Slashdot Mirror
Soft Tissue Discovered In T-Rex Bone
kubla2000 writes, "Paleontologists have discovered soft tissue inside the fossilized thigh bone of a T-Rex. The tissue included blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells." From the article: "When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue... was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible."
I for one welcome our...
...anyway...
*sigh*
within 10 years there will be an accident at a small island.....
Does this mean I can have a t-rex as a pet in a few years? Please?
The. Movies. Must. End. Here.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
Since I have first post (i think) .. I am going to ask .. was DNA preserved?
And the highly original question nobody else I'm sure would have thought to ask..
Can we create Jurassic park?
Now all we need to do is fill in the missing pieces of the DNA with frog DNA to make them sterile and we can have an amusement park! It worked well in the movies. Wait, how did that end? I suggest we send Bush, Britany Spears, K-Fed and Nancy Grace to open the park ;)
today is spelling optional day.
Creationists are going to have a field day with this.
Perhaps get Dolly the sheep to sign up as a surrogate mother?
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
Of course, this is nonsense. Even if evolution was wrong, their theory does not then win by default.
god put that bone there to test our faith!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Dude, this is a YEAR OLD! And slashdot ran this exact same story last year. Look at the dates on the pictures!
Credit: From Schweitzer et al., Science 307:1952-1955 (2005). Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
Geez!
I, for one, welcome our new Cretaceous overlords.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
This news over a year and a half old!! Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this found to be sensationalist the first time around?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...welcome our new genetically reconstituted T-Rex overlords!
Sorry I'm trying to quit, I'm down to just 20 obligatory messages a day and no I couldn't be bother to find the correct spelling of Tyrannosaurs.
Regaurds,
Phil
Regards, Phil
I wonder if it tastes like chicken. This could finally prove that everything ultimately does actually taste like chicken.
I'm a little confused here. They say they have soft tissue, but dna can't survise the 70 mil years. How can they have soft tissue withOUT dna?
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
chicken.
This is more like the recent bestseller "Tyrannosaur Canyon" by Douglas J Preston than it is like Jurassic Park. That book involves the discovery of a complete T Rex fossil with soft tissue.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Ross came and told us. Then he took Joey and they went to the movies. Monica had gone shopping and she met Racel at the pub. Chandller is out of town at the moment and phebe just left. I'm going to the pub soon.
"I don't believe this has much impact on creationism"
It doesn't. The OP is just trying to start another flame war.
I wonder if they found any Venus particles... :)
This begs the most abvious question. What does T-Rex tast like?
You make soup out of bones? Get it? T-Rex soup? Sigh, evermind...
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
This is a dupe.
Also, who the heck breaks an irreplacable multimillenially old object in two to fit it into a helicopter? It's almost as if they wanted to look inside for soft tissue...
If the tissue in a T-Rex's bone is all soft no wonder they became extinct!
Ba Dum Bum!!
now THIS would be a good reason to look into cloning
portfolio
If the soft tissue really is dino tissue, instead of a post-mortem parasite or something, then I would hope the act of breaking the bone did not disturb it (and why in the world is "not fitting in helo" a good reason to break such a priceless artifact anyway???). That tissue is a great source of biological residue, the goldmine being DNA. But it's very easy to contaminate ancient DNA, so I hope they were *really* *really* careful when they broke that bone (*cringes*) and loaded it for transport.
Quoth Slashdot article,
Have you ever seen a child brush their teeth? If it weren't for fragile bristles, there would be nothing left of the poor soul's mouth. That given, now all those matured (non-aborted) fetuses can get their revenge on this excavation site. It is my determination that the wonderful creationists are brushing history away as we speak. As an environmentalist, I am against this excavation! Someone needs to make these excavators stop pulling ancient ruins and decaying material from the natural environment. Soon, we will have none left for *sing* Future Generations(R) */sing* to excavate.
