Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Fossil

douglips writes "Reuters is running a story about a shocking development in paleontology: A T-Rex thigh bone fossil was reluctantly broken to fit in a transport helicopter, and inside soft tissue was found. It appears to include blood vessels and bone cells. Scientists hope to isolate proteins, and perhaps even DNA."

95 of 978 comments (clear)

  1. Let the cloning begin! by mycro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let the cloning begin!

    1. Re:Let the cloning begin! by justkarl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I for one welcome our new cloned T-rex overlords.

    2. Re:Let the cloning begin! by mastahblastah · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let the cloning b3gin! ...


    3. Re:Let the cloning begin! by shotfeel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Haven't even started, and we already have a mutation.

    4. Re:Let the cloning begin! by pizzaman100 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Mr. T-Rex, I was always on your side, sir.

      Does he have a mohawk? I pity the fool that messes with Mr. T-Rex.

    5. Re:Let the cloning begin! by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Before you clone dinosaur you should make sure of the following.

      Use OpenBSD Yea it is Unix but it very secure. And runs on smaller computers which can be put on multiple power supplies and power sources, and UPSed. Except for running a hole park off of a single Cray, where once the Cray goes down all hell breaks loose.

      If you are going to use electrical cars. Make sure they have enough battery to drive across the island on one charge.

      Have 2 fences. running parallel to each other. In the middle dig a very deep hole big enough to prevent any animal to climb out or jump over.

      Use the round door knobs with a punch key security. So even if they figured out the code which is unlikely they will need opposable thumbs to open the door.

      If Possible use Male Dinosaurs they just dont have the equipment to lay eggs.

      Armed Security Guards, who can also double as tour guides.

      Safety points filled with tranquilizer darts and a gun.

      Steel Reinforced Bathrooms.

      All electrical fences have a generator backup.

      Helicopter tours.

      If they spit acid remove the glands before making them in front of the public.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Let the cloning begin! by speederaser · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not a mutation, it's intelligent design.

  2. so who gets to patent T-Rex DNA? by kfractal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just curious.

    1. Re:so who gets to patent T-Rex DNA? by beej · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoever clones one first! I mean, who's gonna argue with a guy who has a friggin T-REX backing him up?

  3. Thank god for Jurassic Park... by Goronmon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we know that when the cloned T-Rex escapes, if you stand perfectly still it won't see you!

    1. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by mrtroy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now we know that when the cloned T-Rex escapes, if you stand perfectly still it won't see you!

      Also, do NOT run directly to the shitter.

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny

      As much as I trust TV and the essentially random guesses made by people about something that has been dead for millions of years, I am not sure I want to stand still while being chased by a really big meat-eating dinosaur unless I am reeeaaally extra sure that it won't see me. On the upside I only have to run past the other people who have seen Jurassic Park and are standing still to test if this theory is true or not. If it runs past them I simply freeze, otherwise I can escape while it chomps on the first few unlucky souls to hold still.

    3. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by the+phantom · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't have to be the fastest member of the crowd, just faster than the slowest member.

    4. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by opec · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As much as I trust TV and the essentially random guesses made by people about something that has been dead for millions of years,

      The detail about T-Rex's having the inability to see moving objects was thrown in by Michael Crichton to support his belief that scientists' filling in the ancient dinosaur DNA gaps with modern-day amphibian DNA would lead to various "features" being transposed across the species. Some amphibians of today truly cannot see inanimate objects.

      This was a necessary plot point in the story... Jurassic Park was designed to continue only with Human support (no natural breeding), but "nature found a way" when the abilities of some amphibians to spontaneously change sexes was found in the JP dinosaurs.

      To recap, it wasn't a random guess... Just a plot twist by a clever author. There's no evidence to suggest that ancient dinosaurs couldn't see inanimate objects. Predators like T-Rex's probably couldn't survive like that.

    5. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by Ark42 · · Score: 5, Interesting


      Birds too, I believe, cannot see things that do not move, and birds are believed to be whats left of dinosours as they evolved to today.
      I've read that if it were possible for a human to control the natural eye jitteriness and just focus absolutely still, the image you see would fade away to nothing. The eye needs constant movement to be able to keep updating what you are seeing.

