In the early 1990’s, bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex were unearthed and brought to Montana State University, and it was noticed, from the wording of the article anyway, right away that parts of the femur had not yet fossilized. Surly some rigorous scientific study had to be done. Before, we get into that, however, here is a little explanation of what you are seeing below:
What you see above are three close up shots of Tyrannosaurs Rex the hind limb bone matrix, clearing showing femur tissue matter being stretched(A); Tyrannosaurs Rex bone detail(B); close up of fibrous tissue.(C) After 60 Million years under the ground, I find it extremely exciting that such a find was made. Like, I said I am by far no specialist, but potentially this could be a huge discovery that could impact the views and ideologies of creationists.
In 1991, Dr. Mary Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. Rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Despite her distinguished career, we apparently cannot take her for her word that it looked like a modern bone, though I do, but unfortunately, she has sense retracted this statement. From what I hear. This be the case or not, I would like to actually thank her for an honesty that hasn’t been represented from her field of occupation in ages. For that alone, she deserves to be commended, but I have a unfounded suspicion that she might have refuted her statement, because of academic pressure, brought about by the direct antithesis, but that is just speculation on my part from what little I know. Schweitzer showed the slide to Jack Horner(Mr. Jurassic Park himself). “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” Horner recalls. He thought was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some gentle advice I’m sure: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” --Smithsonian Magazine May 2006
I find this reply to be rather appalling. I mean it must have been quite the buzz kill for the whole team. Way to defecate on everyone’s party there Jack. But the office, or lab, still buzzed with excitement, but this really emphasizes Jack Horner’s complete scientific bias and I feel evidence should be looked at and examined objectively, letting it speak for itself. No one need bully his fellow staff members or the evidence itself. It seems like an attempt to downplay the evidence into nothing more but a fluke, and not just a fluke, but rather a completely meaningless discovery. His reaction, in itself leads more credibility to what was found, and showing a plain, clear bias, which should denote any conclusion made by him and, cause he is the boss, his team. At the very least, give rise to suspicion of any findings they make.
However, even those who subscribe to the evolutionist theory, found it amazing, as in this account byu Dr. Schweitzer immediately after the discovery illustrates. “The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’”
Seems that the people there were pretty sure about what was going on, and seemed rather obvious to many. Now if this was the only evidence that they had, perhaps it could be just shrugged of, yet in conjunction with the soft tissue, which was able to stretch and retract, fibrous tissue, and the presence of bone marrow…anyone with an objective mind would at least reach the conclusion that there is a possibility that these fossils aren’t 60 million years old after all. Why are we so afraid to engage in any thought or pondering of idea’s we are opposed to? Especially in the scientific field, where it goes beyond mere personal choice or decision, but effects millions of people. Such topics should be open to debate.
Again, even if this incident as a whole, was an isolated case; again, perhaps it could be ignored. But its not. For example: Maria McNamara of University College Dublin, and colleagues in the UK, Spain, and US, have recovered bone marrow from 10-million-year-old fossilized bones of frogs and salamanders found in Spain. In fact, they may be able to extract the DNA from the bones themselves, skipping the whole “amber gathering scene” in Jurassic Park, now we can cut strait to the bone. The most amazing part though is that these salamanders produced blood vessles in their spleen as opposed to modern salamanders who do it through their marrow. The scientific field is not going through a time of great excitement for they may now be able to extract DNA from extinct organisms. Would bone marrow even exist after the process of fossilization, which not all decaying bodies are subject to by the way. Only under certain, catastrophic and instantaneous events can a real fossilization occur. Were these fossils subject to just the right conditions?
To be fair, I need to include their explanation: “The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix with extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels”
Yes, and this may very well be the case, but it also tells us the scientists still do not know exactly how organic soft tissue and heme can exist within the specimen, though their greatest minds are working on it as we speak, I’m sure of that. Science doesn’t like any factor to be undetermined and presumed for very long.
