Soft Tissue in Tyrannosaurus rex

[otseng]

Scientists Discover T-Rex Dinosaur's Soft Tissue

In a paper published in the March 25 edition of the journal Science, Schweitzer describes the process by which she and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T. rex Fossil

Dinosaur fossils are rare finds. But the 70-million-year-old bones of a Tyrannosauraus rex recovered from Montana are proving to be even more exceptional than the usual dino remains. Researchers report today in the journal Science that they have recovered soft tissue, including blood vessels, from the ancient creature.

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.

"Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years." If organic molecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years, how can we have soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil that is 68 million years old?

[micatala]

The article seems to indicate that we need to learn more about the fossilization process.

We have some new pieces of data (I noted they replicated the finding with some other specimens), and now the relevant theories will be re-examined, and eventually a revised theory incorporating the new data will probably be suggested. This is how science works.

We may also learn some things we didn't know about dinosaurs, which is pretty cool in my book.

[Nyril]

If organic molecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years, how can we have soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil that is 68 million years old?

150 years ago, meat couldn't be stored for significant lengths of time without drying it or salting it. Today, we purchased cut turkeys ready to be put into the oven two or three Thanksgivings ago and we can pull them out of our big freezer and stick them in the oven.

Before we found these fossils we couldn't think of a way to store organic molecules for geologically significant lengths of time. Now, apparently, we need to look at the situation and determine if there are factors that can make these molecules stable over long periods of time like this.

[juliod]

If organic molecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years, how can we have soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil that is 68 million years old?

I notice that you advanced the phrase "should not" to a more determined "cannot". Do you have any evidence of a scientific consesus that organic matter cannot survive for 68,000,000 years?

No, what we have hear is a statement that organic matter is not usually found in samples o0ver 100,000 years old. And that's what they have with that new fossile: an unusual specimen.

But what does this add to the subject of this forum?

If T. Rex exists at all then creationism is false.

If a date like 68 million years ago exists at all then creationism is false.

If there is organic material as old as 100,000 years then creationism is false.

It seems that no matter how you interpret this story, creationism is still false.

DanZ

[Nyril]

Lets ignore my previous post in this thread for a minute here.

Evolution does not require that T. Rex go extinct at all. You could produce for me a living T. Rex on some island off of Africa, and it wouldn't work to dent the TOE in the slightest.

What point in particular did you wish to make?

[otseng]

I notice that you advanced the phrase "should not" to a more determined "cannot".

I think you're quibbling over semantics. OK, I'll rephrase it to say, "If organic molecules should not be preserved for more than 100,000 years, how can we have soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil that is 68 million years old?" Still, the question has not been properly addressed.

Do you have any evidence of a scientific consesus that organic matter cannot survive for 68,000,000 years?

Obviously we are in new ground here with this discovery. I don't think any scientists ever even considered to find any soft tissue in fossils that are millions of years old. So, there won't be much scientific publications commenting on soft tissue surviving milleneas.

And that's what they have with that new fossile: an unusual specimen.

We'll find out as they start cracking open more fossils now that they've discovered this.

If T. Rex exists at all then creationism is false.

Where does creationism state that T. Rex did not exist?

If a date like 68 million years ago exists at all then creationism is false.

It all depends. There are OEC that believe that the earth is millions of years old, so it does not show that creationism is false.

If there is organic material as old as 100,000 years then creationism is false.

The article did not state that the organic material is 100,000 years old. It only stated it as the upper bound.

Lets ignore my previous post in this thread for a minute here.

OK, consider it ignored.

Evolution does not require that T. Rex go extinct at all. You could produce for me a living T. Rex on some island off of Africa, and it wouldn't work to dent the TOE in the slightest.

It's generally accepted that T. Rex went extinct 65 MYA. But if a living T. Rex was found, I think evolutionists would have a lot of explaining to do.

What point in particular did you wish to make?

Here's my point. Either our understanding of fossils and soft tissue remains is wrong or that the T. Rex fossil is not really millions of years old.

Based on our current understanding of fossils and soft tissue, the evidence points that the fossil is not really that old. If this is true, then this is evidence in favor of the CM.

[LillSnopp]

Here's my point. Either our understanding of fossils and soft tissue remains is wrong or that the T. Rex fossil is not really millions of years old.

Oliver, just a small short Question. Do you accept the hundreds of different ways we date fossils and similar with? (Do you believe that Tellus is less then 10 000 years could also be a question).

Just wondering.

[bigmrpig]

It's generally accepted that T. Rex went extinct 65 MYA. But if a living T. Rex was found, I think evolutionists would have a lot of explaining to do.

Evolution would explain it by saying that the T. Rex had an adequate gene pool, and any mutations that occured did not affect the species as a whole.

It would be the archaeologists that would have explaining to do

[micatala]

Evolution does not require that T. Rex go extinct at all. You could produce for me a living T. Rex on some island off of Africa, and it wouldn't work to dent the TOE in the slightest.

It's generally accepted that T. Rex went extinct 65 MYA. But if a living T. Rex was found, I think evolutionists would have a lot of explaining to do.

What point in particular did you wish to make?

Here's my point. Either our understanding of fossils and soft tissue remains is wrong or that the T. Rex fossil is not really millions of years old.

Based on our current understanding of fossils and soft tissue, the evidence points that the fossil is not really that old. If this is true, then this is evidence in favor of the CM.

But you had just gotten done saying the age of creation is not part of creationism? If the age of the creation is not part of the CM, how is this evidence for CM?

Also, if a living T Rex was found, then according to the CM with flood model, TWO T Rexes must have been on the ark (or evolved through microevolution from some species that was on the ark??). This is presenting very interesting scenarios in my mind. Did the ark have any rooms big enough (strong enough??) to hold a T Rex? Who would have gotten the wonderful job of feeding the T Rexes? How strong did they have to make the ramp to get the T Rexes into the ark? (Sorry, I'm just having way too much fun thinking about this )

Suffice it to say that we would all be incredibly amazed (and perhaps somewhat fearful ).


It seems to me that if any mistakes were made, it is in the contention that soft tissue cannot last 68 million years. One would not throw out the well-established science of dating methods because of one or even several fossil finds, when the science supporting the 'soft tissues can't survive' claim is not nearly as well supported. If this contention is wrong, I don't see how that presents any major (or even minor) problem for the ToE.

Yes, if we were able to establish in a much more reliable way that TRex existed only 100,000 years ago, then the model would have to undergo pretty radical modification to survive. It would compress the time frames of evolution by several orders of magnitude. However, at this point what we have is more fanciful thinking (IMHO) than even a real challenge to the science of dating.

[Chem]

Otseng wrote:

If organic molecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years, how can we have soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil that is 68 million years old?

We still have a lot to learn with regards to the preservation of materials. Mummified remains of humans seem to have become a pretty regular occurance these days even if the bodies have not been readied for such a process. It depends on how the body was preserved and what processes the carcass was exosed to in the intervening 68,000,000 years. Remember Jurassic Park!