Dinosaur Fossil Found With Preserved Soft Tissue

damn_registrars writes "A fossilized hadrosaur has been uncovered in South Dakota that has preserved soft tissue. This is described as a "mummified" dinosaur, and allows for a look at the skin and musculature of some parts of this animal. The find was reported by a 24 year old Yale graduate student of paleontology."

Comments

Question

[Major Blud]

According to the FTA, the find was originally located in 1999, and partially excavated in 2004 with a full investigation commencing in 2006. Having never studied archeology or paleontology, is it common for sites like this to be passed by even though there is something located there?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is stuff located EVERYWHERE. The problem is that not a whole lot of it is preserved very well, if at all. The problem is identifying exactly what it is you are looking at.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Dinosaurs can be big. Really big. I mean, you may think ...

Oh, wait, wrong analogy. Seriously though, the phrase that is most relevant to answering your question is in the article: "10-ton block", plus another 4 tons, which they whittled down to "only" 5 tons in total. This is not your usual fossil extraction task. It can take significant money and time to set up what is needed to excavate a find that big, you have to transport it, and you have to find a spot for it back in the lab after you do extract it. This is back-breaking, painstaking work, and getting together a big enough chain gang^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I mean group of volunteers to do the job isn't always easy, especially when there may be a dozen other sites in the region where excavations are already under way, and to which the resources you have are already allocated. So, sometimes a site gets marked with its GPS coordinates and hidden until the resources are available. Also, sometimes you have to start the excavation before you really realize the importance of what you have found. That seems to be the case for this specimen, based on the comments in the article. They didn't originally realize how special it was.

So, yeah, what you describe is common, especially in areas that are both remote and prolific, and especially for large dinosaur specimens. It can take years.

Re:Question

[phillips321]

Here's some images if your interested:
http://forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1196708017
http://forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1196708075

Re:Question

[osu-neko]

According to the FTA, the find was originally located in 1999, and partially excavated in 2004 with a full investigation commencing in 2006. Having never studied archeology or paleontology, is it common for sites like this to be passed by even though there is something located there?

I don't think it's a matter of being "passed by" as much as this is how long it takes with all available resources being devoted to it. This is the United States we're talking about -- basic science doesn't get funded unless there's a corporation that sees a potential for profit in it. :p

Re:Question

[Cedric Tsui]

According to an archeology professor of mine at Queen's University, this is very common. Excavation is a slow process, and one which is dependent on the weather. Furthermore, it is a funding intensive project.

You find a site, then you apply for funding. When you get your funding, you start the dig. Generally you only get the summer as rain, snow or ice can damage artifact and generally make digging harder. At the end of the digging season, you place some sort of modern marker at the edges and bottom of the trench (my professor used soda cans) and fill them in until the next time you can come back.

If your site proves to be interesting, you can get the funding renewed for another summer, and as a rule of thumb they give you funding every 2 years. This allows the funding to be spread out over a wider range of projects, and ensures the scientists have the time to publish what they found during the excavation.

Re:Question

[Major Blud]

"my professor used soda cans" Does that really work? If I saw something like that the first thing would come to mind is "litter" and probably put it in the trash.

Re:Question

[Headw1nd]

The cans he's talking about are buried at the edges of the excavation as it's being filled in, in order to define the limits of the previous trench. Then when you come back the next year you can quickly remove your fill dirt. The idea is to use something unmistakably modern (i.e. not a rock). You wouldn't pick them up unless you were digging at the site. If you're digging for litter, well, I admire your dedication, but you're being overzealous.

Re:Question

[petermgreen]

presumbablly you know what to look for as a marker because either your team put it there or the team who dug it last time told you what it was.

the important bit is it is an obvious marker to tell you when to switch from backfill removal to archeological excavation.

Re:Question

[shadowbearer]

  Some of us who go hiking in remote areas do pick up whatever litter we can transport. We don't consider it overzealous, we consider it garbage collection. Since the large majority of litter in public parks nowadays is cigarette butts, aluminum cans, or paper, one can carry an amazing amount of it.

  That said, if he marked them clearly as a dig, he'd probably get people who'd take the markers anyway. But even in remote parts of the Badlands, there are soda cans laying around. Just go there once after a Sturgis rally.

SB

Re:Question

[petermgreen]

Some of us who go hiking in remote areas do pick up whatever litter we can transport
Sure you may pick up stuff you find on the surface but I doubt you go digging for it.

Re:Question

[Icarus1919]

Psh, graduate students are basically slaves. Just make them carry it.

Re:Question

[fmoliveira]

Why the hurry? It's been there for millions of years, it's not like it's going anywhere.

Re:Question

[maroberts]

One does ask why, having found a fossil, they don't erect a large tent over the site, in the same way they do for forensic investigations.

Re:Question

[Cedric Tsui]

You're leaving the site for an unknown period of time which will span at least half a year. The trench would fill with water, and go through a bunch of freeze thaw cycles.

Now, we could presume to seal it with a really nice tent, but really. It's survived millions of years in the ground. One more year won't make any difference.

North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[eldavojohn]

First line of the summary:

A fossilized hadrosaur has been uncovered in South Dakota that has preserved soft tissue. First line of the article:

A high school student hunting fossils in the badlands of his native North Dakota discovered an extremely rare mummified dinosaur that includes not just bones but also seldom seen fossilized soft tissue such as skin and muscles, scientists will announce today. For those of you who have not visited both North & South Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place. The submitter was probably confused as the belief that nothing comes from North Dakota is a well known fact. However, this news and fossil flies right in the face of that so I have to rework my post graduate thesis on black holes--it seems information can escape.

Also, since I just watched Bender's Big Score repeatedly, "It's DOLOMITE, baby!"

You see, beneath the fossil's crunchy, mineral shell, there's still a creamy core of hadrosaur nougat!

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[gEvil (beta)]

Oh sure. Next I suppose you're going to try to convince us that there's a NEW Mexico. I'm not falling for that one again...

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[San-LC]

I believe it's Dolemite, baby. And, in proper Jurassic Park form: "Uh-uh-uh, you didn't say the magic word."

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of you who have not visited both North & South Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place. I know but it is hard to tell the difference sometimes. For orientation I use the fact that North Dakota has a giant cow on a hill and that South Dakota has a couple of dead Presidents on a hill. It helps except when you are not near either.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Jesus_666]

There was, in the early nineties. It didn't work out and they had to re-release Classic Mexico. It was the biggest failure of the North American nation industry until the Crystal Canada fiasco.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, what a farce that was. To think that they could just push their so-called "Classic Mexico" on an unsuspecting populace without comment.
The real truth is that the formula for "Classic Mexico" was stolen after the 1988 infiltration by the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, leading to the mad scramble to come up with "New Mexico".
Puh-leez.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[everphilski]

They are, in fact, not the same place.

Yeah, but its hard to tell when its covered in snow, it all looks the same.
(I jest, my family lives in SD, my brother goes to school in ND ... I'm relatively familiar with both).

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe it's Dolemite, baby."

No, it's dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). It's a mineral named after the Déodat de Dolomieu. But according to the article about the dinosaur, which mentions the way the specimen is preserved, "It's SIDERITE, baby!", which is iron carbonate.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[dannannan]

This is not the first time they've found soft dinosaur tissue in the Dakotas. Maybe the submitter was confusing this with an earlier soft tissue find in South Dakota.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[damn_registrars]

For those of you who have not visited both North & South Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place.
Actually, I have visited them both - though never in the same trip (I grew up in Minnesota).

But can anyone explain why there is a North Dakota and a South Dakota?

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[TheoMurpse]

It's DOLOMITE, baby!

Personally, I was hoping for an edible hadrosaur a la Emperor Nimbala, former ruler of Zuben 5!

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[CmdrGravy]

Whereas the Dolemite thrives in overheated, dirty, loud environments with lots of children and feeds on the acne and dead skin of it's human hosts. This cunning mite has evolved a secretion which endows it's human hosts with an over inflated opinion of their "rights" and an unwillingness to go out and seek work when they live off the proceeds of child benefits and petty theft. Thus does it ensure the longevity of it's environment for it's future generations.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Like2Byte]

My father once quipped, "If Indiana didn't suck so bad it'd be hurled into space!"

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[pavon]

It was the biggest failure of the North American nation industry until the Crystal Canada fiasco. Hey, I liked Crystal Canada!

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuba Gold was where it's at.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Trails]

Actually, I have visited them both - though never in the same trip

So you're saying that South Dakota is just North Dakota dressed up and pretending to be cool? (well, cooler at any rate) In other words, North Dakota is the Polkaroo! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polkaroo#Polkaroo )

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Chrutil]

For those of you who have not visited both North & South Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place. The submitter was probably confused as the belief that nothing comes from North Dakota is a well known fact. However, this news and fossil flies right in the face of that so I have to rework my post graduate thesis on black holes--it seems information can escape.

