Why aren't dinosaurs in the bible?

[phantasmor]

thank you that's what i was saying int last part of my post not in so many words but thank you so very much. also and i did some research and found that the Chinese mentioned dragons at 5000 BC but that would not have influenced bible writers since they were not in china and did not go to china

note: i like homer too

another note: i found something interesting

"The caveman emerges from his shelter hungry. He takes his club and begins the search for food. What's for lunch? Maybe some T-Rex babies? Yum. It probably didn't happen quite like that, but that scenario is closer to the truth than previously thought. Chinese scientists came across 130 million year old fossils of a dog-like mammal. The stomach contents contained the fossils of a five-inch long dinosaur. This means that the mammals that lived with the dinosaurs in the Mesozoic Era were not tiny pushovers that just ate insects. One of the sets of fossils found was the Repenomamus giganticus, which probably weighed about 13 kilograms. It is similar in structure to a badger and is about one meter long.

Media Credit: http://www.sciencemag.com
A dinosaur fossil found withinnn the remains of a mammal.

The smaller one was its cousin, the Repenomamus robustus. It had a skull about 50 percent smaller than that of Repenomamus giganticus. This fossil was almost a complete set. It is believed the Repenomamus robustus is about the size of an opossum. This mammal swallowed a psittacosaur, a "parrot lizard", which could grow to be six feet long."

“Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur” (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:

During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth—BH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or “fingers”—BH] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151)."
​

 

[phantasmor]

ok good point and sorry i edited my post after that but what do you think about my edit

 

[phantasmor]

oh sorry i don't remember you saying that before

also does this mean you don't believe in a mass extinction but a gradual one

 

[phantasmor]

ok now we are on the same page also I'm not trying to prove anything I'm just doing research right now and posting it here to see what you think I am sorry if it seemed like i was trying to prove something

 

[Dionysos]

That article was very long, though always nice to read groundbreaking new(ish) developments. I'm having trouble understanding why it may be related to dinosaurs and man's co-existance, or the mention of dinosaurs in the Bible though.
Are you wanting to suggest that, because the soft tissue of the bones were so well preserved, that the dinosaur bones must be from a later date? I.e, more modern, and possibly co-existing?

EDIT - I see you deleted the article from here, so ignore the above question. Or answer it if you want.

 

[phantasmor]

yeah i deleted it because i found something that said it was probably bacteria forming inside the bone in the shape of tendons. but i found an article on that that is from one extreme
Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

Thomas G. Kaye1*, Gary Gaugler2, Zbigniew Sawlowicz3
1 Department of Paleontology, Burke Museum of Natural History, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, 2 Microtechnics Inc., Granite Bay, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Geology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
Abstract

A scanning electron microscope survey was initiated to determine if the previously reported findings of “dinosaurian soft tissues” could be identified in situ within the bones. The results obtained allowed a reinterpretation of the formation and preservation of several types of these “tissues” and their content. Mineralized and non-mineralized coatings were found extensively in the porous trabecular bone of a variety of dinosaur and mammal species across time. They represent bacterial biofilms common throughout nature. Biofilms form endocasts and once dissolved out of the bone, mimic real blood vessels and osteocytes. Bridged trails observed in biofilms indicate that a previously viscous film was populated with swimming bacteria. Carbon dating of the film points to its relatively modern origin. A comparison of infrared spectra of modern biofilms with modern collagen and fossil bone coatings suggests that modern biofilms share a closer molecular make-up than modern collagen to the coatings from fossil bones. Blood cell size iron-oxygen spheres found in the vessels were identified as an oxidized form of formerly pyritic framboids. Our observations appeal to a more conservative explanation for the structures found preserved in fossil bone.

Citation: Kaye TG, Gaugler G, Sawlowicz Z (2008) Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808
Editor: Anna Stepanova, Paleontological Institute, Russian Federation
Received: April 16, 2008; Accepted: June 30, 2008; Published: July 30, 2008
Copyright: © 2008 Kaye et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The entire work was privately funded by the authors.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: tomkaye@u.washington.edu