    6. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry but if I was standing in front of a T-Rex , but running directly to the sh1tter would be the first on my list of things to do. It would have nothing to do with hiding.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    7. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

      birds are believed to be whats left of dinosours as they evolved to today

      It'd be amusing if the T-Rex had the parrot's vocal abilities to mimic human voices.

      Of course, the only words they'd be exposed to and thus be able to mimic would be various versions of "AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!" and "OH DEAR GOD NORRUUUURRRGGGGLLLE!!!!" and that would just scare other people off.

      A sad life, the T-Rex's.

      Sigh.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    8. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't have to be the fastest member of the crowd, just faster than the slowest member.

      Which is why I never, ever discourage someone from eating at McDonalds.

      Obseity in others is your best defense mechanism. :)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    9. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by flosofl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which re-raises the question of why it is easier to see things that actually are moving.

      Years and years of evolution. With humans, movement attracts the immediate attention of the brain and an immediate risk assessment is done. It is a survival tool.

      It is also allows a predator (which humans are, also) to isolate moving prey from the static landscape.

      I have never heard of the "eye is constantly moving so we can see" theory/idea. Sounds like BS to me. In fact when the eye moves (either in the socket or when the head moves), we are temporarily blind for about 200ms. This is why what we see does not blur when we shift our focus on something else (try it!)

      I recommend the O'Reiley book called "Mind Hacks". The authors go into this in much more detail.

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    10. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now we know that when the cloned T-Rex escapes, if you stand perfectly still it won't see you!

      Also, do NOT run directly to the shitter.

      I would like to point out that for the vast majority of us, if we ever came upon a T-Rex (or many of the other top-predators) the time between spotting the critter and involuntary evacuation is going to be way too short to find a shitter.

      I once came upon a stuffed tiger at an outdoor show, and my first reaction was "Oh, crap that's huge, run away". Before I even fully registered what I was seeing my brain was already looking for an exit.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative
      I have never heard of the "eye is constantly moving so we can see" theory/idea. Sounds like BS to me.
      It's called ocular tremor.
    12. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by digidave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe you're misunderstanding this aspect of vision. Inanimate objects don't disappear, it's just nearly impossible to notice it. It's like when you see something out of the corner of your eye... you can only identify a moving object if it's at any distance. However, any movement in the corner of your eye will be extremely noticable.

      Take when you're driving, for instance. A car driving at the same speed as you in your blind spot is going to be hard to see when you turn your head before changing lanes. This is especially true of dark grey cars that can look similar to the road. If that car is moving either quicker or slower than you, then you can easily see it.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    13. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Birds too, I believe, cannot see things that do not move

      False. How else would birds find their water bowl, or their perch? Snakes cannot see things that move, birds obviously can.

      At the level of the first layers in the retina, the firing rate of neurons is proportional to the rate of change in either direction, colour, intensity or time.

      As an example, stare at this flag for 30 seconds or so, then look at a blank area of space. This optical illusion works because the neurons that respond to yellow, green and black become inactive, leaving blue, red and white.

      I am sure birds can see things that do not move, it is only that they do not consider something that moves slowly as "dangerous". It is a great party trick when we were kids to go out in the garden, place some grain in our hands, stand absolutely still and have wild birds eat of our hands. Obviously the birds could see our hands and the grain.

      From some various articles on bird vision, birds may have up to 120,000 cones per square inch of retina (humans only have 10,000), and may have four or more different types of colour-sensitve cones (thereby being able to have a higher colour range than humans).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by Sialagogue · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obseity in others is your best defense mechanism. :)

      Certainly from predation, but speaking for fat people at McDonald's everywhere, I'd like to say that we're betting that the global food supply will run out before a T-Rex comes to life and chases us down.

      We think that a better defense mechanism is taking two weeks longer to starve to death so we can eat you scrawny arrogant bastards as you drop like flies.

      I don't care how thin you are, we'll still get a whole bunch of quarter pounders out of you...

      --
      The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
    15. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny
      The two things you can say without much doubt about all of your ancestors is that they had good survival reflexes and enjoyed f-, ahem, reproduction.