These said, it's the duty of all environmentalists around the world to plant skeletal remains of modern dead and decaying creations, to deter these creationists from finding the Holiest of relics. For the execution of these matters, I the Father of all that is naked and green due appoint Green Peace and their agents for any of the duties as needed to Cleric or Barrister the matter from causing further tresspass.
The Oath of Office shall acceptable and the office there derive be filled on the first Saturday at noon, and begin processing durring banking hours Monday through Friday nine o'clock in the morning until five o'clock after noon.
I am the nightmare of nightmares.
It must've been masturbating....
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
this was posted in March of 2005 on the BBC news page
. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577
Further lab analysis shows that this TRex died by rolling in breadcrumbs and jumping into a pool of boiling oil. Either that or a some one on the excatvation site dropped a chicken McNugget.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
you directly threatened the life of the president.
.. . yes.
with fictional reincarnated dinosaurs.
but still. a threat is a threat.
This is T-Rex, I know T-Rex!
This is just more proof that God put those fossils in our 6000 years Young Earth to confuse us. There's no way to preserve anything for millions of years. I mean, it's obvious. This is why Intelligent Design needs to be taught in schools. The truth is staring science in the face, and they refuse to see it!
/., I'm kidding.
Relax,
Does this mean we may expect a reunion album ?
Time to start cloning those babies and burying them.
How many bones sitting around in museums are preserved enough to contain soft tissue? Presumably this isn't incredible of a discovery. Do bones get routinely x-rayed when they're being cleaned up?
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
How is that a good reason?
http://outcampaign.org/
Its only a matter of time before the MPAA and the RIAA train these badboys to sniff out pirated CDs and DVDs and kill those who oppose them.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
That is a serious answer.
Fossils straight out of the field are really heavy and a T-Rex thigh bone is really big.
You can't just strap that kinda weight to (one of) a helicopter's skids, assuming the helicopter had skids. Worse, most helicopters don't have weight bearing mounts for attaching nets to do a lift operation.
Or maybe that's just standard procedure for paleontologists with really big fossils.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If scientists specializing in clausology are able to determine the exact mechanism by which the Claus Man is able to deliver all those gifts in a single night, we will have a solution to the world's energy problems.
That is the promise that study of Clausology holds out to all of mankind and people here are scoffing at it? I think they're astroturfers here on behalf of the oil industry...
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
They couldn't have gotten a larger helicopter or sling load it below the chopper? Geez they aren't very bright are they these sciencetist?
How does one break a T-Rex bone in the first place?
Of course it's a year old. I've been brushing up on my Unix skills, just in case. What about you?
What does T-Rex tast[e] like?
Duh.
Chicken.
Boy Slashdot sure is on a role lately. I've been seeing a lot of dupes and now here's one that's over a year old. What the hell are they smoking?
...Slashdot readers cracked open a fosillized story from a year ago and found that there was still a discussion going on.
More proof that the earth is only 3000 years old, and that Jesus would have supported the war in Iraq.
You get a velociraptor to bite it.
You slide so good with bones so fair
You've got the universe reclining in your hair
'Cos you're my baby, yes you're my love
Oh girl I'm just a jeepster for your love
Well, son, when a man and a sledgehammer love each other very much...
I read an article about soft tissue's being found in a T-Rex bone a year or so ago, is this the same article or did they find another bone with soft tissue??
Time to see if a few vegisauruss can be tasty. While I am not too wild about bringing back small dinosaurs, large ones may make sense. Far easier to find large ones as opposed to small ones.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nearly 6 years ago this was discovered. Wow is this ever late. Btw, didn't anyone think of the T. Rex? Think of the children, the T. Rex was pregnant!
But what about the discoverer of this? How is she doing with this controversy?
From Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery article in Discover Magazine published in April of 2006 you get some new information.
What is intresting is that the discoverer of this, Mary Higby Schweitzer, is an evangelical Christian in addition to being a paleontologist. That has got to do a number on you mentally.