Introduction

The previous discovery of soft, pliable tissues recovered from the dissolved remains of Tyrannosaur bone in 2005 [1], potentially marked a major turning point in the science of paleontology given that it extended the known range of preserved biomolecules by many orders of magnitude. The implication that these were preserved dinosaurian soft tissues held the promise of biologic investigations of extinct animals. The original discovery centered on several tyrannosaur specimens. From this single report, it could not be determined if this was a wholly unique one-of-a-kind preservation, or these structures remained undiscovered in other fossil material. Subsequent investigations [2] showed that these microstructures existed across a range of time and taxa and ruled out a one-time exceptional preservation. The previous work required that the fossil bone be dissolved in acid to expose the preserved microstructures.
A new line of investigation was undertaken to detect the material in unaltered bone. Furthermore these structures should be occurring commonly in bone from the same formations. This work expands on these initial investigations by examining the interior of the fossil dinosaur bone prior to dissolution in acid using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The survey totaled more than 200 hours of SEM time, covered seven geologic formations and more than fifteen genera outlined in Table 1. The data and findings presented identify a bacterial biofilm that mimics soft structures previously thought to be biological tissue. This explanation is in marked contrast to the concept of an exceptional preservation scenario of dinosaurian soft tissue and represents a plausible alternative hypothesis.

Table 1. Specimens examined in survey.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.t001
Four categories of tissues were initially discovered in 2005 [1]: (A) Clusters of spheres that showed an iron-oxygen elemental signature appeared red under the light microscope. (B) Soft, branching, tube-like structures that contained spheres. (C) Free floating “osteocytes” complete with fillapodia and (D) a filamentous mass that remained pliable and elastic. Subsequent tests using immunochemistry showed positive for proteins [3]. Three of these structures were found commonly in this survey and discussed below.

Materials and Methods

Scanning electron microscopes used were JEOL T300, Zeiss Supra and Cambridge S200. Light microscopes were Zeiss Axiomat, Nikon SMZ-U and Unitron. EDS spectra were taken with Kevex Delta 5, EDAX Apollo 40 running under EDAX Genesis/Pegasus and Link LZ5 running under WinEDS.
SEM specimens were prepared by pressure fracturing and selected pieces approximately 10 mm square were fixed to aluminum stubs with high purity carbon tabs. Initial specimens were uncoated to minimize potential disruption of internal contents. Subsequent specimens were gold coated with a Bio-Rad E5000 sputter coater or Denton Desk IV turbo coater with Pd or Pt target. Low dot-pitch element maps were run at 15 kV. The maps of individual elements were combined with a high-resolution secondary electron images to produce a high resolution colored element maps.
Modern biofilms were grown with the following method. Two gallons of water obtained from a local pond was placed in a new five gallon bucket and recirculated with a small pump at room temperature. Five new microscope slides were placed in the bottom with 100 mg of glucose nutrient added to the water. Water samples were taken every two days to monitor microbe population. One slide was removed and examined under the light microscope every few days to monitor biofilm accumulation rate. Slides were allowed to desiccate at room temperature over several days. Microbial communities could clearly be seen in the hydrated biofilms under the light microscope but subsequent examination under SEM showed only a smooth undulating profile.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to investigate the specimens' molecular structure. A turtle carapace from the Hell Creek formation was selected for spectroscopy because of its proportionally large chambers in the trabecular bone that allowed scraping the coatings loose. Two milligrams of material was ground with 450 milligrams of potassium bromide (KBr) and pressed into a pellet using 8 tons pressure. Modern biofilms grown on microscope slides in pond water were allowed to desiccate for 7 days and 2.5 milligrams were pressed into a KBr pellet as above. A 2.5 milligram sample of desiccated tendon from a chicken was ground with KBr and pelletized. Spectrums were taken on a Nicolet 510P bench at 1 cm−1 resolution with a minimum of 15 scans. Infrared flux was matched within 5% for all specimens and a clean KBr pellet used for background subtraction between specimens. Excel cross correlation routines were used to determine percentage of similarity for spectrums.
Framboids were individually extracted from fractured dinosaur bone fragments with a magnet and transferred to a carbon sticky tab on an SEM stub. EDS was performed on a small section of the sphere at 20 kV in the area shown with the spectrum in figure 1.

Figure 1. EDS spectrum of framboid.
EDS spectrum of framboid showing an iron-oxygen signature. Pt is from coating for SEM. Area in red box was scanned for elements.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g001
Multiple specimens were pressure fractured and 10–20 mm fragments selected for demineralization in 0.5 M ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (pH 8.0) in individual plastic containers at room temperature. Resident times ranged from several days to several weeks depending on specimen resistance. Baths were changed at approximately three day intervals with fresh acid. Remaining structures were either photographed directly in the baths at low magnification 7–75× or removed for higher power imaging.
All specimens for carbon dating were handled under a flow hood with clean sterile gloves and instruments. The specimens were pressure fractured to reveal fresh surfaces. A bone fragment from the Lance formation was microscopically examined and coatings that appeared to have been dislodged were removed for analysis. Fifty milligrams of material were sent to Geochron Labs, Cambridge Mass. for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) analysis. The results were 139.01%±0.65 of modern (1950) of 14C activity.