      Nah, I'm a WASP. That means that my ancestors grudgingly reproduced and thought of England. =)
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by dtjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A sad life?

      T-Rex survived for millions of years through asteroid impacts, earthquakes, global climate change, flood, drought, disease, and competition for food. By comparison, our H. Sapiens species has been around for only 50,000 years or so and our numbers and technology have expanded during only the last 2,000. Extrapolating our most recent 100 years of history into the future doesn't make our prospects look very good either. Disease, war, and environmental destruction are likely to thin us out quite a bit or even lead to our extinction. At this very moment, millions of scientists and engineers all over the globe are hard at work thinking of new, more effective, ways to kill large numbers of us. Whose life is sadder, T-rex or H-Sapiens?

    17. Re:Thank god for Jurassic Park... by goon+america · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't blame the engineers and the scientists. The universe was always out there for us to discover. Blame the politicians and the propagandists who are able to quite successfully able to persuade millions to forget the consequences of their actions.

  4. I for one.... by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    hail our new cloned-DNA T-rex overlor-*CHOMP*

    --
    May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  5. News! by razmaspaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now this is news. I know we are not gonna get any cool theme parks out of this, but this is pretty cool stuff.

    --
    I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
  6. Lessons by odano · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I said it once, I've said it a thousand times...

    Modern helicopters are just too small!

  7. Precedent by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not the first identification of soft protein laden tissue that has been extracted from dinosaur tissue as Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University has extracted these tissues from other tissues as well, so there is a precedent.

    Of course getting actual DNA from these tissues will be a long shot due to its fragile nature, but protein sequence may prove very informative in letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Precedent by mapmaker · · Score: 5, Informative
      Mary Schweitzer is the scientist in both of these stories. Seems she's got a knack for finding fossilized soft tissue.

      This T-Rex tissue is apparently a bigger deal than the fossilized egg contents she found previously though. From TFA:

      "Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue.

    2. Re:Precedent by Swamii · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is not the first identification of soft protein laden tissue that has been extracted from dinosaur tissue as Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University has extracted these tissues from other tissues as well, so there is a precedent.

      Of course getting actual DNA from these tissues will be a long shot due to its fragile nature, but protein sequence may prove very informative in letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution.


      Thanks for spoiling our fun. Can we get back to the Jurassic Park jokes please?

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    3. Re:Precedent by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mary Schweitzer is the scientist in both of these stories. Seems she's got a knack for finding fossilized soft tissue.

      "Oh darn, I have yet again rented the small helicopter, what a klutz I am. It seems that will have to cut up this precious fossil that is too large to get on board. Woe is me, had we brought the large helicopter, this here fossile would have been taken to museum without having been chopped up... oh, look at that..."

      Clever lass.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Precedent by mapmaker · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yeah, you gotta wonder. Especially since the article goes on to say:

      Usually paleontologists put preservatives on fossils right away, but Schweitzer has been trying to find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so this one was left alone.

    5. Re:Precedent by Drachemorder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I would immediately note that the mere fact that her work is cited by creationists to support a creationist perspective does not in any way imply that she agrees with them. Maybe she does; maybe she doesn't. Any paleontologist would be thrilled to find unfossilized dinosaur tissue, regardless of his opinion of the age of the earth, simply because we can learn a lot from such tissue.

      I won't deny that this finding is exciting for creationists, but that's irrelevant to the existence of the tissue itself. The existence of the tissue is a matter of hard science. It will be peer reviewed (if it hasn't already been), and if it's faulty, those faults will be exposed. I expect that it will be scrutinized especially closely because unfossilized tissue does seem unlikely from the prevailing viewpoint. The reviewers will want to be meticulous in their examination of the finding, which is of course only proper.

    6. Re:Precedent by jdgreen7 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And, she's kinda cute, too.

  8. Dinosaurs are a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


    after all, earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 40 days, unless my sources are wrong

    1. Re:Dinosaurs are a myth by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, no. God created the Dinosaurs extinct. Apparently he really liked the idea of dinosaurs, but thought they were too homosexual.

  9. Finally by ChozCunningham · · Score: 4, Funny

    We can check for traces of tar, nicotine and other toxins, and scientists will get to end the extinction debate. Seriously, might this be the biggest news of the decade? Longer?

