Slashdot Mirror
Dinosaur Mummy Found
sckienle writes "Although the dig was a year ago, MSNBC has an article about a very rare dinosaur find. It starts off with "A mummified dinosaur, unwrapped from the rocks of Montana, has revealed how the creature looked and how it lived 77 million years ago -- down to the texture of its skin and the contents of its stomach, scientists say." Unfortunately, the details are mostly missing in the article. This isn't the first mummified dinosaur found but it is the first in a long time."
Kind of like the Stego in Animal Crossing!
Well with a dinosaurs tiny brain, at least the imbalmers didnt have to spend too much time taking the brain out through the nose.
Now they can finally have the cross-over movie where Brandon Fraiser has to kick the crap out of old dinosaurs that have been cloned and are taking over a tropical island in egypt.
just you wait and see...
--
I post links to stuff here
"Also because of the way the dinosaur was mummified, it showed the contents of the stomach, which included conifer needles, seeds and twigs and proved that hadrosaurs led a terrestrial lifestyle rather than aquatic."
RTFA, don't you see the link. It's only a page, instead of firing off a comment as soon as you can.
I wonder if they'll find that lawyer from Jurrasic Park in it's stomach?
Are you saying that the aliens who built the pyramids were actually DINOSAURS?
So much for all those who were postulating about dinosaurs in Day-Glo colors... /Nanoox.
Dinosaurs had prior art.
This item was found in the summer of 2000.
This article is very very vague. It states that the creature died when it was just 3 years old; I wonder why. The article doesn't say.
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
that the dinosaur ate pringles and drank bawls for energy for those long nights of arguing on slashdot. :)
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
the type of dinosaur that it was. they know that type lived during a certain set of years.
it could be found out later that this particular dinosaur was from a seperate period, which would be a suprise. but its not a hard fact yet for this specimen
Most likely its from some form of radio-carbon dating. While I've heard that its not increadably accutare for short periods of time, its probably good enough for fossils that are in the range of millions of years old. Sure it won't tell us exactly when it died, but we can be reasonably certain that it was within a few thousand years of the number the radio carbon dating came up with.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Nowhere in the article does it say how they know it's 23 foot long.
I'm assuming they go by some sort of measuring tape. What I'm asking all the geeks here is this: when scientists spout off numbers like this, what scientific means are they utilizing to back them up and how accurate are they?
I don't doubt the thing could very well *be* that long. I just wonder: how do they know?
*whack* ... he's dead alright...
~ now you know
Probably just the current political situation. I wouldn't exactly want to go looking around Kashmir for fossils right now, would you?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
You have it backwards. Radio carbon dating is good for maybe 40,000 or 50,000 years, nothing older than that. The closer we are to when it died, by a long shot the more accurate the dating is.
This would've been done by dating the strata they were found in. Dating rock strata is a very accurate method of determining age.
From what I understand after actually reading the article, this "mummy" is actually a complex fossil. Most of the tissues have been replaced with minerals.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
There's a lot of assumptions involved in radiometric dating (of which carbon dating is a type).
First, you pick an isotope of an element which has a nice long half-life. Then, you guess at how much of that isotope was in the environment (and therefore the object you are dating as well) at the time period you assume the object was made.
The other assumptions are that there is a constant decay rate of the isotope and that the object being dated becomes a closed system, not seeping or leeching any of that isotope from its surroundings.
So what you really have with dates like the 77 million years is a best guess from a bunch of scientists who want it to be around 100 million and then crunch the numbers to get a more precise answer.
Let the rebuttals begin... =)
~Chaltek
If it was a scientist that said $77 million, then it the accuracy is of $1 million years.
Now that's an expensive dinosaur!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
This question and many more about dating are answered at Talk-Origins,
t ml#other
r on-dating.ht ml
See
General dating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.h
Specific theory & technique:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isoch
(now how many geeks will read these dating articles thinking it might help this weekend with the GF problem?:-)...
getting mummified (a very technical process performed by Man?)
...
Mummyfied is simply a term for extraordinary well preserved. This can happen because a human pulls out the brains and applies the right ointments, or because the specimen dies under extraordinary conditions - like the dry-freezed dude they found in the alps a couple of years ago.
There were some tracks discovered in the Paluxy River bed that had man tracks and dinosaur tracks side by side,
Could you perhaps elaborate a bit? What is your source? I would love to read more about it.