No, you were right from the beginning. This information lack substance, and is thus oblivius to the gravitational pull of a back hole.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[tcolberg]

It just reminds me about the running issue/joke on The West Wing about how whenever a WH character ran into someone from North Dakota, the issue of changing N. Dakota's name to some thing less "cold-sounding" would come up.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[ari_j]

As a North Dakotan, I read about this find earlier today and was looking for a comment like yours to see if I had to write my own. I wish that our foreign enemies whose primary complaint is that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world could understand that it's just a vocal minority (majority? ... I'm not ready to be that cynical, just yet) of Americans who are ignorant of the entire world, including the most basic facts about their own nation.

For what it's worth, North Dakotans are as unaware that Virginia and the Carolinas are not the "East Coast," for instance, as the rest of the country is that North Dakota is a paleontologist's playground.

For those who aren't reading the article, you should, as it's a great story that everyone reading Slashdot dreamed about happening for himself all through his childhood. For those unwilling to read it, here's a capsule summary: A high school student in North Dakota found dinosaur bits in the Badlands and not much happened right away, but he was re-inspired to become a paleontologist. Now, as a Yale graduate student, he has come back to take another look, and a few years of digging later he has dug up the best specimen of a mummified dinosaur ever unearthed anywhere in the world.

This is just about exactly what nerds live for.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[TaleSpinner]

> For those of you who have not visited both North & South
> Dakota, I have. They are, in fact, not the same place.

How can you tell?

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[__aahmnf219]

GPS data, of course, backed up with sextants. We're nerds here, after all.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[dryeo]

Politics, by splitting Dakota in two they got twice as many senators.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[RealGrouchy]

Wait long enough, and the whole continent will be Slurm.

- RG>

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Anonymous Coward]

New Mexico exists -- capital city is Old York.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Nutria]

For what it's worth, North Dakotans are as unaware that Virginia and the Carolinas are not the "East Coast," for instance, as the rest of the country is that North Dakota is a paleontologist's playground.

Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that Virginia and the Carolinas do not border the Atlantic Ocean? Or are you trying to be too grammatically clever with the double negatives?

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[ari_j]

"East Coast" is a proper noun that, in the South, including most of Virginia, denominates a culture that is distinct from that of the South. I have been personally yelled at for making this error in terminology, so I know that at least some Virginians are very passionate about the distinction.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[Nutria]

"East Coast" is a proper noun that, in the South, including most of Virginia, denominates a culture that is distinct from that of the South. I have been personally yelled at for making this error in terminology, so I know that at least some Virginians are very passionate about the distinction.

Well, ok. But there are a lot of East Coast Liberals moving to VA (and NC, too), especially Northern Virginia. It's turning more East Cost every day.

Re:North Dakota, Not South Dakota

[ari_j]

NoVa sure is, but it shouldn't take long in Richmond or Norfolk or even Roanoke or Harrisonburg to see that the line hasn't moved far.

Well, damn

[Daniel Dvorkin]

From the summary, I was hoping it would be actual dinosaur jerky. But it's actually fossilized tissue -- neat, and a rare find, but not enough for any actual biochemistry.

Re:Well, damn

[nacturation]

Well what if we paid $999 for a complete DNA scan and sent it in?

Re:Well, damn

[damn_registrars]

Well what if we paid $999 for a complete DNA scan and sent it in?
I'm afraid it was already done on a T. Rex a few years ago...

The Wellcome Trust at the Sanger Institute Present the T. Rex International Paleontonomics Experiment

Re:Well, damn

[damn_registrars]

And yes, that was a joke. Notice the acronym spells out "TRIPE". If the original was still available, you'd find that they described it coming from a fossilized big toe found under a tree stump by Dr. Ross Geller. They even described genes such as "TINYBRAIN" for the animal, though it was all just an April Fool's joke (notice that it also says 1 April 2003).

Re:Well, damn

[murderlegendre]

Do you really want to learn once and for all how a dinosaur runs? If this isn't the best $999 DNA scan you've ever used, I'll return your money.

Try my product.

No clone wars

[oboreruhito]

RTFA. There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

Although it is described as "mummified," the 65 million-year-old duckbilled dinosaur that scientists have named Dakota bears no similarity to the leather-skinned human mummies retrieved from ancient tombs in Egypt. Time long ago transformed Dakota's soft tissue into mineralized rock, preserving it for the ages.

"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University.

Re:No clone wars

[charlesbakerharris]

That's okay. I have some dinosaur DNA in my freezer if they really need some.

Re:No clone wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you telling to RTFA??? You're not responding to anyone, and the summary says nothing about DNA.

Re:No clone wars

[mpe]

There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

It is a very useful find however. Since it enables techniques such as working out muscles from their attachment points to the bones to be refined. As well as examination of such tissues can show how these extinct animals are related to ones which exist now.

Re:No clone wars

[Selfbain]

But fossilized is hardly what I would called 'preserved'. I wouldn't eat a jar of fossilized jam.

Re:No clone wars

[oboreruhito]

It is a very useful find however.

I don't disagree, but that's because I also read the article.

This is just yet another incorrect /. article, straight down to the snarky, Star Wars-referencing department line Taco put on it.

Re:No clone wars

[oboreruhito]

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday December 03, @10:23AM from the begun-the-clone-wars-have dept.

Re:No clone wars

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

The summary implies that there is soft tissue. There isn't any. There are mineral structures representing what the soft tissue would have looked like, and that is it.

Re:No clone wars

[camg188]

Unfortunately, the article used the term "mummified". Mummification != fossilization. But I understand that reporting of even the most elementary scientific subjects is dumbed down for mass publication (and probably for the reporters and editors themselves).

Re:No clone wars

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University. The Gorgons did it.

I'm sure this particular interpretation would drive the ID people wild. Sure, humans and dinosaurs might have coexisted, but Hades is going to punish them in the afterlife for not believing in the right gods.

Re:No clone wars

[Soothh]

You know whats funny, the space scientists (from a show I saw yesterday on discovery) say the whole universe is only 12 billion years old.

So is science so jacked up that they have THAT much of a difference?

Yet noone can believe this book we have that lays it all out for us.

"Scientists that go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the
story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not
have one iota of fact."
Dr. Newton Tomasian, scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission

Re:No clone wars

[abigor]

Strange, I only get two hits "Newton Tomasian", and they are both Biblical sites. So I'd say this is not a real person.

Anyway, why would a "scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission" know anything about biological evolution, or biological processes in general? Your whole post is idiotic.

Re:No clone wars

[Soothh]

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the
history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, how did this
ever happen?"
Soren Luthrup, Swedish embryologist

"This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the
counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Sir Isaac Newton

Is newton not a real person either?

Re:No clone wars

[wdnsdy]

"Deuteronomy? Oh I was pissed when I wrote that too. Bugger away, gents! Billions of years, but it felt like seven days, amirite?! Eheheheh. Hmm." God

Re:No clone wars

[ultranova]

RTFA. There's no DNA; the fossilization process was fast enough to fossilize soft tissue. It's not organic material.

Yes, but all you have to do is cast Stone to Flesh on the fossil to bring it back to life. Quickly, before they release the Fourth Edition of D&D, for you never know if this particular spell will be removed !

Re:No clone wars

[Metrol]

scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission

Would have been really nifty if you had quoted someone with a background in biology. You'd still be a bit of a kook, but it would have been nifty just the same.

teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men

On this point I think most people would agree. Not knowing the difference between a "theory" and a "fact" would tend to cause one to question the knowledge of said teacher.

Yet noone can believe this book we have that lays it all out for us.

Cool! So you have "facts" to present that back up your book's claims? I'm sure all of slashdot would love to hear about them.

Re:No clone wars

[Copid]

Is newton not a real person either?

I'd like to point out that I am against both antibiotics and the refrigeration of meat and dairy products, as Newton did not come out in favor of either one. Relativity blows too.

Re:No clone wars

[MightyMartian]

Cherry picking for the exceedingly small number of scientists who might (if their words aren't being taken out of context, of course) not accept evolution is a laughable, and ultimately self-defeating exercise, because, of course, the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept evolution. If it's just a competition of lists, then evolution so thoroughly defeats the evolutionary pseudo-skeptics that one would think quoting them would be an embarassment. But not to worry, evolution deniers are so far down the path of intellectual depravity that they no longer recognize humiliation.