  10. But how? by vivin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm slightly skeptical. The article talks about soft tissue, but none of the scientists even try to explain how soft tissue could have survived for seventy million years?

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
    1. Re:But how? by tricops · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you should take everything with a grain of salt of course, but... if you find a bone and it does have soft tissue, then it has soft tissue whether you have an explanation of how it could be possible or not. The explanation comes after further research. Of course, one of the explanations could be it might not be an actual dinosaur bone, but that one can probably be ruled out pretty quickly if the researchers have any idea what they're doing.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
  11. When I get my T-Rex... by a+gremlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    those damn SUVs better watch out. Yeah, who owns the road now %^*@$!

    1. Re:When I get my T-Rex... by Kelt · · Score: 5, Funny

      open the door, get on the floor, everybody clone the dinosaur

      -Kelt

      (must credit the wife for that one)

      --
      My intelligence insults itself.
    2. Re:When I get my T-Rex... by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Funny

      open the door, get on the floor, everybody clone the dinosaur

      You might call it giving credit, but I call it giving blame. Quite unfunny.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  12. Promising for archaeology by skwirl42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It'll be interesting to see if we can find hominid remains in similar states of preservation, so we can learn more about the layout of our evolutionary tree. Then again, a T-Rex bone is huge, and that may be the only reason it managed to keep anything preserved.

  13. Fuck by erikharrison · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody got a handy chaos theorist? Anybody? Seriously, I need a chaos theorist, oily hair, glasses, fuzzy math skills, preferably debauched.

    Alternatively do any of you know anything about UNIX systems?

    1. Re:Fuck by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The last chaos theorist we kept around wandered into the teleporation lab and turned into a half-man half-fly.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    2. Re:Fuck by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody got a handy chaos theorist? Anybody? Seriously, I need a chaos theorist, oily hair, glasses, fuzzy math skills, preferably debauched.

      Alternatively do any of you know anything about UNIX systems?


      No problem. When the T-Rexes start attacking, we can simply get our handy chaos theorist to upload a virus into the mother T-Rex and just pray that the T-Rex is Mac compatible.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Fuck by omicronish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alternatively do any of you know anything about UNIX systems?

      I watched Jurassic Park in my early teens, and that movie ruined my knowledge of UNIX. For years I thought all UNIX systems had cool graphical UIs like that, and then I tried a real one and was disappointed by these crazy things called "characters". Now I'm a Windows user :(

  14. This may prove Homer Simpson wrong.. by kalel666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homer: He may be rich, but money can't buy everything!
    Marge: Like what?
    Homer: . . . A Dinosaur!

    I want to be the first 35 year old kid on my block with a T-Rex. Leash laws be damned!

    --
    I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
  15. What I want to knkow is.. by UncleBiggims · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would a T-Rex be using Kleenex?

    Hello?... Is this thing on?

  16. Re:Jurassic Park by Max+Threshold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if they added bits and pieces of DNA to that of other animals, gradually creating a species that is more and more like a T-Rex? Eventually, they would have a creature that could carry a pure T-Rex embryo.

  17. Metabolism by praedictus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this soft tissue will give us some clues about the metabolism of T-Rex, namely will it reveal whether it was warm or cold blooded, or something in between. I must admit this is surprising news.

    --
    Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
  18. MSNBC has pictures of the meat by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    meaty goodness

    in my professional paleontological opinion (not), it needs a nice marinade

    fre up the BBQ, lets see what T Rex tastes like

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  19. why? Why? WHY? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Funny

    WHY did it have to be the DNA of a T-Rex? Why couldn't it have been a nice herbivore, like a stegosaurus, or even better, one of those little chicken-sized dinos?

    Now there's going to be running and screaming, and it's all going to be a big huge mess.

  20. Possible viruses? by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a little concerned about the possible viruses which may have been dormantly sitting in this soft tissue all along. Who knows what they might be/do?

    1. Re:Possible viruses? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've got a 70 million year evolutionary leg up on the little buggers; I'd be stunned if they could induce a case of the sniffles in a person with AIDS. What'd be more interesting would be if (HUGE IF: I'll take any science by press release with a few pounds of salt. This soft tissue business needs to go through peer review before it's credible to any real extent) any were present we could potentially learn a great deal about viral evolution.