Tor
No not carbon, the half-life is too short.
Here are two articles on how dinosaur finds ages are determined, the first in general, the second on radiometric dating specifically.
Dating Fossils
Radiometric Dating
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Rocks are very easy to date
But people look at you funny if you take a rock out for dinner!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
According to my college chemistry professor, carbon dating (and radioactive dating in general) is based on determining the current percentage of the isotope relative to the percentage of the non-radioactive element. This percentage is then compared to the original percentage and the half-life of the isotope - about 5K years for carbon.
Therefore, radioactive dating works best for time periods where the value of n in half_life * 2^n (^ = to the power of) is closest to 0. Very accurate for 5K years, 2.5K years, 1.25K years,10K years, 20K years. Very inaccurate for 1 year or 1 million years.
[btw, I'm no expert - just sayin' what I heard to the best of my recollection]
There were some tracks discovered in the Paluxy River bed that had man tracks and dinosaur tracks side by side, but of course you will not hear about this from the secular science establishment, which would just as soon cover it up.
Probably because it was determined long ago that they were not man tracks.
Yet Another Web Site
What they eat says volumes about how a dinosaur is built. A dinosaur that can stoop to get ferns and reach the leaves of conifers obviously has a certain length of neck and articulation of the spine. One that eats plants may not be as muscled or quick as one that eats other dinosaurs or carrion, mostly because it doesn't need to be.
Just from stomach contents we can tell what it was fast enough to catch, what it was tall enough to reach, what it could bend down to reach, and how much energy it had to work with. The condition of the contents tells us if it had blunted teeth or sharp ones. We have some clues from a skeleton, but we have a lot more information with some extra context: "Oh. That's why that neck was built like that."
Contrary to FUD coming from young-Earth wackos, carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with determining ages of dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating cannot be used to measure ages older than 10,000 years or so. It is totally inadequate for determining geological timescales. That's why other radiometric methods are used, such as potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating.
Scientists probably don't mention how they know the age of every fossil they find because it would get old really quickly. Hell, they'd probably be happy to explain it over and over again; but do you think the reporter's going to put it in the article every time? Not likely.
I'll tell you the basics; to learn more grab any Geology 101 textbook. The Earth's continental crust is stratified: it has many layers like an onion. Unlike an onion, the layers aren't uniform, but basically, there are easily discernible stratigraphic layers in the earth's crust, which you can see in cliff faces, canyons, or where rock has been cut away for a highway. The layers are caused by deposits made over the eons, so deeper layers are from epochs further in the past. Samples can be taken from different layers, and a variety of techniques can be used to calibrate how long ago that layer was deposited at the surface of the Earth (including potassium-argon dating and uranium dating, paleomagnetism, etc.).
Now, because of erosion and tectonic movement, the rocks that are currently exposed at some locations can be from very old layers, that are probably deep underground in most other places. For example, the surface rock in the US state of Montana is largely composed of layers of sedimentary rock that were deposited during the Age of Dinosaurs. That's why lots of dinosaur fossils are found there.
So, a paleontologist finds a fossil in rocks from layer X. He looks up the radiometric age for that layer (or a nearby layer), and associates its age with the fossil. He can also look for smaller fossils in the same rock layer as secondary age indicators (i.e., plant A lived between 100 Mya to 50 Mya, insect B lived between 70 Mya and 20 Mya; if both are found in the same layer as the dinosaur fossil, it probably lived between 70 and 50 Mya).
Or you could type your question into google, and follow the first link that it gives you.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Except that many different methods yield the same result for a single time event within their stated uncertainties.
Here is a comparison of different radiometric and non-radiometric methods used to date a string of craters formed in the Triassic Period.
Of course the methods of radioactive dating for objects that old have uncertainties of +/- a few million years but that's only a few percent of the total age.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Paul Sereno, for instance, has led expeditions into places like Niger, Morocco and Patagonia. The politics add an extra variable which makes it a pain in the ass to dig in another country, some countries more than others, so most American palentologists stay here. Also, it's a bitch to transport the fossils long distances after they're dug up. There's plenty of stuff to find here, so it's not really a problem.
They were definitely not predominantly here.
c-hack.com |
The other assumptions are that there is a constant decay rate of the isotope...
Well, yes, or rather in proportion to the number of isotopes around. Anyway, do you suggest that this might not be the case here?
