 

I strongly doubt we're gonna be seeing Jurassic Park in reality from this, but it *will* be interesting.

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

The reference is to red blood cells, correct?. In mammals the red blood cells do not contain a nucleus and so there will be no DNA. Mokele is this also true of reptiles and therefore likely true of dinosaurs, or not?

[blike]

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

 

Just an interesting link I found that discusses a discovery in 1997 that sounds remarkably similar to the story being reported.

[Hellbender]

blike, are you saying that this may be YEC propaganda? That article was quite to the first one about Tyrannosaurus blood.

[mustang292]

Horner and a spokeswoman for Science predicted the paper would stir controversy.

 

"It will be controversial because of those preconceived ideas about what can and cannot be preserved over long periods of time," Horner said. "It has always been thought that cells couldn't be preserved, but there really wasn't any evidence to back up those ideas, other than no one having found cellular preservation before."

[Sayonara]

The reference is to red blood cells, correct?. In mammals the red blood cells do not [/b']contain a nucleus and so there will be no DNA. Mokele is this also true of reptiles and therefore likely true of dinosaurs, or not?

Iirc birds have nucleated red blood cells. Not sure about reptiles.

[Newtonian]

As for this topic as a whole, first, Newtonian is wrong: scraps of protien can and have been recovered from many fossils, just nothing more than a few amino-acids long before. Fossilization *can*, in theory, lead to what has just been found, just not very commonly.

Excuse me Mokele,what am i wrong about.

[Guest Sydsnapsidin]

Hi, dudes, I just had to break in here... This is fascinating, just incredible! When I first heard about it, I checked the date to make sure it wasn't April first. I still wonder a little if it will turn out to be a joke. But, hey, strange things happen.

 

I was wondering, will they be able to determine warm-bloodedness or cold-bloodedness

from this?

[Skye]

Citation: Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner,

Jan K. Toporski. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular

Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science, vol 307, pg 1952.

 

Iirc birds have nucleated red blood cells. Not sure about reptiles.

Yep, and the cells appear to have nuclei.

[blike]

blike, are you saying that this may be YEC propaganda? That article was quite to the first one about Tyrannosaurus blood.

No, just that it sounded remarkably similar. Undoubtedly the same issues will arise.

[Ophiolite]

As for this topic as a whole' date=' first, Newtonian is wrong: scraps of protien can and have been recovered from many fossils

[/quote']

Excuse me Mokele,what am i wrong about.

Newtonian, you said this:

"Soft tissue almost always rots before mineral replacement can take place.There are cases were fossilized impressions of internal organs and muscles, including the intestines, colon, windpipe, liver, etc.However very rare.

Unless frozen in ice and hence not a true fossil,soft tissue will rot and not be evident 65million years later."

This certainly reads as if you believe, with the exception of freezing, that soft tissues cannot survive over millions of years. You appear to use this 'fact' to dismiss this latest T-Rex find. Mokele is pointing out that your premise is wrong.

[Auburngirl05]

A recent article in Nature shows that dinosaurs had a similar tendency' date=' but I am unable to access the full-text, so I don't know if this is just theropods.

Mokele[/quote']

 

I'm a subscriber, if you give me the citation I can e-mail you the file, if you want, just let me know. I'd be interested to hear your take on it. Was it very recent? I'm a couple of issues behind on my reading (plus I get them a week late since they have to be mailed across the ocean, lol).

[Hellbender]

No, just that it sounded remarkably similar. Undoubtedly the same issues will arise.

 

they were quite similar. And I don't have any doubts that the same issues will undoubtedly arise, you hit it there.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm fairly certain reptile and bird rb cells are nucleated, so it probably goes without saying that the dinos who were in-between had them too.