I find it amusing that this was all discovered because someone thought the place smelled of cadavers and not stone. Add to that the name of the place, Hell Creek.
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
Uh, it looks to me like a piece of Chicken Tika that you can buy from Tescos or something...
Maybe thats why it looks so much like bird vessels - because its a chicken!
The way they described the soft tissue, it sounds like beef jerky.
Mmmm, T-Rex Jerky. I wonder if I can get it Hickory Smoked.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Oh, do please tell us all about it. We've all been curious for sooooooo long. We would really appreciate it if someone like you who has been there and back to tell us all about what to expect. Gee, thanks.
The article doesn't say HOW IT SMELLED!
:)
This is the key point - surely? If it were rotten, then it would smell bloody awful (pun intended), and there'd by no chance of any DNA surviving. But what if it DID NOT smell awful? Surely that's an immediate indication of preservation?
And if it did NOT smell, you'd only have a TINY window of opportunity to perform tests on it - before oxygen started to do its oxidising thing.
Personally, I'd start placing bets with reputable gambling houses in the U.K. that a dinosaur will re re-constituted from ancestral DNA before 2050.
I'm reminded of the line by Dr. Malcolm;
"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." See Signature.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Yeah, I am about 150 pages into that book and it's sitting on the coffee table right in front of me, waiting for me to take it into the throne room ....
Doesn't matter if it's soft inside..it's still scary as shit.
This weekend I had the opportunity to attend a brief lecture by the world renowned paleontologist Jack Horner. It was his team that made the discovery of this T-Rex which was actually discovered by a guy named Bob and thus he named it B-Rex! They did have a problem lifting the thigh bone from the sight so they did have to cut it and they did discover soft tissue; they also discovered that the dinosaur bones actually were more similar to the structure found in avains (birds, chickens, etc) after decalsifying the soft tissue they found blood vessels and inside the blood vessels they did find red blood cells.
From their discovery they were able to determine the sex of the dinosaur whose remains they had found (something to do with the build up of the bone and the soft tissue) - it was female. They also found that the bone structure had concentric circles much like a tree and thus they were able to tell the age of the dinosaur at the time of it's death (which was 18yrs old).
In the end he concluded that we would not be able to re-construct a dinosaur solely from the DNA found in the red blood cells since only a few of the DNA strands were intact enough to do a proper analysis and since chicken DNA has about a million different DNA strands that we'd be a long way from making a real dinosaur... not to mention that we do not currently have the know how on how to convert DNA into a living organism!
Unfortunately for the world, he hate them for breakfast.
But hey... he sprinkles diamonds on everything he eats cause it makes his doo doo twinkle!
thats kinda amazing that tissue soft can survive for that long
GI
I'm glad he did not do anything so stupid as to say "impossible".
The topic of "cloning from ancestral DNA" may be very difficult, and not possible with today's technology, or today's samples, but I think it is safe to say that people who label things "impossible" with no view to the future, are fools, and are proven wrong in time.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
T-Rex BBQ Grill
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
This news is old. See here for more details.
As someone who has worked with vertebrate fossils in the field before, it is generally far better to take a specimen and slice it in two for easier transport than it is to attempt to transport one ungainly specimen at far greater expense. In addition to getting a nice cross-section of the bone for study, you also avoid the very real possibility of pulverizing the bone in an accident. Remember this: cut fossils can always be glued back together, but grinded or crushed fossils are pretty much screwed.
...just don't let it drive a mini!
... but is from a March, 2005 article in Science magazine. Interesting, but still kind of old news here...
Are we talking like triple-ply soft tissue?
"Just because you're eloquent doesn't mean you aren't a fucking crackpot." -Wavebreak
Don't feed teh trolllllss!!2211
Olds for nerds, stuff that matters. I for one remember reading this about a year ago. WTF.
Well... it seemed a reasonable thing to ask. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter"
If they worked for me they would be long gone.
who would break a bone to fit into a helicopter?
There are different size helicopters.