I can think of few scientific findings that are as well established as this one. This pattern has been observed in all radioactive decays - involving 100s of isotopes with decay rates spanning from nanoseconds to millenia.
Tor
There are ways of testing the accuracy of at least some of these methods. Carbon-14 dating, for example, has been compared with tree ring dating methods going back 10K (IIRC) or so years. There have probably been similar attempts with other isotope based methods.
Primar on archeological dating methods
Archeologists date flakes.
FreeSpeech.org
(1) the decay rate is exponential, not linear. You don't have to "guess" about this, it's simply the result of a stochastic radioactive decay process, with a fixed probability per parent atom present in the sample. The rate cannot be other than exponential, with a decay constant determined by the atomic physics, which we can safely presume is invariant.
(2) You are correct that radiocarbon dating suffers from the systematic uncertainty that we cannot know what the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was at the time the sample died. Unfortunately (for your argument), carbon dating has nothing to do with measuring truly geologic timescales of millions or billions of years. For that, we rely on other radiometric processes like Potassium-argon or Uranium-Lead. These methods do not suffer from the same systematic error that radiocarbon dating does.
For example, radioactive Uranium crystallizes with other atoms in a way that is impossible to create with Lead atoms instead of Uranium. However, the Uranium then begins to decay into Lead. So, you find these crystals in rock. You know that when the rock cooled from magma, it formed these crystals with all Uranium and no Lead. Now, some fraction of it has decayed to Lead. Measure the fraction of Lead to Uranium, apply the known exponential-decay rate, and you can very accurately determine how long ago the rock was molten.
Hope that helps.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Radiocarbon dating is four orders of magnitude too short, and needs atmospheric correlation anyway.
Potassium-Argon dating, probably. Since argon is a noble gas, it doesn't really bond with anything, or get trapped in something's liquid or gaseous form. So, when the creature dies, as it fossilizes its radioactive potassium starts slowly decaying into argon. As we know of no other way for the argon to show up, we can be fairly certain about the date that pops out (I'm not sure if 77 million years is so accurate on the dot, but, say, I would be pretty confident that it's 70-85, for example.)
I am a science fantasy fan
One method of dating the fossil is by using isotopic dating. However, you can really only use isotopic dating if there is a layer of volcanic ash or a lava flow near the fossil. Otherwise at that age there are no other methods to date a fossil of that age and environment. At those ages what is done generally is that the ashfall below the fossil is dated and the ashfall above the fossil is dated. You then have range of ages and when it comes to getting a chronological age that is about the best you can do with isotopic dating. Otherwise at that timeframe and environment you can use biozones of pollen to narrow it down further. In which you identify the shape of the individual pollen grains and when the pollen shows up in the fossil record you can get a relative date, but not an exact date. I'm not totally sure, but since this fossil is from the late Cretaceous and in the Western US ashfalls from volcanoes were not uncommon and you can probably narrow it down to within a million years pretty easily using ashfalls.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
Don't you realize that (we) geeks are largely unsuccessful at dating.
It wouldn't be carbon dating. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years, so after ~6000 years, it's got about 1/1000th of what was originally there (which is rather low to begin with). After that, I'm guessing that there's just too little to get reliable statistics from (perhaps noise from other decay sequences??).
Besides the problem of the (relatively) short half-life of Carbon14, the fossilization process leaches most of the carbon out of the body anyways-- so there is (almost) no carbon to date. Even if it didn't 1/2^(77million/5700) => 1/(2e4066). In other words, if you started with a chunk of carbon14 the size of Jupiter, you'd be lucky to find 2 atoms of carbon14 after 60million years of radioactive decay)
There's a nice intro to carbon dating at howstuffworks.com, with even more data at c14dating.com. They mention that you can use carbon-14 style radioisotape dating with isotopes that have a longer halflife than carbon 14. These are the methods are what are used to date older rocks.
The reason why carbon 14 isn't useful for recent items is the nuclear age. In the early years of the nuclear age, the US and later 'nuclear club' members did atmospheric nuke tests that completely messed up (read: randomized) the isotope ratios for everything that's died since the late '40s. Cherbonyl didn't help much, either. Anything earlier than that (and recent enough that there's a statistically valid percentage of C14 left in the body) is a good candidate for Carbon dating.