Results

The hollow morphology of the tyrannosaur femur supported the general idea that an exceptionally well-preserved bone may act as a containment vessel for biomolecules. To test this concept, a perfectly preserved turtle phalange showing no cracks or deformities (Fig. 2) was first selected for SEM examination. The specimen was pressure fractured and directly examined uncoated in the SEM. A cluster of spheres approximately 10 microns in diameter, similar to Fig. 3, was discovered almost immediately. Subsequent EDS showed an iron-oxygen signature. Continuing SEM surveys of multiple specimens from the Lance, Hell Creek, Chadron and Pierre Shale formations all showed similar iron-oxygen spheres ranging in size from 5–29 microns. Examination of demineralized specimens under the light microscope displayed small red spheres clustered in the tubular structures (Fig. 4A). Discovery of these spheres in an ammonite suture indicated they had no relationship to iron derived from blood. These spheres were identified as framboids which are seen world wide in black smokers, algal mats and are commonly found in sediments [4].

Figure 2. Well preserved complete bone used in initial investigation.
Exceptionally well preserved small phalange from the Lance formation used for initial survey. No cracks or deformities present. Specimen was pressure fractured and directly examined under the SEM. UWBM 89327 Scale bar, 10 mm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g002

Figure 3. Iron oxide framboids.
An iron oxide framboid cluster in dinosaur trabecular bone found commonly throughout time and taxa. At approximately 10 microns in diameter they are closely matched in size to red blood cells and typical pyrite framboids. UWBM 89327 Scale bar, 3 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g003

Figure 4. Tubular branching structures.
Branching, transparent tube-like structures that match the porosity of the trabecular bone. Note small red grains that were found to be iron oxide framboids. These structures remain in acid baths after demineralization. Some are pliable, others frangible. Scale bars, 100 µm. Photos Z stacked, 7 images, unsharp mask, gamma adjusted.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g004
The second structure category consisted of soft, pliable, branching tubules with morphology closely resembling blood vessels. To further investigate this hypothesis, specimens from the Lance and Hell Creek formations were subjected to EDTA baths in order to determine if similar soft structures were present after dissolution of the bone. After demineralization, tubular branching structures that conformed to the size and shapes of the open vascular canals in the spongy bone were found remaining in the baths (Fig. 4 A–C). Some of these structures were pliable while others were frangible, consistent with previous discoveries [2]. Extensive EDS mapping was done to identify these coatings in the voids of the unaltered fossil bone.
The arrows in Fig. 5 identify coatings that peeled away from the bone when fractured, revealing a layered structure. Figure 6 shows an SEM image of a typical vascular canal in the upper half of the image. The bottom is overlaid with an elemental map showing the presence of iron (shown in red) within the coating of the vascular canal, and the presence of calcium (shown in green) in the bone itself. This picture illustrates the difficulty of identifying the layering in a standard image and may have contributed to these coatings not being identified in the past. All of the Lance and Hell Creek specimens collected from both the surface and several meters deep in quarries, showed some evidence of this coating. Most were iron-infiltrated but some contained only carbon and were not mineralized.

Figure 5. Coatings on vascular canal walls.
SEM image of fractured bone showing coatings naturally peeling from vascular canal walls. UWBM 89324 Scale bar, 150 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g005

Figure 6. Iron mineralization in vascular canal.
SEM image of fractured bone surface across canal. Bottom half is EDS overlay with red representing a mineralized iron coating and green, calcium from the original bone. The transition from bone to coating is not immediately apparent without elemental analysis. UWBM 89326 Scale bar, 10 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g006
Many framboids had a surface showing uncharacteristic bubble-like pores (Fig. 7A). These same pores are found on the surface coating of the vascular canal (Fig. 7B). These pores are inconsistent with a mineral origin and show that the same coatings cover the vascular canals, framboids and crystals found in the voids. The coatings on these additional structures imply that this phenomenon is not unique to preserved blood vessels, which would only be present on the walls.

Figure 7. Bubble structures.
(A) Bubble-like structures are found throughout some vascular canals. (B) Similar bubble-like structures found on framboids demonstrating that the coatings are undifferentiated between framboids, crystals and canal walls. (C) Framboid on left shows a heavy coating of biofilm that completely obscures the framboidal structure that is still evident on the right specimen UWBM 89322, UWBM 89328 Scale bars, 2 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g007
Figure 8A shows the concave surface of a vascular canal in trabecular bone. A network of structures, originally overlooked in this survey as cracks, cover the surface. The “cracks”, upon closer inspection, bridge each other in a way that is inconsistent with any inorganic process (Fig. 8, B and C). Closer investigation of these structures reveals a trough rather than a crack (Fig. 8D). This data suggests that these “cracks” are formed by free-swimming microbes or bacteria [5] in a viscous medium–again reinforcing the biofilm hypothesis.