Surely this bone is simply from an overfed chicken!
:P
Dinosaurs Do Not Exist. They would not have fit on Noah's Ark.
USA schools should no longer teach the infidels' blasphemy of 'Evil-ouu-sin'.
Creationism is proven by sooo many scientific discoveries.
These so called scientists should stop playing in dirt, and get back
to reading the One True Word!
a must have in any discussion.
i'll start:
http://blogs.cjb.net/votemania
Ok, work with me here...
Instead of filling in the holes with frog DNA, what would happen if we used the late Liberace's DNA? I can imagine immediate benefits to both zoological research and Vegas. Would we get, for instance:
(Thought experiment segues into dream sequence. Location: Mr. Newton's agent's office. We only hear the agent's end of the phone conversation in progress.)
"...but Wayne, baby...you know this is killing me as much as it's killing you! All I'm saying is that ya just can't get a paying gig in this town anymore unless you weight 6,000 pounds, are greenish-brown and can belt out show tunes on a Steinway. This Liberzilla fellow has just got the entire place by the short hairs! Listen--Wayne, sweetheart...I got an idea! I know this plastic surgeon, see, who also dabbles around with Human Growth Hormone...what's that? You know it, Kiddo, the stuff's illegal...but this is your career we're talking about! So hear me out here..."
(Dream sequence fast forwards 10 years ahead)
Slashdot headline:
Apple Calls It Quits on the iPod and iTunes
brontobassist writes,
(End Dream Sequence. End thought experiment.)
* * * * *
The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money.
—Ed Bluestone
Yes, in Jurassic Park they used frog DNA. I never did figure out why.
Dinosaurs (Greek for "monstrous lizards") were reptiles. Frogs are amphibians. Isn't a modern reptile, like an alligator, more closely related to dinosaurs, and thus its DNA is better suited for filling the gaps, than a frog's DNA?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I'm glad to see Slashdot's on the cutting edge of science with this ~18-month-old dupe.
That about sums it up for me, too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
... even allowing very limited numbers of faithful Clausian children and very limited stop-times, the trip has to be made far faster than the speed of light to cover the many houses involved.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
10 bucks says it has feathers when it's cloned.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
...and actually quite a messy one, when you get down to the details.
For example, the presents under the tree and the balls dangling from it are echoes of sacrifices to pagan tree-gods, bodies & heads of enemies draped around their trees to propitiate them.
In fact, given the number of messy parts available, I'm actually amazed that we don't get into it in discussion.
The tree itself is associated with the pagan god Nimrod; traditionally it sprang from the dead stump of his father, Tammuz. In Rome, it was decorated with berries during the time of Saturnalia... & so on. Likewise for wreaths & we have pagan Yuletide etc for the Yule log. Oh, yes, the drunken festivities which attended the kissing of the mistletoe... & a few other things.
The history of some of these ceremonies is so messy that I can't see how SlashDotters avoid being tempted into discussing them.
Creation, on the other hand, is a grand, sweeping & even messier tale. Oceans & later whole classes of plants & animals founded in a day apiece & the whole world died (except for one Ark-full) at one step, to make a kind of re-creation for Noah with his crew. Very little paganism in comparison, but broader & more glamorous themes overall.
Plus the descriptions are kind of summary, leaving lots of room for speculation.
And you get to upset far more people discussing it than merely following the assorted paganisms.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you could get a copy of that lecture and put it on line it would be _great_.
Please to _not_ jump to the conclusion that DNA analysis will be futile. IMHO, quite the opposite.
In all liklihood, if we have ANY DNA available it will be a miracle. However if there is some, then the "some" will vary from cell to cell.
Thus if we map a large enough number of cells we can eventually build up the genome.
In seismic its called "stacking". You take a noisy blurry picture that you sample many times over and you "stack" it. The noise cancels. You are left with the picture.
Similarly, if you find any DNA at all, then if this is a fragment of what was in the cell to start with, and you have part of the picture.