As to Sir Isaac Newton, quoting scientists who lived long before evolutionary theory even existed is pretty silly. I mean, are you going to use Newton in arguments against Quantum Mechanics or string theory? Oh, and nothing in that quote actually falsifies evolution. Evolution has nothing to say on God, and it's conceivable that God used evolutonary forces to shape life, though that, of course, is not science, but theology.

So grow up. Evolution is a fact.

Re:No clone wars

[Anonymous Coward]

You know whats funny, the space scientists (from a show I saw yesterday on discovery) say the whole universe is only 12 billion years old. So is science so jacked up that they have THAT much of a difference?

I'm not sure I understand the joke. Assuming the universe is 12 billion years old, and this fossil is 65 million years old, that means that the universe was 11.935 billion years old when this fossil was created. What's "jacked up" about that?

Is 11.935 billion a funny number?

Re:No clone wars

[Soothh]

http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_11/11cc_247-254.htm

Ok, try this biologist's view then.

molecular biology, organismal biology, environmental biology, and human biology.

Re:No clone wars

[Copid]

Ok, try this biologist's view then.

molecular biology, organismal biology, environmental biology, and human biology.

Are you actually reading this shit before posting it? Googling around shows two L J Gibsons who might have written the paper, and neither of them is a biologist--certainly not one whose background would include a significant understanding of the fossil record or genetics. That's really beside the point, though. If you dig hard enough, you'll probably be able to find one or two crank biologists who will support your position. You'll probably succeed in quote mining a good biologist before you succeed in that.

The bottom line, though, is that you'll probably only succeed in trotting out more long-refuted creationist talking points. No new information? No transitional fossils? Seriously? Try this: What's the single most compelling piece of evidence that you have in favor of your position that you are able to argue without resorting to appeals to scientists who died before Darwin or people who have no real knowledge of evolutionary biology?

Re:No clone wars

[Soothh]

Let me just ask you this, do you REALLY believe that all life came by accident? out of nothing???

Re:No clone wars

[Copid]

Let me just ask you this, do you REALLY believe that all life came by accident? out of nothing???

"Accident" and "nothing" really aren't meaningful in this context. Are we talking about evolution or cosmology here? As far as I can see, your objections to evolution are probably twofold: 1) My guess is that you have a strong religious predisposition against it. 2) You seem to reject a huge pile of scientific results based on a combination of your intuition and what you want to be true.

You've been assiduously avoiding actually talking about the data in favor of vague platitudes and appeals to misplaced authority. For want of a kinder way of putting it, that's exactly why over the past thousand years, science and reason have made the place for mysticism and fear as small as it is now. One side wants to discuss the actual evidence and the other side wants to talk about emotions, intuition, and philosophical consequences. I don't know about anybody else, but I know which horse I would rather tether my intellectual cart to.

Re:No clone wars

[Soothh]

I am more than willing to hear why you believe science is right in this matter. It doesnt change the fact
that nothing can form from nothing without a creator.

Re:No clone wars

[Copid]

I am more than willing to hear why you believe science is right in this matter. It doesnt change the fact that nothing can form from nothing without a creator.

I have no serious interest in cosmology (which isn't relevant to evolution) or even abiogenesis (which is really a separate area of study from evolution), so I'm not really dying to get into this, but I have to ask, how exactly does a "creator" solve the problem you're proposing? You seem to be saying that all things that exist require a creator, and to "solve" the problem, you're positing a creator that violates the rule you just asserted. Why not just do away with the rule in the first place if you're so quick to discard it when it's convenient? I'd hardly call your "fact" a fact at all. It seems more like folksy wisdom than anything that necessarily has to be true. Frankly, if you're rejecting most of modern science based on that assumption, you might want to think a little bit about how you evaluate the world around you.

Frankly, I don't know what you mean when you refer to "this matter" since you've skipped from evolution and appeals to non-biologists to what appears to be cosmology and some sort of philosophical "first cause" argument. Are you just rejecting science in general, or is there something specific you want to complain about? Like, maybe, something having to do with biology and old dinosaur bones?

Not real soft tissue

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

This isn't like that other discovery where what appeared to be red tissue was found inside a bone. This is just fossilized soft tissue. No soft tissue is present, just the mineral representation of what the tissue would have looked like, its structure, etc.

Another great moment in science:

[martianred]

a hadrosaur's backside was about 25 percent larger than previously thought. That's... great. ... So when can we clone it already?

Re:Another great moment in science:

[Anonymous Coward]

You must like a little junk in your trunk!

Re:Another great moment in science:

[lbmouse]

So she had a Badonkadonk.

Re:Another great moment in science:

[Jesus_666]

The larger-backsize finding was actually met with exuberance by the international archaeological community, with butt expert and OBE Sir Mixalot exclaiming "I like big butts and I cannot lie".

"You get sprung", added Mixalot.

However, not all scientists applaud the finding, with polymath and host of the popular science show Infinite Solutions Mark Erickson criticizing that this finding will further reduce the scientific community's interest in tiny dinosaurs, which he describes as sadly overlooked.

Re:Another great moment in science:

[init100]

The larger-backsize finding was actually met with exuberance by the international archaeological community

Archaeologists do not excavate dinosaur remains, paleontologists do. Archaeologists only deal with ancient human remains.

Re:Another great moment in science:

[IKILLEDTROTSKY]

OMG! This totally gives me an idea for a book about a futuristic amusement park where dinosaurs are brought to life through advanced cloning techniques. I'll call it "Billy and the Cloneasaurus."

Re:Another great moment in science:

[JudgeFurious]

It's still useless to me and must be destroyed. It only has one ass. We'll have to burn the room!

Re:Another great moment in science:

[jamstar7]

Not to worry, with the right genetic engineering, we can give it the proper four asses.

Re:Another great moment in science:

[MightyYar]

Archaeologists do not excavate dinosaur remains, paleontologists do. Archaeologists only deal with ancient human remains. So which ones look for the Garden of Eden?

(note, I am referencing this)

Re:Another great moment in science:

[Jesus_666]

Zounds! You managed to discover the little joke I snuck into my otherwise completely honest and factual post.

Dino DNA

[Raul654]

This isn't the first time they've gotten soft tissue from a dinosaur. A few years ago, they were trying to haul some dinosaur bones from a dig site by helocopter, but the bones wouldn't fit. After trying to solve the problem several ways, they made the agonized decision to break some of the largest bones. When they broke them open, they found soft tissue in one of them (I think it was a femur). A friend of mine (getting his phd in bioinfomatics) mentioned that they had managed to extract dinosaur proteins from this, and that because proteins are much more unstable then nucleic acids, it was entirely likely that they could extract dinosaur DNA from the specimen.

Re:Dino DNA

[jollyreaper]

A friend of mine (getting his phd in bioinfomatics) mentioned that they had managed to extract dinosaur proteins from this, and that because proteins are much more unstable then nucleic acids, it was entirely likely that they could extract dinosaur DNA from the specimen. Please remind him to keep it away from the amphibian DNA.

Re:Dino DNA

[langelgjm]

It's been several years since I've looked at any of the literature on the topic of ancient DNA, and my particular area of interest was the sequencing of human and Neandertal DNA in the arena of phylogenetics, but as I remember, the general consensus was that it would be extremely unlikely to be able to extract, amplify, and sequence enough DNA from specimens beyond, say, about 100,000 years old. The difficulties posed in specimens of geologic age would be even greater.

Apart from deterioration, contamination of specimens by modern DNA is a huge concern. I vaguely remember at least one instance where a published paper claimed to have sequenced DNA from fossilized leaves, when it later turned out that the specimen had been contaminated with modern plant matter, or something similar. Of course, when researching prehistoric human DNA, the chances of contamination are extremely high, are very difficult to detect. I'm not sure how difficult contamination would be to detect in animal samples, but I suspect it wouldn't be easy to rule out.

Re:Dino DNA

[EllisDees]

There was no soft tissue found with this dinosaur, only very well preserved imprints of the soft tissue.

Re:Dino DNA

[langelgjm]

Apologies for replying to my own post, but I managed to find the article I mentioned. There were two, actually: "Golenberg EM. 1991. Amplification and analysis of Miocene plant fossil DNA. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 333:419-427." and "Golenberg EM, Giannasi E, Clegg M, Smiley CJ, Durban M, Henderson D and Zurawski G. 1990. Chloroplast sequence from a Miocene magnolia species. Nature 344:656-658." Golenberg believed he had sequenced a 770 base pair nucleotide chain from a 20 million year old leaf. The findings were later discredited by Svante Paabo, the well-known paleogeneticist.