  21. nytimes too by jdunlevy · · Score: 3, Informative
  22. Re:Just in time by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Informative
    > and the real question everyone wants answered is...
    >
    >does it taste like chicken?

    Considering that birds are the distant descendants of dinosaurs, and considering that the article someone else referred to describes traces of proteins from 70M-year-old eggs as bearing "strong similarities to proteins from chicken eggs.", I'd bet good money that the answer is probably "yes".

    The dino in the NewScientist article was a herbivore, and T. Rex was either a carnivore or carrion-eater; so maybe it'll taste more like eagle or vulture.

    Personally, I've never eaten eagle or vulture. Anyone know wha-yeah, I figured as much. Chicken.

  23. Let the cloning begin! by Sebadude · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let the cloning begin! ...

    --
    Eh.
  24. Oh, yeah! by KC7GR · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mmmm... It -does- taste like chicken. If you can imagine 10,000 year-old chicken getting better with age.

    Now if I can just find a 10,000 year-old White Zin to go with it...

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:Oh, yeah! by tommck · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought that specifying that the bone was only 10,000 years old was bad, but when you talked about drinking White Zinfandel, your ignorance was confirmed... ;)

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  25. Forced? by sugapablo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter..."

    Who was heading this team, Homer Simpson?

    I can just see him now:
    Homer: "Grrr..."
    Lisa: "Dad, it's just too big to fit in there."
    Homer: "Nonsense Lisa, daddy will just shove it in....Grrr....here it goes...." *snap* "...DOH!"

  26. Re:Uh oh. by ThogScully · · Score: 4, Informative

    "This is Unix. I know this!"

    --
    I've nothing to say here...
  27. Methods of Soft Tissue Preservation by vivin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Modes of fossil preservation:

    Soft part preservation - Soft tissues are preserved only under exceptional conditions. Examples include preservation of Siberian Mammoths (freezing in permafrost), Pleistocene cave faunas and older mummified remains (dessication), and insects and small animals preserved in lithified tree sap (amber). Soft parts can also be preserved after being replaced by minerals.

    Original hard parts - Resistant materials such as calcium, silica, and calcium phosphate are sometimes preserved as original hard parts in shells, bones, and teeth.

    Recrystallized hard parts - It is common, however, for original hard parts to be altered during diagenesis and after lithification. Unstable minerals such as aragonite will recrystallize to a more stable form such as calcite. Mineral crystals within an organism's hard parts my regrow to become larger and consolidated. Often recrystallization destroys fine, internal detail within a fossil.

    Carbonization - Organic-laden hard parts and soft parts can be preserved as a thin film of organic carbon. This occurs when the organic material is preserved undecayed through burial. As heat increases throughout burial the volitile components of the organic material (N, O, H, and S) are driven off leaving a thin film of black carbon behind.

    Replacement - Chemical reactions that occur during diagenesis can result in the molecule by molecule replacement of mineral for mineral or mineral for organic tissue. Replacement can often preserve exquisite detail in fossils.

    Silicification - replacement of calcite by silica.

    Pyritization - replacement of calcite or soft tissues with pyrite

    Phosphatization - replacement of low phosphate apatite with high phosphate apatite.

    Permineralization - Porous organic structures such as wood and bone are often preserved by the mineral infilling of the pore spaces. A common way of 'petrifying' wood and dinosaur bone.

    Source

    -----------

    It would have been helpful if the scientists had provided a hypothesis on the preservation of the tissues. I googled this phenomenon and there seems to be a rather broad definition for "soft tissue". Soft Tissue, it appears, can be preserved in many ways (see above). I'm curious as to how this tissue survived micro-organisms, mineralization/calcification, carbonization, or simply, or even dehydration. How was it able to remain soft enough to be squeezed?

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
  28. Re:Jurassic Park by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ignorance of "Time Cube" indicts you stupid and evil. Explain the "Time Cube". Do you like being Stupid? "Our Cube" corners Liars!

