More on T. rex soft-tissue/genetics

[Mallon]

Regardless of whether you feel the recent finding of soft-tissue remnants in a Tyrannosaurus rex femur is indicative that this animal died in the Flood 6,000 years ago, or whether it simply suggests that we still have much to learn about the process of fossilization, this research update is pretty cool -- sequenced collagen proteins!:

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=4777

 

[laptoppop]

This is cool - thanks for posting it!

 

[laptoppop]

OK, how is this for wild wild speculation......
Since dino bones are similar to bird bones.... could there have been a flying dino (not a pteradactyl) that looked and acted more like the common portrayal of a dragon? Kind of like a trex with wings, but probably much much smaller...

 

[Mallon]

OK, how is this for wild wild speculation......
Since dino bones are similar to bird bones.... could there have been a flying dino (not a pteradactyl) that looked and acted more like the common portrayal of a dragon? Kind of like a trex with wings, but probably much much smaller...

Well... it would have to evolve a serpentine body (which would have been hard because theropod spines were quite rigid), an extra limb girdle, and the ability to shoot fire out of its mouth. But besides all that, anything is possible in our imagination.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I agree, no matter what view you hold, finding tissue in dinosaur bones is still incredibly interesting!

I don't mean to stir up another debate, but I just wanted to know how they determine that the protein was 68 million years old? In the article they said that scientists had previously believed protein couldn't even be one million years old. I'm not trying to insinuate anything. I just don't know/understand enough about the subject.

 

[Mallon]

I don't mean to stir up another debate, but I just wanted to know how they determine that the protein was 68 million years old?

The protein was found in a bone that came from rocks dated at 68 mya.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Thanks, mallon.

As for how the protein was protected;

He noted that the protein found in B. rex was doubly protected. Not only was it hidden inside a dense, large femur bone, but the bone was 60 feet below the top of the outcrop and under 1,000 cubic yards of rock. That protection kept the fossils from being contaminated by bacteria, the atmosphere or modern ground water.

I understand the bone plays an important role, but how is the fact that it was under a lot of rock different from any other fossil? Is it saying it was somehow buried under all this rock instantly (I'm not trying to provoke a global flood answer here )? How does that keep it from the above mentioned things? I just don't understand how this fossil is different is all.

 

[Mallon]

I understand the bone plays an important role, but how is the fact that it was under a lot of rock different from any other fossil? Is it saying it was somehow buried under all this rock instantly (I'm not trying to provoke a global flood answer here )? How does that keep it from the above mentioned things? I just don't understand how this fossil is different is all.

Most fossils are found on the surface of the earth, and thus are left exposed to the elements for tens, even hundreds of years, until they are collected.
This "B. rex" fossil, by contrast, was found burried beneath a thousand cubic yards of rock, and so was protected from things like UV radiation, percolating mineral water, or erosion, helping to preserve the finer contents of the bone.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Thanks again. How does something like that happen? Getting buried under 1000 cu yards of rock, that is.

 

[Deamiter]

Fossils are pretty protected right from the start (or they wouldn't end up fossilizing) but the idea isn't at all that they were buried under the rock immediately. I'm not sure what the exact conditions here were, but it was probably buried in some sedement pretty soon after death.

The outcrop is extremely relevant as mallon pointed out, because many fossils get exposed on the surface before being collected. Even more importantly, because it was sheltered from water seeping into the ground, the bone didn't have further contamination from bacteria which would pretty quickly degrade any remaining organic material. Contamination from groundwater could bring all sorts of catalysts to break down the proteins.

Essentially the fossil was protected from even underground 'elements' by a sort of an umbrella and things like water or bacteria which DO degrade protein in fossils didn't touch the fossil nearly as much as they do most fossils.

 

[Deamiter]

Thanks again. How does something like that happen? Getting buried under 1000 cu yards of rock, that is.

I'm not sure about the geometry -- the outcrop is probably above ground or was at one point and then reburied. Getting buried under thousands of meters of rock is pretty easy though -- given enough time.

Again, the fossil wasn't buried under rock immediately, it was buried in sedement that later hardened into rock. This was worth mentioning in the paper because most fossils are found on or very near the surface where contamination is a problem. It's not that most fossils lie near the surface, it just takes a lot more time and money to pull fossils the further you go down into solid rock. Of course, looking for uncontaminated fossils obviously paid off in this case!

 

[Mallon]

How does something like that happen? Getting buried under 1000 cu yards of rock, that is.

Sediment accumulates every day and the ground regularly subsides, allowing for even more sedimentary deposition. We see it happen all the time in the world around us. No magic necessary.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Thank you both! I was just curious as to how it all works. I'm very ignorant to the whole subject and was in no way try to suggest the only explanation could have been a flood.

 

[Mallon]

Thank you both! I was just curious as to how it all works. I'm very ignorant to the whole subject and was in no way try to suggest the only explanation could have been a flood.

No worries, Scotishfury09. We're not all so sensitive.
If your intentions are sincere, then by all means, ask away. God blesses those who seek the truths he has hidden.

 

[busterdog]

I don't mean to stir up another debate, but I just wanted to know how they determine that the protein was 68 million years old? In the article they said that scientists had previously believed protein couldn't even be one million years old. I'm not trying to insinuate anything. I just don't know/understand enough about the subject.

Yeah, that one is just always left hanging. TE or YEC, we both have to recognize the unanswered question.

 

[shernren]

OK, how is this for wild wild speculation......
Since dino bones are similar to bird bones.... could there have been a flying dino (not a pteradactyl) that looked and acted more like the common portrayal of a dragon? Kind of like a trex with wings, but probably much much smaller...

Depends on which portrayal - the modern, hexapodal dragon (painted by artists which have seen scientific reconstructions of dinosaurs), or the medieval "snakes with wings and legs" dragon? In both cases no, though for different anatomical reasons.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course having feathers and breathing fire is not a good combination...