Re:Dino DNA

[kestasjk]

These are the three problems with dinosaur cloning:

• Find a dinosaur DNA, enough of it to complete the dinosaur's genome
• Make sure the dinosaur DNA isn't fragmented, which it almost certainly will be after so long. Or piece it all back together somehow.
• You can't take a cell from a modern animal, stick dinosaur DNA inside it and turn it into a dino-cell. Even with a full dinosaur genome you can't clone a dinosaur without a dinosaur cell. It's the chicken and egg problem on a microscopic scale.

Even if we could clone them we've still got other problems to deal with:

• The hard-line Christians question the ethics of cloning and the existence of dinosaurs, so how well would dinosaur cloning research go down?
• Not letting them escape. Here in Australia we're having enough problems dealing with cane toads, can you imagine having to deal with velociraptors?
• Trying to tell them that everything they ever knew and loved is gone. They wouldn't know about the Soviet collapse or the World Wars, or that these days most large animals grow their children inside of them, how would they deal with that shock? Is it ethical? These dinosaurs have never even seen anything with hair before, how would they cope?

Re:Dino DNA

[Frank Battaglia]

I'm no biologist, but I do believe some advances have been made in DNA sequencing since 1991. Just saying, more recent literature would be more convincing on the point.

Re:Dino DNA

[AnotherUsername]

The hard-line Christians question the ethics of cloning and the existence of dinosaurs, so how well would dinosaur cloning research go down?

Magnificently.

Not letting them escape. Here in Australia we're having enough problems dealing with cane toads, can you imagine having to deal with velociraptors?

It's okay. We can put them on an island off the coast of Costa Rica. Put up a lot of fences. We could even make it a tourist attraction. What could possibly go wrong?

Trying to tell them that everything they ever knew and loved is gone. They wouldn't know about the Soviet collapse or the World Wars, or that these days most large animals grow their children inside of them, how would they deal with that shock? Is it ethical? These dinosaurs have never even seen anything with hair before, how would they cope?

I believe Mel Gibson learned to cope when he woke up from that coma after all those years. One minute, he's a test pilot in 1939, and then the next minute, he's in 1992, and the love of his life has grown old and grey. He survived..well enough... You never know, maybe the cloned dino is actually in love with Nessie...

Re:Dino DNA

[John Hasler]

> Even with a full dinosaur genome you can't clone a dinosaur without a dinosaur cell. It's
> the chicken and egg problem on a microscopic scale.

Birds.

> The hard-line Christians question the ethics of cloning and the existence of dinosaurs,
> so how well would dinosaur cloning research go down?

They object to the cloning of humans (they are far from alone in that).

> Not letting them escape. Here in Australia we're having enough problems dealing with
> cane toads, can you imagine having to deal with velociraptors?

Think what people would pay to hunt them. Besides, maybe they would eat the cane toads.

> Trying to tell them that everything they ever knew and loved is gone. They wouldn't
> know about the Soviet collapse or the World Wars, or that these days most large animals
> grow their children inside of them, how would they deal with that shock? Is it ethical?
> These dinosaurs have never even seen anything with hair before, how would they cope?

You've got a point there. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

Re:Dino DNA

[langelgjm]

My reading in the area is from 2004. I could cite more recent references, but they're not relevant to my point, which is that you can't sequence what's not there.

The field of sequencing ancient DNA was in its infancy in the late 80s and early 90s, and has matured since then. One of the results of that maturity is the realization that DNA is highly unlikely to survive in fossils for millions of years, and that when someone claims to have sequenced DNA from a fossil of that age, contamination is highly suspect. The dearth of recent articles claiming to have sequenced DNA from specimens of such age (at least at the time I was reading, there was a dearth) seems to bear out that conclusion.

Re:Dino DNA

[bhima]

The problem with cane toads is that they aren't tasty.

If velociraptor makes for a good stake they'll be extinct before they ever get started.

Re:Dino DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard-line Christians question the ethics of cloning

Why do hard-line Christians question the ethics of creating children? :-)

Actually, this is the one called Muhammad: ~0:-{=

It's the bomb in the turban that gives it away. Attention all fundies: the jokes will continue until the killing stops.

Re:Dino DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't make sense to me, maybe I've misunderstood something...

To my knowledge - and please correct me if I'm wrong - the entire genome of a creature consists of chromosomes, which consist of DNA strands that can be divided into genes (and material in between genes, which also seem to be developmentally important even though they have been ignored previously). Genes are subsequences of the DNA strands that translate to specific proteins, which are longish sequences of repeating patterns (similar to polymers) that break down fairly easily at cooking temperatures.

Re:Dino DNA

[Raul654]

Yes, everything you said is correct. However, there is not a one:one mapping between DNA and proteins - it's many:one. Multiple codons (a grouping of three sequential DNA bases) can code for the same amino acid. Therefore, having the proteins does not tell you what the DNA is, but having the DNA tells you what the proteins are.

Also, proteins don't break down just at "cooking" temperatures. Like all chemical bonds, all that is required is environmental energy (which varies in time as a bell curve around the average temperature) sufficient to break the bond. When the average temperature is high (like when you're cooking), you don't have to wait very long to get some random variation that breaks the bond. But if you wait a long, long time (like 160 million years), chances are at some point during that time the environmental energy will randomly vary high enough to break the bond. Thus, proteins degrade over thousands and millions of years simply as a function of age.

Nucleic acids are more stable than protein (e.g, requiring more energy to break the bond). As a result, it is harder for that random fluctuation to break nucleic acid bonds. So, if paleontologists find protein that has survived for millions of years (like they did in this case), that strongly suggests there should be nucleic acid there too.

Re:Dino DNA

[ChrisMaple]

Wiping out small species like cane toads is difficult because you can never be sure you got them all. Wiping out velociraptors is much easier because they're bigger: easier to track, easier to shoot, easier to be reasonably sure you got every last one.

Re:Dino DNA

[DerangedAlchemist]

It's been several years since I've looked at any of the literature on the topic of ancient DNA, and my particular area of interest was the sequencing of human and Neandertal DNA in the arena of phylogenetics, but as I remember, the general consensus was that it would be extremely unlikely to be able to extract, amplify, and sequence enough DNA from specimens beyond, say, about 100,000 years old. The difficulties posed in specimens of geologic age would be even greater.

Apart from deterioration, contamination of specimens by modern DNA is a huge concern. I'm not sure how difficult contamination would be to detect in animal samples, but I suspect it wouldn't be easy to rule out.

This sort of thing has been done with cave bears a few years back (forget the article, but you could probably find it). The main trick was not to amplify the DNA (as newer undamaged DNA amplifies better) and just clone everything in the samples. Once cloned, the DNA is new and can be treated normally. After sequencing the entire mess, you sort out the bits you want from DNA of plants, soil microbes, other animals, etc. by comparing to a known, related genome. In this case, the lab used the dog genome.

My supervisor claimed that sections the Neanderthal genome have now been sequenced, which I assume is by a similar technique.

Re:Dino DNA

[langelgjm]

Indeed, portions of Neandertal DNA (and mtDNA, I believe) have been sequenced - this is one of the ways by which phylogenetics progresses. However, I'd be very interested to know if this has been done with older samples (millions of years old) as opposed to Neandertals, mammoths, etc. (samples in the hundreds of thousands of years, or earlier). If not, "dinosour DNA" would be an order of magnitude older than anything we've sequenced.

Re:Dino DNA

[Anthony]

These dinosaurs have never even seen anything with hair before, how would they cope?

Sorry to be a pedant (this is slashdot), but mammals and dinosaurs coexisted throughout much of the Mesozoic Era.

Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[Anonymous Coward]

A team of creationist paleontologists from the Discovery Institute's main field research arm announced today that they had discovered the remains of a large manmade object confirmed to be an ancient dinosaur saddle. The Discovery Institute's discovery was discovered in the remote Dusty Rivers area of southwestern Arizona. A spokesman for the paleontological team said that the dinosaur saddle provides irrefutable proof that man and dinosaurs lived simultaneously, as predicted by most creationist or "intelligent design" doctrines.

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[orclevegam]

I clicked the link and half expected to be redirected to goatse or one of those, but was rather surprised to find a real site on the other end. Next question is, is that a crack pot news site run by ID proponents, a joke site like the onion, or a real news site that's just running a crackpot story?

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[Brummund]

From the article: "Dr. Booble, who received his doctorate in paleontology from the respected Holy Patriot! Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma"

It is indeed quite real. I fondly remember Dr. Booble's lectures, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him, his 3 wives and 27 children all the best. I hope you guys continue to dominate Claptrappe's basket, soccer and football teams!

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[LingNoi]

I'm not taking anything seriously from a guy called Booble. I seriously doubt he even earned his title of Dr. from a real University.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[FiloEleven]

It was found in "Mud Flaps, AZ" by one "Dr. Booble." Looks legitimate to me...