  29. See the MSNBC write-up by Mirk · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a rather better write-up of this awesome story on MNSBC, including some rather shocking pictures. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

    --

    --
    What short sigs we have -
    One hundred and twenty chars!
    Too short for haiku.
  30. Crazy sounding 'but hear me out' prediction by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First, I think we'll definately see cloned dinosaurs, mammoth, etc within out lives. What I think will surprise people will be the economic pusher for this.

    Sure, researchers will pioneer the basic technology, but the people who do the large scale cloning won't be theme park owners, scientists, or preservationists.

    They'll be food producers.

    We're at the top of the foodchain, and foods like Fugu (deadly blowfish), sushi, and... well, many asian dishes, prove that we're running out of new stuff to eat. There are amazing strides being made by cooks, and there are only so many things people can try before they die of old age, but more and more people are getting adventuresome and want to eat things that nobody else has.

    Enter: The brontoburger.

    Who here hasn't salivated at the thought of carving into a big old dinosaur steak? Who here can forget the longing eyes they cast on Fred Flintstone's car as it tipped over under the weight of the massive dino-ribs he had just ordered?

    Predictions:
    1. Herbivores of various types will be bred in captivity for their meat and leather.
    2. The rich will beat a path to their doorstep for the exclusivity of eating prehistoric food.
    3. In an almost defiant gesture of the universe, the meat will undoubtedly taste like chicken. Dinosaurs are, after all, big ol' birds by most reckoning.

    You may laugh now, but when you're cleaning the last bit of Tony Romas Olde Fashioned Allosaurus (like grandpa used to make 'em) Ribs, remember where you heard it first. Or second, or whenever this message drifted across your desk.

    1. Re:Crazy sounding 'but hear me out' prediction by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but the brontoburger already exists!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  31. A theory by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Fossilization is the process of minerals replacing proteins. It requires a wet environment, which is why you usually find fossiles in sedementary rocks that used to be a swamp or mud on the bottom of the ocean or something. Soooooo

    1. Dino dies in swamp
    2. Bone begins to fossilize from outside in
    3. Swamp dries out before fossilization is complete
    4. Crunchy on the outside, chewey on the inside
    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  32. Re:Young earth by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or evidence that fossilization and preservation of soft tissues works a bit differently than presumed. The article says that this kind of fossilization has been seen before in eggs and feathers, but not true soft tissue, so it is not unprecidented or completely unknown.

    Remember, there is still lots of other geological evidence that the earth is WAY more than 6000 years old. The find is interesting, but you certainly can't jump to that conclusion from it.

    Of course, using logic isn't the strong suit of the ID\Young Earth\Creationism set anyway, so I fully predict those guys will show up here in force with a bunch of "I told you so" posts, mostly with out actually reading TFA.

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  33. Peat Bogs by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some of the harshest peat bogs are of comparable age to low-grade coals. The difference is that the organic matter has not decomposed, largely because of the large amounts of acid (no, not that kind) and the lack of oxygen.


    In this case, the acidity is unlikely to be a factor, but the totally anaerobic conditions may be. It is possible that any bacteria in the soft tissue simply didn't have what they needed in order to consume the organic material, and therefore didn't. A slight variant on the situation with peat, but essentially the same idea.


    A second option - less likely, but possible - would be a variant on the way fresh produce is kept fresh today. Modern food isn't always kept with preservatives. Rather, the packaging company uses a medium blast from a radioactive caesium isotope. This kills off all of the bacteria present.


    Radioactive materials certainly occur naturally, and there are indeed cases of naturally-occuring nuclear reactors. It is entirely within the realms of possibility that natural radioactivity kept the inside of the bones sterilized, so that organic decay could not take place.


    The odds of that being the case are slim, but not quite none. However, it raises questions on what may be found in areas where such preservation techniques may actually have occured.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  34. You can't by SimianOverlord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'd have to demonstrate a use. There's a lot of companies who patented huge swathes of the human genome who are having those patents methodically overturned when it was discovered that 1)they didn't know what they were patenting and 2) they had no use for it then, anyway.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
  35. In response I'm joining... by Nevermore-Spoon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the NRA. They have never looked as attractive as they do today...