These fragments will overlap and from these overlaps you will eventually be able to make perhaps even a complete picture. An example of this process is "diff" which most here will recognise as a programmers tool.
DNA is programming. Its molecular programming, but it is still programming.
What makes me quiver is the idea that we might be able to build up the DNA patterns by painstakingly replicating the DNA in each isolated cell and then stitching these DNA fragments together by matching the common parts of fragments found in different cells. It would be worse than putting together a jigsaw puzzle with the picture face down on the table... but it should be doable.
I suspect we will be able to tell that Dinos and Birds are, if not close cousins, then perhaps close 2nd cousins. In fact the birds by even be decendants. If decendants, then one would expect large amounts of dino DNA may still be found in bird DNA... and that it is just inactive or that its function is modified. The cell is a rather promiscous DNA xerox machine.
To go way out on a limb... if we can sequence the DNA and stitch it together, then we may be able to find living cells with a biochemistry close enough to Dino DNA that we can in fact make a working cell. Clearly we would be inserting artificial DNA into a cell. But it doesn't matter where the DNA comes from and how it came about - what matters is the proper sequence of DNA bases.
This is clearly along the idea that if you put enough monkeys in front of typewriters that they would create Shakespear's sonnets.
Well - the DNA stitching won't be random. The question is how much of the original picture is still preserved.
Every cell is a copy of every other cell in a given individual. As cells specialize they turn off some of the DNA. The DNA is still there.
Maybe some day we will actually be able to create a working Dino cell. Creataceous park... HERE WE GO!
Its an old story. I read the previous slashdot story last year. Probably our editors were bored on a Sunday morning and wanted to see if we would remember. Criticisms aside... your update is interesting.
So.. what progress has been made in the DNA studies?
...forcing their children to believe in nothing.
Naturally.
It's hard work. You have no idea how thin "Things just happen" gets as an explanation.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
> This is clearly along the idea that if you put enough monkeys in front of typewriters that they would create Shakespear's sonnets.
:)
Um, I think the Internet has clearly debunked that hypothesis about the monkeys and Shakespeare...
The Schwietzer saga has drug on for years now. Her most recent discovery promotes a lot of creationist nonsense that I refuted in Dino Blood Redux.
.. like chicken ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I'm a bit skeptical about this report. It just doesn't add up to me. This is the report: "This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible." I don't really think tissue of that type could survive 70,000,000 years. Also, since when are bone cells soft tissue? Would there be blood vessels inside a bone?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Even if this report is good science, how is it news? It was reported in March, 2005, a year and a half ago. See, e.g., Reuters and National Geographic reports from March, 2005.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
At the risk of being modded to death... it's funny that the fossilization was just on the outside. How's THIS for a "crackpot theory"? Say the bone isn't as old as we are all presuming. Say, instead of being 65 million years old, it's only 30 million, or any appreciable amount of time AFTER what is accepted as the "dinosaur killer" asteroid that hit about 65 million years ago? That would automatically mean that at least SOME of them survived for MILLIONS of years after the impact. This would also lend some more creedence to the stray stories coming out of South America of creatures that match descriptions of long dead dinosaurs. How's this for something else to think on... the Coleanth? Supposedly extinct for over 300 million years (granted, being a fish, it would have a higher chance of survival after the impact than a land creature) and they catch one on a fishing boat in 1935. Just some things to think about...
Stone
HAH HAH
WHAT
IMPEACH XENU
I like this article on this matter: Ancient Dinosaur Depictions (Basic claim of this article is that there is a lot of evidence that dinosaurs and man co-existed.)
ps. I havn't read other articles on that site, only this one, so I don't know of their quality.
...the dinosaur barbecues you.
that's how we do it in germany: http://www.ochsenbraterei.de/de/galerie/id/002/ :)
well, bavaria, actually. yes, that's a whole bull on there. takes about 5 hours to finish
Wasn't this the same group of scientists that discovered a B52 bomber on the dark side of the moon?