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[Anonymous Coward]

Be fair. Even if that were a real story, the DI is like the NewScientist of creationism.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[orclevegam]

Hell, I've never been to Arizona, as far as I know it could have a town called Mud Flaps. Wouldn't be any weirder than the names I've seen in some other states. Missed the Dr. Booble thing which in and of itself doesn't give it away, but what does is the mention of "oly Patriot!(TM) Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma" as someone else pointed out. So, looks like it's a joke story. After reading the about page for that site it looks like it's trying to be another the onion type site.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[init100]

Well, what do you think this part suggests?

Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy Ribonucleic

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[orclevegam]

Well, what do you think this part suggests?

Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy Ribonucleic

He was born for this type of work? Clearly intelligent design at work.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Can you point me to statements by "most" design theorists which state that homo sapiens and dinosaurs lived at the same period? I doubt you can. This misrepresentation of Intelligent Design is starting to get old.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[RudeIota]

Avant News contains satire and other fictional material, provided for entertainment purposes only.

Confirmed. Satire website... For those of you who are too lazy to look at the page footer and would rather extrapolate "Fact or Fiction" from its fabricated texts. ;)

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[Anonymous Coward]

as predicted by most creationist or "intelligent design" doctrines.

and they would be wrong. there is no inspired time frame between "got created" (think big bang, matter created out of essentially nothing - something einstein believed to be false on his death bed) and the "earth had become void" in genesis 1 and 2.

"in 1985 i was born. Now I was a college graduate."

only someone totally inept at parsing text and applying critical thought would INSERT a time element that isn't there, which is why almost everyone has done so.

we knew the universe was created, we knew the earth was, at one time, formless and void. we are not told about time frames.

science has proven the universe didn't always exist and verified gen 1. as i said, this would've been a shocker to einstein who believed in an eternal universe. apparently, his science wasn't as up to date as the one who inspired gen 1. ;-)

science has also shown that there is a multi billion year gap between the creation of the universe and the renewing of the earth.

this is the biblical statement. i can't defend people who misrepresent it nor should the bible be defined by folks who misrepresent it. this is definitely true of one who evaluates data in a rational way.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[ultranova]

It is indeed quite real. I fondly remember Dr. Booble's lectures, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him, his 3 wives and 27 children all the best. I hope you guys continue to dominate Claptrappe's basket, soccer and football teams!

Well, from the point of view of evolution, those 27 children already make him 1250% more succesfull than your average man, who has two children.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[Copid]

Can you point me to statements by "most" design theorists which state that homo sapiens and dinosaurs lived at the same period? I doubt you can. This misrepresentation of Intelligent Design is starting to get old.

So true. Creationists and cdesign proponentsists have nothing to do with each other. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Also In news: Dinosaur Saddle

[anarkavre]

I guess that makes Arizona Dinotopia.

This has happened before

[Aqua OS X]

FYI, this has happened a few times before. PBS Nova Science Now recently did a piece on something similar.

Watch Online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

Was the dinosaur

[antifoidulus]

smashing a house when it died?

Re:Was the dinosaur

[ChocoBean]

No, he died beside a river, and got kind of eaten a little bit.
Maybe he was trying to make a lobster bisque....

Dinosaur: "I came here with a simple dream. A dream of killing all
                humans. And this is how it must end? Who's the real
                seven billion ton [fozzilized] monster here? Not I, not I..."

Re:Was the dinosaur

[samwichse]

I can't believe no one picked up on this...

Dinosaur comics

Sam

without a real cloud in the sky

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7123033,00.html

Also: Mammoth DNA

[Raul654]

Also, in case anyone missed it, a few months back, some researchers extracted enough woolly mammoth DNA from mammoth hairs to sequence it

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[tomatensaft]

Hey, I've got a business idea. What would you think if we would breed those mammoths as livestock and sell their meat (Delicious Mammoth Jerky?) and, of course, ivory! And sure enough, many zoos around the globe would want to buy one for their exhibits. That would probably save the elephants from extinction...

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[INeededALogin]

So, if you clone an animal that doesn't exist... when it is born does the species automatically get added to the Endangered Species List? If so, your idea might be a quick path to jail.

1. Clone Mammoth
2. ...
3. Profit

Unfortunately step 2 might be jail.

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[tomatensaft]

I thought that Endangered Species List only lists animals endangered in the wild, no? Those being breeded as livestock cannot be held endangered, can they?

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[Orange Crush]

Just look at Cattle. Their wild ancestor the Aurochs is long extinct.

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[John Hasler]

You don't have to worry about the Endangered Species Act unless the critter in question is on the list. However in most states you can only get a license to keep wild animals if you can show that the particular animals you propose to keep came from a licensed breeder who could not have gotten a license without showing that his animals came from a licensed breeder. Since your cloned mammoths would be the direct, immediate descendants of wild animals, the authorities would obviously have to sieze them and release them into the wild.

So get to work cloning those velociraptors.

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[Fred_A]

Og has mammoth license. Is written on cave wall.

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

Og has mammoth license. Is written on cave wall. This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'mammoth' written in in charcoal.

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[HTH NE1]

Og has mammoth license. Is written on cave wall. This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'mammoth' written in in charcoal. And 'mammoth' is spelled wrong.

(Og name him Joe Mamath.)

Re:Also: Mammoth DNA

[tomatensaft]

I wasn't talking about ancestors, but rather the very species we want to breed.

Dinosaur = Balmer?

[Laebshade]

*looks at article below this one*

Maybe he was throwing chairs?

A quote from Dr. Malcom

[sexybomber]

1. God creates dinosaurs
2. God destroys dinosaurs
3. God creates man
4. Man destroys God
5. Man creates dinosaurs

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you'd forget the best part:

6. Dinosaurs eat man... women inherit the Earth.

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory:

1. God creates dinosaurs
2. God destroys dinosaurs
3. God creates man
4. Man destroys God
5. Man creates dinosaurs
6. .........
7. Profit!

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[bitt3n]

hm.. so continuing based on your pattern, I get

6. Man destroys dinosaurs
7. Man creates God
8. God destroys Man

I guess Judgment Day is imminent after all..

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[rasputin465]

and to continue your quote...

1. God creates dinosaurs
2. God destroys dinosaurs
3. God creates man
4. Man destroys God
5. Man creates dinosaurs

Ellie: "[6.] Dinosaurs eat man. [7.] Woman inherits the earth."

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Man was God all along.

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it would be:
6. Dinosaurs destroy Man
7. Dinosaurs create God.

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[follow that tank]

6. Profit!

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I thought the meek were supposed to inherit the earth...and women long ago forgot how to be meek!

Re:A quote from Dr. Malcom

[Anonymous Coward]

1. God creates dinosaurs
2. God destroys dinosaurs
3. God creates man
4. Man destroys God
5. Man creates dinosaurs
6. Dinosaur eats man

I think I can make a prediction here...

[Grendel Drago]

Press release from Answers in Genesis which completely misunderstands the find in 3... 2... 1...

Mod parent up

[Raul654]

Oh if I only had some mod points...

Jurassic Park?

[Floritard]

I know it's just a movie but they completely sold me on the idea of getting dinosaur DNA from blood in mosquitos trapped in dried tree sap deposits. Was that all a bunch of crapola? I had assumed they had all kinds of dino DNA just sitting in a fridge somewhere waiting for cloning to really take off. Do we really not have any dino DNA on record?

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you chose an apt nickname. No, they don't have fridges full of dino DNA. There have been a few instances of intact soft tissue being found in fossilized dinosaurs remains, but not a whole ton. Not to mention, this find is fossilized soft tissue, which is a world apart from fossilized bones which contain remains of soft tissue.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[PieSquared]

Some facts for you:

1.) When cloning a sheep to give birth to itself, by putting a complete strand of its own DNA in its own egg cells in its own womb, we would have a one in several hundred chance of success. We don't know why, but the rest would be miscarriages, still births, or otherwise non-viable. The cloned animal would die early of old age, nobody knows why.

2.) The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars. That's comparable to the Apollo project, to sequence *ONE* example of a complex being's DNA.

3.) DNA is relatively unstable. I doesn't survive completely intact for 65 million years no matter how you preserve it.

Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time. Not in the "something ate it" sense of the word, but in the "radioactive particles" sense of the word. So the DNA would be there, but fragmented. Analyzing one strand of complete, non-fragmented strand of DNA was an Epic undertaking. Doing it with hundreds of strands that were chopped into pieces is probably beyond our capabilities. We could also get this DNA from red blood cells found in a T-rex fossil recently, or just from grinding up the core of bones for *really* tiny bits.