    The obligitory Matrix Quote
    "We're gonna need Guns...Lots of Guns"

    --
    I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
  36. Crack open more bones? by sahonen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The scientist in the article wants more scientists to start cracking open their own T-rex bones to see if they have soft tissue inside as well. I'm wondering, isn't there a way to tell what's inside *apart* from cracking open precious bones? Ultrasound, or an MRI, maybe?

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  37. Now just watch. by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now just watch.

    Now just watch. People will clone Tyrannosaurs, and they'll turn out to be cute-colored, friendly carrion eaters.

    --
    "It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
    1. Re:Now just watch. by digismack · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great. Now you've gone and done it.

      That Barney page on PBS' site is now going to get tons of hits from Slashdot, and the execs are going to start thinking geeks love the big purple dinosaur.

      --
      http://www.hollowdepth.com
  38. Can they more accurately date the dinosaur now? by Bun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps they can use potassium-40 dating, or some other method to directly measure the age of the soft tissue, rather than the traditional method of estimating age by the surrounding rock.

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  39. 100,000 Years... by solanum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is approximately when DNA becomes junk. It doesn't matter whether you can extract DNA or not, because even under ideal conditions DNA degrades so anything you manage to recover will be nonsensical and useless. We will never, repeat never, be able to clone anything as old as T. rex.
    Jurasic Park and the idiot that wrote it have a lot to answer for when it comes to my annoyance and stress levels!

    --
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
  40. Re:So... by curtoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You were there, were you? Maybe you can explain something to me. How long was the first day? Where did the building materials come from? Doesn't it take crazier faith if you claim the universe spontaneoulsy came into existence and assembled itself in such a way as to have intelligent life, without containing the intelligence in the first place? (i.e. Things getting more organized over time into complex biological systems all by themselves). That flies in the face of the law of entropy, which says basically that stuff left to itself gradually falls apart and becomes more disorganized and more random over time. It takes effort to keep things running.

    Try Again.

  41. Re:Jurassic Park by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eventually, they would have a creature that could carry a pure T-Rex embryo.

    Kinda shocked that no one else mentioned it yet, but...

    The T-Rex, like most dinosaurs and like most modern lizards, laid eggs.

    If we could get a viable T-Rex zygote, we could almost certainly implant it in the egg of any larger still-living lizard (monitor?) without much difficulty.

    But after this long, even if we found a perfectly preserved T-Rex frozen in ice, it would not have a single viable cell in its body.

    As the best possible outside chance for making a living T-Rex, we might manage to get enough overlapping DNA fragments to piece them together, then manually generate a complete genome for the beastie. Allowing for that (IMO, physically possible if not technologically feasible yet) that, we would still need to get a few intact T-Rex mitochondria, which I suspect will not happen for the same reason we won't find a whole viable T-Rex cell - Namely, DNA breaks down at a relatively steady rate, and after 150 million years, you don't have many long runs of it left intact.

  42. Re:Jurassic Park by DrStrange66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    God creates dinosaur.
    God kills dinosaur.
    God creates man.
    Man kills God.
    Man creates dinosaur.
    Dinosaur eats man.
    Woman inherits the earth.

  43. Re:Uh oh. by mkmoose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Analogous to a geek that can turn on a chick

  44. Never mind cloning by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone keeps hearing "dinosaur dna" and thinking "cloning". That seems like a bit of a long shot. And I think concentrating on this is overlooking the real value here.

    If they find any dinosaur DNA just think of what could be done with that. Mostly what I'm thinking about here is ancestry analysis. Our understanding of the exact way evolutionary processes have behaved contains much that is based on similarity and guesswork. It seems if we could get solid information on what now-living organisms that dinosaurs were related to and to what extent-- or what dinosaurs were related to each other and how, if more soft tissue can be found in other fossils-- it seems this could verify science's understanding of paleobiology (sic?) and the evolutionary tree, or change it, in an unprecedented way. Has anything of this sort-- DNA from living tissue that old-- ever been found before, has there ever been any comparable way we have been able to perform genetic testing on a sample of that age?

    This is even aside from what that DNA and any found proteins can tell us about how dinosaurs looked and behaved...

    This is a really big deal.