TASTES LIKE CHICKEN!
But even then it would depend on how the concept of a "genetic clone" is seen by Talmudic lore.
... when you, after identifying a story as a dupe on /., you go through all the OLD posts again to compare them to the new ones ;-)
Really? I have found the complete works of Shakespear on the internet. So therefore it has been proven and not disproven.
Since we're on the OT thread of taste...
So two cannibals are eating a clown when one says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?"
We've got the computing power and biotechnology, I wanna go to Jurassic Park!!!
Seriously, I had enough of "Get it on" and "Jeepster"! We don't need more of that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Rex_(band)
The term you might be seeking is agnostic. Yes! Agnostic apathy or Apathetic Agnosticism. They harbor no belief one way or the other and do not particulary care which is the "TRUTH". They spend less time wondering if their socks color co-ordinate with their shirt, it's THAT unimportant, no leaps required.
... "juicy!"
-- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
I am working on a screenplay of this very same topic. It is called "Billy and the Cloneasaurus."
I seem to remember this information coming to light about a year or more ago. In fact, here is a MSNBC article on it from March '05.
Did I miss something?
Bueller... Bueller?
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
I am not religious, so please don't take this the wrong way. But why must we assume that our theories of soft-tissue preservation are incorrect, rather than our theories of radio carbon-dating fossils?
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
Unless I'm mistaken, this story was already featured on /. well over a year ago.
But thanks for the reminder. I sure hope at least one copy of the thing's DNA survived. I wanna ride a T-Rex!! (inside joke--ask my D&D buds, or don't)
No. Diff is used for comparing different versions of at text-file. If you want to reconstruct a file from overlapping individual pieces, you need a different tool.
Well, it might be, and it might not be. Before the digital computers, people speculated that the function of the brain might be emulated by a giant switchboard (or gears and pulleys) (linky). While a switchboard is somewhat like a digital computer, it is not the same thing. And while a computer is somewhat like a brain, they may not be the same. Similarly, DNA has some aspects that look like programming (which we are used to), but it isn't therefore necessarily the same. It's just that it's a human tendency to look for similarities in operation, when we do not understand it.
This isn't exactly a very surprising prediction. According to modern evolutionary classification, birds are dinosaurs. Just like apes are mammals. I fail to see why you would expect "inactive dino-DNA" in birds. Why must it be inactive? After all, birds are dinosaurs. It would be like expecting to find "inactive mammal-DNA" in apes. We don't, apes are mammals!
Furthermore, in evolutionary theory, we don't speak about "cousins". Either one species is a descendant from some other species, or it is not. For convenience, we group animals that are descendants from the same species, together in groups; such as mammals, insects, etc... We do not call them siblings (you are a sibling of tuna-fish), since it conveys little meaning. In that case, it would be better to say explicitly which animal you both descend from, or lacking that information, to postulize that it exists, and come up with a name for the group (e.g. Chordata, although there are probably closer groups). In view of this, calling evolutionary groups "cousins" conveys no meaning at all.
No, it is not analogous. Stitching DNA together is analogous to solving a jigsaw puzzle (as you yourself suggested). Getting monkeys to write Shakespeare is analogous to throwing a dice and coming up with the right answer. The two ideas are clearly distinct.
No. Every cell is a copy of exactly one cell (with the exception of the fusion of an egg and sperm cell). That is why it is called cell division
In response to some requests: the lecture was "How to Make a Dinosaur"
n g/index.htm
:)
I happen to look it up and found this: http://www.unmuseum.org/dnadino.htm
Here is yet another interesting link: http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/97/cloni
---
I wonder what dyno-burgers taste like
The lecture was conducted in a very informal fashion; there were no hand outs or slide shows to download but I did manage to find this for you: http://www.unmuseum.org/dnadino.htm
I read the above article at unmuseum and it represents the meat of the lecture...
So where are the t-rex clones? Soft tissue == DNA available.