Next, you can't just patch DNA in a dinosaur with DNA from a reptile. It just doesn't work that way, and birds are closer relatives anyway if it *did* work that way.

And then you'd have to somehow put together a DNA molecule. We can't do that yet. I'm totally serious, we can't. We can manipulate pieces maybe 10 or so genes long in existing DNA, but I don't think we could piece billions of genes long strands together from a blueprint even given all the time in the world.

Finally, you'd need a viable dinosaur egg. You can't just pick someone else's egg and stick dino DNA in it, eggs are highly specialized. You might get away with something as similar as elephant-mammoth but there just isn't anything *like* a dinosaur, nothing *near* close enough for a viable egg.

If by some miracle you managed to find full dino DNA, sequence the DNA, assemble the DNA, and put them in an artificial egg that worked... you'd have to do a thousand trials before you could say with any certainty you'd messed something up to make it fail instead of just having bad luck. So don't worry about Jurassic Park happening anytime soon.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[skiingyac]

Finally, you'd need a viable dinosaur egg. You can't just pick someone else's egg and stick dino DNA in it, eggs are highly specialized. You might get away with something as similar as elephant-mammoth but there just isn't anything *like* a dinosaur, nothing *near* close enough for a viable egg.

You gave me images of a mammoth hatching out of a very large elephant egg, followed by an elephant birthing a velociraptor. I'll grant you that eggs are specialized, but I think you should be more careful with your use of the word "egg".

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Anonymous Coward]

When cloning a sheep to give birth to itself

"To give birth to itself" is about as bad a characterization of cloning as one could possibly make, winning maximum points for the most misunderstanding packed into the fewest words.

1) The host mother is virtually never the genetic mother

2) The offspring is not the genetic mother, which would be the only way an animal could "give birth to itself."

Here's news: different genetically identical organisms are different organisms. Ask any identical twin. And if you ever have any trouble with the supposed ethics issues surrounding human cloning, just replace "clone" with "child" everywhere and you will have reduced the problem to one of the messy and difficult issues of reproduction that humans have been dealing with since before we thought the Earth was flat.

BTW a number of your other claims are wrong. There aren't "billions of genes", although there are quite a large number of base pairs, and we have no trouble manipulating sequences of at least a few thousand base pairs, and longer can be managed. This is not to say that Jurasic Park is around the corner, but expression of saurian traits via heavily genetically engineered birds could happen in the next few decades.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Solder Fumes]

Did you hear about the newer DNA reassembly technique? Basically you use standard replication techniques to make a really large number of copies of all the DNA fragments you have. Samples of the mix are distributed to a large number of processors, essentially a DNA analysis supercomputer. The rest involves matching sections of DNA like a big jigsaw puzzle. If many strands of DNA were originally available but have decomposed, at least the strands would not have all broken at the same locations. Matching the first 10% of one fragment with the last 10% of another fragment means you now have a longer continuous fragment. DNA sequences are unique enough that there is little ambiguity when fragments match. With enough redundant overlap, you can build up a complete strand...this is kind of a Bittorrent approach to DNA reassembly. So, even if no complete strands are available, it may still be possible to recover the original DNA of an ancient organism.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[John Hasler]

While the project still probably isn't feasible, your knowlwdge is a little dated.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[jdavidb]

Another nostalgic part of childhood goes phtbbbbth!

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Fred_A]

Some facts for you:

Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time. Not in the "something ate it" sense of the word, but in the "radioactive particles" sense of the word. So you're saying we should really be looking for mosquitoes trapped in lead ?

Re:Jurassic Park?

[zippthorne]

2.) The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars. That's comparable to the Apollo project, to sequence *ONE* example of a complex being's DNA.

That was the publicly funded project. And they would've taken even longer if the privately funded Celera hadn't gotten involved by threatening to finish a lot faster and less expensively.

I imagine that if it were possible, the reintroduction effort wouldn't be a one-shot all-or-nothing thing like you propose. Step one would be characterizing a complete set of DNA (non-nuclear DNA), to get an idea of what the cells of the final product would look like. Step two would be identification of genes which are present in existing animals, and a database search for a few candidate species similar enough to transform into the interesting species. Then there are a continuum of steps over several generations as you replace/add a little bit of the dino-dna to the candidate species until you end up with something that's close enough to implant the "pure" cells.

But, you're right, that every one of those steps is incredibly unlikely and currently impossible. And you'd have to find and reproduce all the symbiotic organisms as well, or at least find compatible modern analogues. I don't think anyone's worried about Jurassic Park, though. Jurassic Burger on the other hand sounds especially intriguing.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[besalope]

1.) When cloning a sheep to give birth to itself, by putting a complete strand of its own DNA in its own egg cells in its own womb, we would have a one in several hundred chance of success. We don't know why, but the rest would be miscarriages, still births, or otherwise non-viable. The cloned animal would die early of old age, nobody knows why.

The problem with using "adult" DNA would be all the "junk" DNA that gets mixed in. Every time you get sick, a little bit of the bacteria or virii's DNA gets spliced into your own. Another issue is the timing of when certain genes are activated and deactivated in the initial construction phases (going from zygote to full embryo and then fetus). We know why the clones are dying, we just don't know how to stop it yet.

3.) DNA is relatively unstable. I doesn't survive completely intact for 65 million years no matter how you preserve it.

Correct. It's estimated human DNA can last roughly 250 years and remain relatively intact. Afterwards it begins to deteriorate. I'm unsure of whether the synthetic telomerase treatments that are in their research phases will affect it, but 250 years could be the cap of human life expectancy.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[semiotec]

It's not software assembly of DNA sequence, which is relatively trivial, a walk in the park. The difficult part is actually assembling the _real_ dinosaur chromosome, assembling some Nx10,000 genes correctly, i.e. after sequencing everything, finding out which gene goes on which chromosome and the order they are in and hoping that the "junky" parts you'd ignored is _really_ junk. Then you need to splice all these pieces of PCR'd DNAs together, making several molecules which are hundreds of millions or several billion nucleotides long.

Building up the actually thing is much much more difficult than just assembling the sequence in computers.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[OldManAndTheC]

So don't worry about Jurassic Park happening anytime soon.

Phew! Thanks, that's a relief.

Now, is there anything you can do to stop Jurassic Park IV?

Re:Jurassic Park?

[ChrisMaple]

It's estimated human DNA can last roughly 250 years and remain relatively intact. Afterwards it begins to deteriorate.

That's in the context of a living organism, where temperature acts to degrade the DNA and the organism's repair mechanisms act to restore the DNA. Or perhaps a dead organism's DNA at room temperature in a pickle jar full of formaldehyde. It's completely divorced from the context of preserving the DNA of a dead organism using best possible techniques, which requires low temperature and a chemically and radiologically benign environment.

Making an entirely invalid extrapolation of the rule of thumb that chemical reactions procede twice as fast for every 10 degrees centigrade temperature increase, absolute zero should be adequate to preserve DNA for a few hundred million years.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Vitriol Angst]

I think there is more hope in cross-referencing the DNA of distant ancestors of Dinosaurs. There is a lot of "stored" DNA in all animal genes. So you might cross-reference certain "structures" amongst preserved but damaged Dinosaur DNA and a modern Turkey or Eagle. We may also find a sort of "compression" algorithm in genes -- how certain structures get stored and compressed in Unused sections.

When Humans and birds for that matter, develop, they go through a process of "evolution" from a tadpole-like fish, to reptilian and then more modern features take over. Even our own brains develop most of the primitive parts first, while the advanced parts "overlay" the older going to the outside and frontal lobes. There may be a dinosaur development preserved somewhere in a modern creature, that could get a few "hints" from Prior DNA to know where to "jump off." It's as if all the history of DNA is read out, and then amendments made. Stop the amendments at the right point, and plug in as "new" amendments, the old gene "parts" that we find.

The trick is to find out the "plugin" structure of DNA -- which I predict would be a major breakthrough (the least of which is that there is such a patch-work structure). Homeobox genes, for instance, code for whole arms and legs or fingers -- they are relatively easy to change. So that a leg can be an arm with a simple genetic switch. Creating an arm or a leg itself that functions is very complex, yet there is a structure there to switch them on or off. So, evolved changes may be added as "patches" and not total re-writes of the underlying and working genetic code. This may be why DNA is so incredibly long -- it's a recording as much as a blueprint. And "devolving" back to a form that worked in a previous environment is a much quicker process than "evolving" a brand new organism. It only takes two generations of humans at high altitude to start getting blue eyes for instance. That is a "switch" turning on a previous genetic feature.