  45. Re:So... by bckrispi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    |BZZZZZZZT!!!!| Wrong!!!

    The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to *closed* systems. This creationist "argument" was torn apart as soon as it was uttered.

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  46. I'll tell you how - Jesus is the answer by gosand · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm slightly skeptical. The article talks about soft tissue, but none of the scientists even try to explain how soft tissue could have survived for seventy million years?


    Ahh. This just proves that Evolution is BS, and that the earth is not hundreds of millions of years old. It is just a couple of thousand years old. Soft tissue could have lasted that long. In your FACE scientists. The dinosaurs were obviously killed in the crusades because they were dumb animals that didn't believe in Jesus. Duh.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  47. What Yahoo News doesn't mention by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Soft dinosaur tissue would be interesting if that's what it really is, but here's a quote from today's Science journal:

    "Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions
    that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in
    225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the
    nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of
    the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine
    organisms called graptolites have been recovered from
    440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely
    collagen--had not survived."

  48. Re:Jurassic Park by InternationalCow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice idea, that with the egg, but it will not work. Looks like most organisms require so-called maternal effect genes (Fruit flies do, nematodes do, and if they do, we usually do, too) for proper initial embryonic development. While these genes are usually highly conserved, I doubt whether the Ostrich/Monitor/Your_fav_reptile will have the proper set of maternal effect genes that have enough T-Rex sequence in them left to actually properly satisfy fore and aft (to begin with). And then there's a whole bunch of even more esoteric genetic reasons why this will not work. Don't get me started. If you do, I'll ramble on for several pages.

    --
    ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
  49. Re:Young earth by ulrikp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course, using logic isn't the strong suit of the ID\Young Earth\Creationism set anyway, so I fully predict those guys will show up here in force with a bunch of "I told you so" posts, mostly with out actually reading TFA.

    Oh, please.

    1. Intelligent Design people are normally not Young Earth people. The combination does exist, of course, but they are rare.
    2. If you've ever read any Young Earth literature, you will know that the Young Earth people do use logic as effectively as their opponents. They just point out that there are different, and in their opinion equally valid, interpretations of the data. See, for example, "Evolution -- The Fossils STILL say NO!" by Duane Gish, PhD, in which he says precisely what I have just said, then uses logic very effectively to show why he believes in a Young Earth -- from the fossil data, referring to other scientific publications on other matters of the Young Earth debate.
    3. If you've read any of William Dembski's work on intelligent design, you will know that he argues very cogently, coherently, and soundly logically in all that he writes.
    4. Attacking Intelligent Design people / Young Earth people / Creationists in the same sentence is disregarding their differences to the exclusion of sound logic within the same sentence.
    5. What you gave is an instance of an ad hominem argument, which, it is generally agreed, is not a valid argument.

    I am not a Young Earth person myself, but the above argument does not deserve to be labelled "Insightful".

  50. Dinosaurs lived in a higher oxygenated world. by Steve+Mitchell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One problem, even if it were feasible to clone a T-Rex (which mostly likely it isn't) there is the tiny fact that dinosaurs at the time lived in a higher oxygenated atmosphere. This made it possible for them to grow as large as they did.

    -Steve

    --
    -- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
  51. Oh, be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    C'mon, she's a nerd girl, she automatically gets a bonus for that. She's got nice legs. And archaeological digs tend to be out in the middle of nowhere and last for months and months with no other stimulation...what would you think then? Darn right.

  52. Panic over! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lab analysis reveals that that the soft tissue was a Chicken McNugget dropped by a site worker eating his lunch.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  53. Re:Jurassic Park by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

    The breakdown you are referring to happens when the cells split to form new cells. If the cells aren't multiplying, the DNA's not breaking down.

    No, you've read something into my statement that I did not intend. And somehow gotten an "Insightful" mod for it - Kudos!

    I refer to plain, ordinary entropy-obeying molecular breakdown. DNA slowly decays into less complex molecules over time, after the organism dies. IIRC, somewhere around 0.1% per millenium - Which sounds small but over the course of 150M years really adds up, making it pretty lucky to find evem a few thousand base pairs intact at a time.

  54. Gosh dang it all... by leonbrooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...I just can't decide whether that deserves a "+1 Funny" or a "+1 Insightful"

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing