T-Rex Dinosaur is Found Un-Fossilized

by Perry 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kwintestal

  How can that be if the world is only 6000 years old? And how would that dino-tissue survive the flood? I'd call it a hoax.

  That's really neat though. I hadn't heard it before.

  Kwin
• 

  Elsewhere

  I got dibs on the first piece of BBQ!!!
• 

  jwfacts

  I remember being taught that everything was made less than 42,000 years ago (six 7000 year days) and dinosaurs were impossible. Now it's ok to admit dinosaurs were real and could be far older than 42000 years. Eventually JWs will believe man has been around 100'000's of years and that it still proves Genesis is true. People believe anything if they want to.
  I look forward to Jurassic Park, it cant be too far away.
• 

  jaredg

  They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University

  
  

  
  
  GO WOLF PACK!!!
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Very interesting. It would be cool if we could recover at least some mitochondrial DNA, which is easier to collect than nuclear DNA since it is much shorter and each cell contains hundreds of copies.

  On a side note, I learned something interesting about the word "fossil" recently. I used to think of a fossil as a bone or plant that had turned to rock. But did you know that actually the word refers to any evidence of ancient plant or animal life? So, for example, even a footprint in mud (wherein none of the actual foot remains) is considered a fossil. In this way, the word is analagous to the word "artifact," which is any evidence of prior human life.

  SNG
• 

  Perry

  

  Dinosaur DNA Said Implanted Into Frog Researchers hopeful creature growing in frog will have dinosaur traits Friday, April 1, 2005 Posted: 9:48 PM EST (1248 GMT) Researchers say recently recovered dinosaur DNA is growing in a frog like this one. RELATED • Science YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Research or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this?

  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Following the discovery of 70-million-year-old soft tissue from a Tyrannosaurus rex less than a month ago, the same group of researchers announced today they not only have isolated dinosaur DNA -- the blueprint of life -- but implanted the DNA into a growing frog embryo.

  If scientists are successful, the resulting creature may look like a cross between a traditional frog and it's much, much older -- and far more dangerous -- ancient cousin, said lead researcher Mary Schweitzer Higby of South Carolina State University.

  Using traditional techniques, Higby said that following the discovery of the soft tissue, and the resulting DNA contained inside the ancient cells and blood vessles, the door was essentially opened for attempting to create life with dinosaur traits.

  "Getting to the DNA was easier than we had expected," Higby said in a telephone interview. "The vessles and contents of the bone was similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ostrich bone, making it fairly easy to isolate what we were looking for."

  Higby said the sturdy T-Rex bone and the particulars of how it was recovered preserved the contents perfectly.

  "It was almost like finding an insect trapped in amber," she said, reffering to the 1993 movie Jurassic Park.

  The next step in the process is carefully monitoring the embryo implanted in the adult female frogs. Higby said they successfully performed the process on 15 African tree frogs, all of which are being stored under tight security in the South Carolina State University Labs in Orangeburg, S.C.

  "We're not exactly sure what we will get," she said. "While it is unlikely a T-Rex will grow in the frog, the creature may look like a bit of each. Honestly we are not positive what will happen."

  She added that if the creature inside the frog grows to be too large for the frog's womb, they have researchers on hand to remove the embryo and continue it's gestation outside the frog, similar to techniques performed at Duke University's School of Medicine.

  "It does sound something out of a sci-fi movie, but I assure you this is no April Fool's joke," Higby said.
• 

  Perry

  Yeh, I posted a thread about this last year when "Dinosaur DNA" was in the headlines all over.

  This particular news came out in March of this year.

  Reality once again is something else.

  Whose reality are you writing about?

  The bones and the "tissue" within IS fossilized.

  With all due respect PP, you seem to be trying to say that what people see isn't really what they are seeing.

  Creationists are once again misleading the public.

  This statement seems a out of place; a non sequitur. What creationists are you talking about?

  What is of value is that the fosilized soft tissue provides new insights into the biology of these animals.

  I get the impression PP that if a live T-Rex snatched you from behind your computer and shook you violently that you would write that the existence of "millions of years" tm creatures is not the real issue but rather their nasty Dino breath must be researched to provide insight into their eating habits.

  Also rather than just one exmple there are a number. The chances of fossilization in the first place is so small and even rarer are the conditions wherein the bone interior details are preserved.

  Say whaaaat?

  If you want TRex DNA just go to the store and buy some chicken wings, they are their cousins.

  Or just read the newspapers.
• 

  Leolaia

  That was hilarious, Perry! LOL! Better spoof than what the Onion offers these days.
• 

  TD

  The bones and the "tissue" within IS fossilized.

  With all due respect PP, you seem to be trying to say that what people see isn't really what they are seeing.

  As Seymour (And Discover magazine) pointed out, is still unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material had been replaced. In other words, even though it was flexible, it was still fossillized, not preserved tissue.

  Creationists are once again misleading the public.

  This statement seems a out of place; a non sequitur. What creationists are you talking about?

  I think he might mean the YEC crowd who typically pounce on things like this and claim it as proof that dinosaurs lived a scant few thousand years ago.
• 

  Perry

  As Seymour (And Discover magazine) pointed out, is still unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material had been replaced. In other words, even though it was flexible, it was still fossillized, not preserved tissue.

  Seems untrue due to the fact that anti-bodies were detected in mice in response to the T-Rex hemeglobin that was injected into them. If the heme were replaced with other material, there would have been no antibody response.