Prior to nuclear fallout, the primary source of Carbon14 was atmospheric Nitrogen being bombarded by cosmic rays.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
The cool thing is, if the stomach contents are intact enough, we may have access to some plant-life that was not previously available. This appears to be a duckbilled dinosaur, so it's likely a herbivore. Too bad, if it were a big-bad t-rex we may have gotten a 2-for-1 with anything else inside its stomach, depending on the state of digestion at death.
Personally, I'd be quite interested in the breathing and circulatory apparati of dinosaurs. Getting blood and oxygen around the systems of these big guys may have required organs a little different than current-day creatures (I don't think there are any reptiles this large alive to-date). Perhaps they're able to breathe through their skin, although I believe that is generally characteristic of amphibians and not reptiles.
Hmmm... tastes like million-year-old chicken - phorm
A summary of this work can be found in the documentary, "Caveman" by noted paleontologist and Christian, Dr. Ringo Starr.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
First, you pick an isotope of an element which has a nice long half-life. Then, you guess at how much of that isotope was in the environment (and therefore the object you are dating as well) at the time period you assume the object was made.
Not exactly. Isochron dating takes a set of samples which formed at the same time from a common pool of materials (such as a rock including several minerals) and plotting points on a graph. Three things are measured - the abundance of a radioactive element (the parent) , one of its decay products (the daughter), and a different non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the decay product (the control). A graph is plotted, with the X axis being the ratio of parent to control, and the Y axis being the ratio of daughter to control. The correlation of the plotted points to a line indicate the accuracy of the date, which can be determined from the slope of the line. How it works is described in better detail at the link I gave.
The other assumptions are that there is a constant decay rate of the isotope
A fair assumption, since no counterexample has ever been shown.
and that the object being dated becomes a closed system, not seeping or leeching any of that isotope from its surroundings.
Changes in composition of the object will cause the points on the isochron plot to not be correlated to a line, and thus the contamination will be noticed and either the object will be declared unsuitable for dating, or a date can be given with big error bars.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
well - I know that I certainly have dated some rocks in some very nice looking human disguises.
Could you explain radiometric dating?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I generally begin with something naive and simple, say, a movie and a rootbeer float. Then just stare into it's eyes. After a couple of these perhaps you move onto something a little more romantic but you don't want to move too quickly or you may excite the situation and the whole relationship just decays.
No, it isn't.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Richard DAWKINS, not Dawson. Dawson is a creek.
Using my scientific skepticism: How exactly does a mummy stay preserved without being fractured and destroyed for 77 million years? That's a very, very, very long time. I'm really curious because that doesn't really make sense to me.
And how do you know it's 77 million years old?
Look at the rocks! Those rocks are 77 million years old!
And how do you know those rocks are 77 million years old?
Because the dinosaurs we found in them were 77 million years old!
And how do you... [repeat ad infinitum]
"I took a fish head out to see a movie; I didn't have to pay to get it in."
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
God is $1 being with $3 faces...
No, not at all, the dinosaurs actually had a very complex belief system, and mumification was often performed for important leaders, so that they could live forever in the afterlife.
Who do you think really built the Pyramids?, humans are far too small and insignificant to pull off a feat of engineering like that...
Unfortunately they died out before they ever got the chance to use them.
They must have been rolling in their graves when lowly mamals started using them instead.
Advanced users are users too!
And you likewise propogate evolutionist FUD. Carbon dating has everything to do with fossils. Do you know why carbon dating is not used on old fossils? Because, presumably, there should be not enough C14 left to make any reasonable date. So the creationist says "This fossil is dated millions of years old, and should therefore contain no C14 that could produce a relevant date". So the creationist tests this fossil and finds out that it dates a lot younger than 10,000, meaning that it has quite enough C14 to say that it is a young fossil. This, for the creationist, demonstrates clearly that there are MAJOR problems and contradictions in modern day dating techniques. This is why a creationist thinks carbon dating is relevant for fossil dating...it provides a good way of testing whether the original age that a fossil is placed in is accurate, and quite often it isn't.
Likewise, I'm sure you could find plenty examples of such inconsistencies by a google search.
Here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/10 10_021010_dinomummy.html
~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
"Blast from the Past" and "George of the Jungle".
:).
Where Brendan plays a guy suddenly dragged into modern civilisation with a permanently bemused/dopey expression on his face.
Wait a minute, that's Encino Man.
Never mind