Though it may not be the smoking gun the creationist are looking for, we see that it seems to be relatively consistent with the younger earth, younger then 60 million years at least, and if a person just cannot even admit that possibility, from all that has been said, well perhaps science isn’t seeking truth as much as they should be and to me that is a shame. We need to revert back to the days of Sir Issac Newton, where science’s goal was about finding the truth within the cosmos. Now the mission seems to be not truth, but to take out the beliefs of other people. I hope one day that science, geographers, theologians ,of all cultures, botanists, and historians can come together, despite different findings and conclusions from relative perception, and yet work in respect and professionalism for the good of the scientific community and mankind as a whole. Yet as science builds, so does their pride, which destroys professional relationships that they may have had with others that may draw a different conclusion from the same data. These ego’s hinder science more than anything else, and they must be combated that uncorrupted, plainly worded, answered questions, without demeaning language, may lead one to enlightenment about the condition of our world, its history, and, furthermore, its future. How the trend seems to be going right now, however, the future looks bleak, for science is raising up a disrespectful faction within their profession and society whether intended or not.
If there is evidence that lines up with a different viewpoint than it should be open to debate, without fear of ridicule, professional suicide, and being barred from teaching, lecturing, and studying in the field of science. One may be hindered, as a matter of fact , from releasing any amazing finding or evidence at all, due to that fear, or due to their professional ego, which ironically has surpassed their professionalism all together in some cases.
Anyway, before I get too far off track, back to the sample itself. The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue. Chemical signatures unique to heme, a component of Hemoglobin, were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied to it. Because heme contains iron, it reacts to magnetic fields differently that other proteins, and extracts from the specimen reacted in the very same way.
To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.
Recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in dinosaur bone is a exciting find to say the least. So what else could they be? Dr. Jack Horner says, they had most certainly not been red blood cells in the specimen, but rather a form of heme, a form of iron that has a biological origin. He concludes saying that no soft tissue was there and they only were preserved because of the iron.
To me this seems like an enigmatic answer, for within his statement are the essentials of hemoglobin. That is the sample contains heme, iron, and is biological. All requisites to form what we call hemoglobin.
So, in conjunction with all these finding, I don’t think I could blame anyone for at least pondering that this fossil isn’t 60 million years old. One defiantly couldn’t be construed as ignorant for it. There surely couldn’t be more evidence could there, of younger dino-bones?
Nature 340, 138 - 140 (13 July 1989):
Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil
David M. Martill* & David M. Unwin
“FOSSILIZED impressions of pterosaur wing membranes are known from a number of localities, but true soft-tissue preservation is extremely rare. We present the first description of the internal anatomy of the wing membrane, based on exceptionally well preserved soft tissues from the forearm of a Lower Cretaceous, Brazilian pterosaur. A thin epidermis overlies a dermis composed successively of a 'stratum vasculosum', 'stratum spongiosum' and a layer of striated muscle. This exceptional specimen provides important new insights into pterosaur biology. Incipient wrinkles and an apparent lack of stiffening fibres suggest the proximal region of the wing membrane was thin, extensible and tensioned by the hind limb. Excess metabolic heat resulting from rigorous activity could be lost by vasodilation of the vascular layer, a mechanism consistent with active flight in pterosaurs.”
A discovery in Brazil has many paleontologists ecstatic over the find of a rather large pterosaur. The find seems to indicate that they possibly got quite larger than what they had originally thought. They now seem to think this particular animals wingspan could reach 60 feet!
What Caught my attention about the article, however, though all of it was interesting, was the fact that the fossil apparently still has wing membrane still attached to the bone.
Dr Martill states, “The wing membrane is really very, very thin," he said, adding the samples were about 0.5 millimetre thick.
With scientists finding more and more, dinosaur tissue within the fossils, perhaps it can be evidence that they are not as old as previously thought. One thing is for certain though, these specimens and those like it, need to be studied closely, that hypotheses may be made about the fossils development, age and origin.
This is incredible. This means that nothing evolves and the word is not millions of years old and it prove the Genesis account:" IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH." GEN1:1
ReplyDelete