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."

24 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Welcome back! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our...

    *sigh* ...anyway...

    1. Re:Welcome back! by Cold-NiTe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meme's aside, rather than welcoming the usual overlords, I'm just going to say that I welcome the opportunity to add Tyrannosaur meat to my next barbecue. Let's start cloning these things soon, guys. Dinner's waiting.

      --
      Ever get the feeling that the people who don't have anything to say are the ones doing the majority of the talking?
    2. Re:Welcome back! by WgT2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      T-Rex: It's what's for dinner!

      T-Rex-Bone steak anyone?

    3. Re:Welcome back! by BlindFate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do not let them put a rack of T-Rex ribs on your car, it'll tip over.

    4. Re:Welcome back! by NoMaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      I welcome the opportunity to add Tyrannosaur meat to my next barbecue.
      Jurassic Pork?

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  2. PLEASE don't tell Michael Chrichton! by solitas · · Score: 5, Funny

    The. Movies. Must. End. Here.

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  3. Obligatory Jurrasic Park by ruiner13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Obligatory Jurrasic Park by g2devi · · Score: 4, Funny

      The full story is explained here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDckbqhpW8

  4. duh by nih · · Score: 5, Funny

    god put that bone there to test our faith!

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  5. OLD Repost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:OLD Repost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This story has in fact been posted twice before:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/2 4/2116258
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 4/2012256

      I'm looking forward to future news stories about the impending release of Windows 95 and the announcement of the Apple Mac's shift to the PPC platform from the m68k.

    2. Re:OLD Repost! by Criceratops · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news:

      Fossilized Slashdot Headlines Presented As Fresh News

      --
      crappy triceratops
    3. Re:OLD Repost! by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's a year? That bone is old. Really old. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly old it is. You may think that it's a long time between dupes on Slashdot, but that's peanuts compared to the age of this bone...

  6. Makes you wonder by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You know, it really makes you wonder what sort of discoveries we miss out on because we take so much care to preserve the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T do that...I'm just saying that this is a perfect example of the sorts of spectacular discoveries we make when we break things a little. I know we have scanners that are getting pretty powerful these days...do we have any that can detect this sort of soft tissue beneath the bone? If so I think they should be standard equipment on any paleontological dig.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  7. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In your obvious haste to be first to point this out you clearly just linked to the first source you found on a simple search, which is a nutty creationist website. How about a slightly less wacky news source?

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  8. It depends on how it died.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. Re:Oh Boy... by freeweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, we don't start discussing whether Santa Claus exists every time a Christmas related story pops up, why do we talk about creationism?

    Because there's no large group of people out there that actually believe Santa Claus exists, and are trying to force our children to be taught that "Clausology" is a scientific theory?

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  10. Re:soft tissue, no DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    DNA isn't an especially robust molecule. It probably didn't survive that long. It is prone to a variety of reactions that will degrade it over time relatively quickly. Though it was originally thought to survive much longer, DNA older than a million years is now considered pretty dubious, and is likely contamination from other sources, such as soil microbes, or it is degraded fragments with no meaningful signal left in them (e.g., older DNA extracted from fossils tens of millions of years old contains roughly equal left and right amino acids, whereas living tissues contain all left ones, implying the DNA has been severely degraded). Previous discoveries from fossils tens of millions of years old (e.g., from old amber) have proven unreproducible. There's a good review in this PDF format paper by Hofreiter et al., 2001.

    By contrast, some organic molecules, such as collagen, are much more durable than DNA, and could plausibly survive much longer in the right conditions, such as if embedded in the minerals that form bone. This general fact has been known for a long time (those papers are from the 1960s and are both PDFs), though how old such remains might ultimately be found is still uncertain. Also, even if the organic molecules were severely degraded, it doesn't mean they vanish completely -- some degraded C-bearing organic residue might remain as long as it wasn't dissolved away, and it could still preserve the shape of the original tissues, even if it wasn't compositionally the same anymore.

    Some organic molecules are extraordinarily durable and occur as fossils routinely. The sporopollenin that forms the cell wall of spores and pollen is like the "plastic garbage bag" of organic materials. It can survive multiple passages through the digestive system of animals, and still be intact. Fossil pollen and spores are often recovered from sedimentary rocks essentially unchanged, except for a bit of thermal alteration, and geologists use potent acids like concentrated HCl and HF to dissolve the minerals away, but the pollen and spores are untouched!

    Finally, even if the organic molecules themselves get destroyed (e.g., it isn't, say, collagen anymore), minerals could precipitate in contact with the soft tissues and preserve their shape at microscopic scale. The soft tissue isn't actully there, but the structure is. Such preservation is rare, but is known for other types of soft tissues in an older dinosaur (the linked example of the dinosaur Scipionyx does show soft-tissue structures, such as intestines, but they are all mineralized).

  11. Re:wow, youre under arrest! by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only terrorists want the president eaten by fictional dinosaurs!

  12. Re:Oh Boy... by skroz · · Score: 4, Funny
    Because there's no large group of people out there that actually believe Santa Claus exists

    Oh yeah? Then who are all of those people I line up with every year to see him at the mall? HMM??? You've tried to put us down for years with all of your "facts" and "science," but we all know the truth.

    Keep talking like that, mister, and you're going to find a lump of coal in your stocking this year...
    --
    -- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
  13. Re:DNA by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RTFA. They haven't found any DNA and said that scientists don't believe that DNA can last 7 million years so they don't expect to find any.

    How about this, RTFParagraph.

    Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

    This discovery has shown that "most scientists" can be wrong. So it's quite possible that they're wrong about how long DNA can last.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  14. Update: Soft Tissue Discovered In T-Rex Bone by juanhf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  15. Re:Oh Boy... by koreth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No atheist I know takes their kids to atheist Sunday school at the local atheist anti-church, or enrolls their kids in There-Is-No-Jesus Camp, or forces their kids to close their eyes and say "lack of grace" before a meal, or reads from illustrated children's books of tales from "The Blind Watchmaker" at bedtime, or sends their kids to atheist school where they have to spend time in non-catechism class.

    Claiming both atheists and Christians indoctrinate their kids to the same degree is as ludicrous as claiming the same thing about, say, mainstream Christians and the Muslim parents who send their kids to madras schools. One doesn't have to have any particular religious persuasion to see that teaching kids a relatively complex narrative (the old and new testaments) requires more time and effort on the parts of parents than not teaching them the narrative.