So, I think the preserved DNA, can provide good clues to devolve modern DNA -- and not necessarily be used to provide the DNA, just know when you have the right structure.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Trogre]

No thanks, I think I'd rather vote Grimlock.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[glitch23]

DNA is relatively unstable. I[sic] doesn't survive completely intact for 65 million years no matter how you preserve it. Mosquitoes trapped in amber wouldn't be great sources of DNA - it would have still decomposed over time.

And yet some people still think that DNA (and RNA, can't forget that) was somehow able to be created so it survive the period of time (at least decades and more like hundreds of millennia if evolution is to be believed) prior to being encased in the first cellular structure so it could begin replicating. hmmmm.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[alieneye]

2.) The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars. That's comparable to the Apollo project, to sequence *ONE* example of a complex being's DNA.

This argument is a bit misleading. The rate of gene sequencing progress grew exponentially over time along with advancements in technology.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Rocketship Underpant]

I assume the problem comes within the mosquitos themselves. Like all living things, a certain percentage of the carbon composing their bodies would once have been radioactive carbon-14.

Re:Jurassic Park?

[Floritard]

This is a cool idea and it reminds me of dendrochronology. It's a way of dating wood samples, say from an ancient man-made structure, by analysing the annual growth rings of the wood. Wiki can describe the process better than I can, but basically you're looking for overlaps in ring thickness patterns between samples. You can then build up an entire unbroken chain with a virtual history of the region's climate and can place approximate dates on when the wood was originally harvested for use.

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

second bitch!

Done before

[cthulu_mt]

I think they stole this story from the episode of "Denver the Last Dinosaur" wherein Denver disguises himself as a mummy to avoid capture.

Another example of my childhood being recycled. Maybe them can get Michael Bay to crap all over the live-action version.

Re:Done before

[Kurrurrin]

To be fair, Denver was a whole lot more.

RTFL

[mangu]

is that a crack pot news site run by ID proponents, a joke site like the onion, or a real news site that's just running a crackpot story?

Let me guess, that link mentions "the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Seattle with affiliates operating at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C." and "we know Velociraptor was a vegetarian, as can be clearly deduced from its long rows of razor-sharp teeth, perfectly designed for tearing leaves from trees or rooting for truffles and other buried delicacies, and could therefore be domesticated at very low risk."

Looks like alternative [B - Joke site] is the most probable one.

Re:RTFL

[TheoMurpse]

Well, if it claims to be located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then it's clearly a joke. That's the address of the White House!

Re:RTFL

[Alsee]

Yep, definitely a satire site.

More stories from the site's home page:
* Al-Qaeda Hires Blackwater
* AutoChat Fills the Solo Driver's Cell Phone Void
* China First With Citizen RFID Implants
* Treasury Sec. Paulson Calls Chain Letter, Lotto Buyback Cures to Deficit Woes
* White House to Name Czar Czar
* Ron Paul for President Campaign Hires Top Internet Spammer
* Alabama Governor Riley Asks Citizens to Curse Drought
* Rod and Reel Method May Save International Space Station
* World's Oldest Person Not Yet Dead
* President Ron Paul Deported Under Ron Paul's No Amnesty Law
* Sam Brownback Pregnancy May Put Squeeze On Presidential Bid
* Rogue Goose Foils Final Missile Shield Test
* Wal-Mart Goes Green: The New Wal-Mart Employee Emissions Reduction Program
* Study Suggests Soul Sale Obesity Panacea
* George W. Bush to Replace Will Shortz as NYT Crossword Puzzle Editor

-

Re:RTFL

[Thornae]

"we know Velociraptor was a vegetarian, as can be clearly deduced from its long rows of razor-sharp teeth, perfectly designed for tearing leaves from trees or rooting for truffles and other buried delicacies, and could therefore be domesticated at very low risk."

Sadly, the Creationists really believe this.

Wake me when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up, when the first clone-able remains were found.

Fossilized what?

[dr_strang]

I thought it said "fossilized hairdresser" when I first looked at the headline. THEN I thought "Wilma Flintstone".

Welcome to Surreal Monday.

FTA?

[CarpetShark]

According to the FTA...

the Fucking Terranosaur Article?

Re:FTA?

[A nonymous Coward]

the Fucking Terranosaur Article?

The Frozen | Fluffy | Fossilized Terranosaur Article, please.

Re:FTA?

[Alsee]

Yeah, the "soft tissue" they found was hard as a rock.

-

Re:FTA?

[paco verde]

More likely the Federación de Trabajadores Arubanos (Aruban Workers' Federation).

Re:FTA?

[DarthJohn]

Most people around here don't even R the A... He went above and beyond and F'd it.

Re:FTA?

[mjwx]

the Fucking Terranosaur Article?

Actually it would be the the Fucking Tyrannosaur Article. If you don't want to learn to spell at least learn to use the spell checker.

Re:FTA?

[CarpetShark]

Sorry, I don't like to make too many assumptions about what ancient critters did, or what non-skeletal features they had. Given the needs of evolution, I'm pretty sure they fucked though ;)

Re:FTA?

[CarpetShark]

I learnt to spell years ago, thanks. I just don't care that much about a single word I use once every five years when I'm posting a quick comment between busy moments. Get over it.

Finally, at long last

[JeanBaptiste]

We can find out what dinosaurs taste like.

Re:Finally, at long last

[afedaken]

Chicken.

Re:1 million bucks every minute!

[wattrlz]

Don't worry, we'll get it all back from ticket sales at the Jurrassic Park we'll make cloning these mummified dinosaurs.

Yum!

[butterwise]

with preserved soft tissue

Fire up the barbie, we're having dino-burgers tonite!

Re:Yum!

[seven of five]

mmmmm.... jurassic pork...

Proof of Creationism!

[RyoShin]

Ha! The fact that tissue was preserved only goes further to prove that the world isn't as old as those stupid Evolutionists claim it is! Could tissue survive a couple hundred million years? I think not! Pffft!

God wins again!

Re:Proof of Creationism!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was already proven....

Here
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
and

here my favorite
http://independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm

Re:Proof of Creationism!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the light! They explained it so thoroughly... blast the scientists, always trying to mislead us!

Re:Proof of Creationism!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you 100% on the fact that finding tissue (maybe not in this fossilized specimen but the T-Rex found earlier) does "help" prove a young Earth theory. However, referring to our non-believing neighbors as "stupid" and being disrespectful in general just gives them more reason to discredit your argument. Approaching people with loving kindness and long suffering is the way Christ did it. That's how we should do it too.

Re:Proof of Creationism!

[MightyMartian]

Perhaps someone could inform me where in geology, biology or paleontology that preservation of soft tissue is strictly forbidden? I mean, if these are to be falsified, then surely there must be a positive claim somewhere in the literature stating "You won't find soft tissue preserved in specimens millions of years old".

mod parent down

[Iowan41]

The idiot doesn't even know that ID holds to old earth dates, and to darwinian evolution.

Re:mod parent down

[mjeffers]

The idiot doesn't even know that ID holds to old earth dates, and to darwinian evolution.

This poster speaks the truth. And enough of this knocking on the "flat earth" theory. Everyone knows that those people accept a slight curvature to account for the horizon line.

WHY WON'T YOU TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!!1!!!!

Re: mod parent down

[Black Parrot]

The idiot doesn't even know that ID holds to old earth dates, and to darwinian evolution. Actually, ID is a very big tent. The employees of the Discovery Institute include YECs, OECs, HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDSists, and (by some indications) Holocaust deniers. They recently hired a well known Bigfoot hunter to round out their staff. One of their Fellows has testified in court that astrology qualifies as science under the redefinition of science needed to include ID.

You can't really be very specific about what ID "holds to". The only universal is that there's something wrong with real science, because it fails to include a Creator in its models of nature.

The title is incomprehensable

[TV-SET]

The title is a bit hard to understand for non-native English speakers. Does it really say that they found some shit with a piece of ass in it? :)

Feathers?

[Explodicle]

I'd be interested to hear if they found any evidence that this dinosaur may have had feathers. So far they've found only limited evidence as to the existence of feathers on dinosuars, and even then only on a few species.

Re:Feathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a biologist, but the larger an animal, the more difficult it is for it to lose body heat, and the largest mammals don't have hair, probably for that reason. Many dinosaurs were larger than elephants, so I think feathered dinosaurs would have been much rarer than modern mammals with body hair are.

Large Backside ...

[Archangel Michael]

"a hadrosaur's backside was about 25 percent larger than previously thought."

So, its a J-Lo-asaur ?

Or perhaps a Bodonkadonkasaur?

Damage in sequence...

[DrYak]

That would be theoretically hard.

