Slashdot Mirror
Signs of Ancient Cells and Proteins Found In Dinosaur Fossils
sciencehabit writes: The cupboards of the Natural History Museum in London hold spectacular dinosaur fossils, from 15-centimeter, serrated Tyrannosaurus rex teeth to a 4-meter-long hadrosaur tail. Now, researchers are reporting another spectacular find, buried in eight nondescript fossils from the same collection: what appear to be ancient red blood cells and fibers of ancient protein. Using new methods to peer deep inside fossils, the study in this week's issue of Nature Communications backs up previous, controversial reports of such structures in dinosaur bones. It also suggests that soft tissue preservation may be more common than anyone had guessed.
Life, uh... finds a way. I for one welcome our new dinosaur overlords.
I wonder what Dinosaur meat taste like ...
Who knows? The cloned dino might become our next meal?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I, for one, welcome our giant drumstick-bearing, chicken-flavored overlords.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I heard about 15 years ago that the middle of the thickest fossil/bone of one of the larger dinos still had some dino DNA.
Velociraptors!
Are you saying the Bible lies? Of course it was intelligently designed you insensitive clod!
Cue young earth creationists claiming this dinosaur was intelligently designed 5000 years ago.
Sigh.
Some of them already claim that soft tissue discoveries proved that dinosaurs were recent. IIRC it was listed in the "creationist rigs search results" article a week or two ago.
Of course, there's a pending religious schism between those who claim all the dinos died in the flood, those who claim that they were saved by Noah and died later, and those who say they never existed at all (the fossils being planted by God to make sure no eviloutionists believe the bible).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Of course just saying they are a bunch of idiots does not disprove their point. Some creationists are leading scientists and know their stuff. What is needed is to show that their reasoning is wrong.
Four posts against creationist posts, 0 creationist posts. Two joke threads. No comments on the science.
Excellent
"We sampled an N of 1 old fossil and found no DNA, therefore Dino DNA preservation is impossible." That was one study, another was "We sampled DNA under an N of 1 set of environmental conditions, and by sampled I mean we simulated and extrapolated DNA's breakdown over the course of decades because we couldn't actually be bothered to wait that long. Thus Jurassic Park is impossible." That was another study.
Why not call a chemist when a chemist is actually needed?
There are literally tons of fossils that show their reasoning is wrong, the problem with it is any reason can be waved away with 'God made it like that' or 'the devil did it'. When people have believe a magic entity with omnipotent powers did something, no amount of reason can over come the 'God is all powerful and made it that way' argument.
Or, that there is an entirely different option: we've been getting Genesis wrong due to approaching it with the wrong worldview (The Lost World of Genesis One, John H Walton). I don't hear this being talked about much, even though it really does seem to be a good way to link "believing the Bible" and accepting science (i.e. it makes most of the points of contention disappear), and I think being able to find some common ground between the two sides of the debate would be good. I am a little concerned though that my hope of "let's consider all ideas, even if they disagree with what we previously thought" is too courageous a position to expect, so this very thoughtful book might get missed by those who most need to read it (defenders of Creationism)...
Palest white circle.
The faintest dab of yellow.
Ain't no such thing as too many grits.
has placed those fossils do deceive you.
Sure dinos were intelligently designed... by an agentless, iterative, massively parallel, DNA-based world-spanning supercomputer. Just because an intelligent system is smart doesn't mean it has intentions, goals, or a human-like "self".
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
NO creationist is a "leading scientist" that "knows their stuff" in the field of paleontology. What you have are wackjobs with degrees in other fields (religious studies, underwater basket weaving), who spout off about a subject they are not experts in. IDIOTS, like you, then spout off saying, "see, here is a scientist that disagrees!"
.
New Jurassic Park film coming to a cinema near you!
Cue young earth creationists claiming this dinosaur was intelligently designed 5000 years ago.
Why do you even bring it up? You honor the creationists too much by acknowledging their existance, and you help their cause by simplifying and slightly misinterpreting their (enormously flawed) arguments, thereby giving them the chance to come back with a "correction" of your post, while completely ignoring science (again).
Cue young earth creationists claiming this dinosaur was intelligently designed 5000 years ago.
Sigh.
Funny, no one mentioned that until you did... "Cue bigoted leftist hipster making snarky anti-religion post on slashdot. Sigh."
Like the author of a book called something like "Creatures Defying Evolution" ? an ex-dentist turned a book author who tried to be a biologist or palaeontologist?
I sometimes wish my honesty and self-respect were low enough to let me cash in by publishing any kind of drek people are dying to hear.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They want their headline back. Mary Schweitzer already made the same discovery in 1993, and she's been fighting for more than 2 decades to get her findings past the "consensus" that such long preservation was impossible. It seemed like she had gotten her findings verified again by 2000 but I guess it's still only now becoming generally accepted. Really unfortunate it can still take that long for a major discovery to become accepted.
Cue young earth creationists claiming this dinosaur was intelligently designed 5000 years ago.
Sigh.
Some of them already claim that soft tissue discoveries proved that dinosaurs were recent. IIRC it was listed in the "creationist rigs search results" article a week or two ago.
Of course, there's a pending religious schism between those who claim all the dinos died in the flood, those who claim that they were saved by Noah and died later, and those who say they never existed at all (the fossils being planted by God to make sure no eviloutionists believe the bible).
You forget the existing religious schism which pits creationists vs those who accept evolution. This is something that completely baffles me, creationism, since I came to the US 26 years ago.
Creationism is hardly a form of thought in the rest of Christendom, but it is so dominant in the US. How can this country who has achieved so much have so many troglodyte-thinking people?
My grandma back in my country, who has never left her little mountain town and who only completed elementary education accepts evolution (scientists say so, I don't understand it, but they do, because they studied a lot, so it must be true, that is what she says.)
The level of willful stupidity in this country boggles the mind.
If, when raising the dinosaur, you feed it with hungry peasants, it would help cure world hunger even faster!
Like Richard Dawkins and Hitchens?