With the mosquitoes technique you'll find in the end several fragment of DNA per mosquitoe, with no way to know if they come from the same dino or if its contaminent from the mosquitoe.
In the end you may have a very large library containing lots of sequence fragment. The building of this library would require a lot of money and time and won't have any direct benefit (= few would like to fund it).
Then you would unleash bio informaticians to start mining the database, trying to sort the fragments and seeing which could fit which other.
Only now could you get :
- Comparison between the archeological fragment and modern sequence (Useful to understand how proteins evolved over time) ( - Warning, not fundie-compatible studies. May not get financed in conservative USA states)
- Comparison of the fragments with already built phylogenetic modern trees (idem).

But given then "fragment" nature of the database on one hand and due to the repetition and sequence similarity inside a single genome on the other hand, you may not have enough information to sort a complete genome or even sort the fragments across severl species.
That why the fictional Jurassic Park book used a lot of sequence of modern day species to help align the fragments and patch the holes.
As a comparison there an actual experiment that picked up a lot of sample of sea water and sequenced whatever it managed to find inside. We end up with a lot of fragments but not much help to know wich sequence comes from what specie. This database is very hard to interpret. A dinosaur mosquitoe database would be similarily complex.

At least trying to find squences in fossilised soft tissue could make you believe that most of the few sequence you can manage to take out come from the same animal. But once again you'll get a lot of small sequence fragments that will be hard to put together.

..and it will happen again.

[CeramicNuts]

Who are the final five dinosaurs?

Re:..and it will happen again.

[jamstar7]

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Condi, of course.

thats sort of a good thing

[BlueshiftVFX]

thats sort of a good thing when your economy is based on debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnCjYagqtMo&mode=related&search=

but only until everyone else figures out how it all works and everything collapses.

Mildly offtopic..

[sqldr]

But how COOL are these things? I want one as a pet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambiraptor

Re:Mildly offtopic..

[Brett Buck]

It's real cute until 100 of them swarm you! Didn't you see Jurassic Park 2?

        Brett

obligatory

[3ryon]

I for one welcome the ensuing overload jokes.

Can they tell

[WormholeFiend]

If it was white or red meat?

Re:Can they tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Red meat probably, as it is not a flying animal. But it is a lizard and not a mammal... so it might be more like a bird, thus white meat. But the walking muscles (ie legs) of a bird are dark meat, so the dino might be red meat.

Perhaps a Salice Salentino or Brindisi?

Re:Can they tell

[biraneto]

Or even better, does it taste like chicken?

Re:Can they tell

[GodfatherofSoul]

You'll be right when pigs fly.

Re:Can they tell

[jbeaupre]

You joke, but chances are some scientist will think to check the iron content of various parts of the fossil for just that answer.

So how soon ... ?

[Fizzol]

can I order my own pet minature hadrosaur? I can't be the only one thinking that, can I?

I want to see it

[thorkyl]

I can't wait for the documentary on it. I would love to see the images of it.

I wonder what color it is.
What/Who did it eat last.
Was it scaly or flesh.
Was its hide like that of a cow or thin like that of a lizard

Who gets the first Dino-Skin Boots?

All of the things that make for a good documentary.

It's not 25% larger

[commodoresloat]

It just looks that way in those jeans

Evolution

[quibbs0]

Is this related to the Comcastosaur that evolved into the FiOSaurus Rex earlier yesterday?

Please don't!

[Anonymous Coward]

Three movies are enough!

Bah

[jgoemat]

It's just a salamander from the garden of eden. Back then everything lived a lot longer and grew a lot bigger, man was over 20 feet tall. I demand they put my theory in their scientific papers!
</sarcasm>

MMMmmm!

[Shuh]

Tastes like chicken!

So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

they didn't actually find any soft tissue, it's rock now right? And, the news appears to be a number of years old...

NEWS FLASH...God fathers baby boy, calls him Jesus!!!

New funding!

[maciarc]

In a related story, Harland Sanders, a spokesman for an unnamed company, said he would be presenting the University of Manchester Dept. of Paleontology with a one billion dollar donation for the study of the recently unearthed soft tissue fossil. "This is a very important find that must be studied without concern for cost." stated the honorary Colonel from Kentucky. "I mean, look at the size of those drumsticks!"

Question does this mean....

[SandiConoverJones]

Question does this mean that McRib is back?

I blame global warming!

[p51d007]

How long until someone figures out how to "make" dino's again, aka Jurassic Park. At least when the muslims blow up the world, the dino's can run it again LOL.

Tastes like Chicken

[jbeaupre]

Don't know about the DNA, but the collagen from a T. Rex was similar to chicken. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html

Ye Gads...

[MeMeMeMe]

They dug up my mother-in-law.....

Re:Ye Gads...

[whitehatlurker]

You should have buried her more completely.

Soft tissue is not soft..

[seven of five]

FTA:
Although it is described as "mummified," the 65 million-year-old duckbilled dinosaur that scientists have named Dakota bears no similarity to the leather-skinned human mummies retrieved from ancient tombs in Egypt. Time long ago transformed Dakota's soft tissue into mineralized rock, preserving it for the ages.

So if I'm reading that right, the original soft tissue is long gone, but the shapes and textures were taken up by the minerals that replaced it.

Not Preserved but Fossilized

[Mr Europe]

"Fossilized Soft Tissue" is far from "Preserved Soft Tissue" ! It's not soft but stone hard.

insider info

[AlgorithMan]

Dinosaur Fossil Found With Preserved Soft Tissue

the dinosaur fossil is called "steve ballmer" (from the "microsoft workers" genus, that became extinct in the early 21st century)
the soft tissue was found in his head...

Eat flaming pig turds, assbag

[Anonymous Coward]

(see title_)

hey tough guy, where is my ban????

[Anonymous Coward]

http://76.184.64.73/wikipedia.html

Shameless Futurama reference

[LiquidMind]

It didn't work out and they had to re-release Classic Mexico Which is why we'll market it as New Mexico. Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Mexico Classic and make billions! (source)

Not possible

[i'malawyer]

Anything tending to contradict the law of evolution is obviously a lie, damn lie. Soft tissue or anything soft cannot be found with a fossil.

Raptor Jesus is the only Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft! Maybe your Jesus was all loving kindness, but my Jesus rode into town on his velociraptor, ready to kick arse. First up to the temple and bringing the smackdown to those motherfucking moneylenders. Next, taking down those wack prophets with some bitchin' tales of talents an' shit. Lastly, off to score some hot Magdelene before Him and his ho riding his raptor off into the sunset.

Perhaps I should note that in my LOGS

[snowwrestler]

(Wait, does that even make sense?)

Want to know what I'm thinking?

[Lord Kano]

Preserved soft tissue...Dino-Jerky!

Think about it. After 80 million years, you know it's tender.

LK

Fuck The Article

[StonePiano]

I like that better than TFA. I think that's what a good proportion of us really think... Fuck the Article!

Re:Fuck The Article

[CarpetShark]

Hahhah, you could be right about that :)

If only more people were skeptical

[Martian_Kyo]

From the article:

"I totally agree that before we go out and say, 'Oh look, this is the greatest dinosaur ever, and it has showed us this and showed us that,' we have to prove it to the scientific community. We're still waiting on a lot of that."

That's what I love about (true?) scientists, their caution and skepticism even towards their own discoveries. If only people in other professions were so cautious. There are some possibly in the open-source community. I guess that happens when you take money out of equation. Cause when there is money in something people often want to seem confident in their product or discovery. Skepticism doesn't sell well.

just an aside:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no geneticist but sequencing DNA is done by cutting it into small pieces and reassembling them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sequencing

Much as I'd like to see Jurassic Park or somesuch I don't think we'll ever get there.

Also there is something called epigenetics that carries some relevant information as well that you'd also need
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Biology is very very very interesting. I'd recommend anyone to read for instance The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins.

Bah

[jeephistorian]

Spoil Sport....

Timeline

[phorm]

The Human Genome Project to sequence *ONE* complete set of DNA for a single human took us 13 years and 3 billion dollars

Yes, but it also did start with technology that existed 13 years ago. That's not to say that doing so nowadays wouldn't take work or money, but that it likely be assisted by modern technology to achieve faster/cheaper results.

Dinoglyfs from antiquities

[pjojala]

I have collected documented mosaics, cave paintings, bronze seals etc. of dinosaurs made by the ancient man here: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm Dinoglyfs and dinolits from the antiquities they are, really. Such fresh fossil samples indicate that the geologic time scales are naiiive. Here's another news along the lines: http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/TRexin_verisuonet.htm pauli.ojala@gmail.com Biochemist, systems biologist Finland