Figure 8. Bridging trough structures.
(A) Vascular canal showing crack-like morphologies which are actually troughs, suggesting that organisms moved through a viscous medium. (B and C) Close-ups of bridged structures that are inconsistent with inorganic processes. (D) High magnification of additional trough structures showing rounded bottoms and branching morphology. UWBM 89322 Scale bars, 5 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g008
An experiment was conducted to compare infrared spectra of modern biofilms with modern collagen and fossil bone coatings. Modern biofilms were grown on microscope slides from local pond water with high iron content. These slides developed EDS signatures of iron contamination within 2 weeks of formation. Sample coatings from fossil turtle carapace were submitted to infrared spectroscopy and compared to spectra of modern biofilms and modern collagen (Fig. 9). Fourier cross-correlation showed an 83% match between modern biofilms and fossil specimen with only a 37% correlation to modern collagen. This experiment suggests that modern biofilms share a closer molecular make-up than modern collagen to the coatings from fossil bones.

Figure 9. Infrared spectral comparison.
Infrared spectra showing similarity of modern biofilms and modern collagen compared to fossil coatings. Cross correlation shows that the fossil material more closely resembles the modern biofilm than the modern collagen.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g009
The third structures recovered from the acid baths, were free floating osteocytes complete with fillapodia . (Fig. 10, A and B). Freshly fractured bone shows cross sections though many lacunae. SEM investigation of these lacunae before acid dissolution yielded the following results. Figures 10, C, D and E are several examples of material contained in the original lacunae. The variety of forms found (even in the same bone), indicates that the lacunae are not isolated pockets of exceptional preservation. The structures present are sub-micron spheres and rods, which are morphologically consistent with bacterial structures.

Figure 10. Osteocytes and lacunae.
(A and B) Osteocytes found floating free in acid baths with fillapodia. (C,D,E) Fractured lacunae examined with SEM show filaments and spheres consistent with bacterial forms. UWBM 89325, UWBM 89322 Scale bars, A,B 10 µm, C–E 1 µm.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.g010
In order to determine if the mineralized biofilms were ancient in origin, a sample of material removed from the vascular canals was subjected to 14C dating. The results were ‘greater than modern’ indicating a modern origin for the material.

Discussion

The iron-oxygen spheres identified here as framboids, ranged in size from 5–29 microns and fall in the range previously described by Schweitzer and Horner [6] with an average size of 25 microns. The elemental signature of these objects differed from the standard pyrite framboid, which includes iron and sulfur. The lack of sulfur was previously used as an argument that these structures were not framboids [6]. The literature shows that pyrite framboids containing sulfur can be oxidized and replaced by iron (hydroxy) oxides over time, leading to a complete loss of sulfur but maintaining the original framboidal structure [7], [8] including those found in dinosaur bones [9]. Biofilms coating these structures can at times obscure the crystal faceting of the original framboid structure (Fig 7,C) further hampering identification. The presence of biofilm coatings on already oxidized framboids suggest their later formation.
This investigation contends that iron-oxygen spheres are far too common in many formations to be the result of extraordinary preservation. Framboid morphology and elemental signature may superficially make them appear to be related to biological structures but they are, in fact, an inorganically produced mineral feature [10] often found in association with organic matter [4]. This idea was originally proposed by Martill and Unwin [11].
The bubble structures suggest the release of gasses from a viscous medium [12]. Various forms of anaerobic bacteria release gaseous by-products as bubbles which erupt on the surface [13]. This suggests that the medium is a desiccated exopolysaccharide glycocalyx known commonly as bacterial biofilm. A biofilm would coat the voids of vascular canals and lacunae, producing an endocast of the structure. Once the bone is dissolved, these biofilm endocasts would closely mimic pliable vascular structures. The results presented here suggest that the tubular structures and osteocytes are formed by this process. The lack of observed cell structure in the transparent tubes is inconsistent with preserved tissues.
Recent protein work by Asara et al. [14] examined ground tyrannosaur bone under a highly sensitive mass spectrometer. This resulted in seven recovered protein sequences attributed to the original tyrannosaur but only in femptogram quantities (10−15 gram moles). The additional detection of bacterial proteins, identified at the species level as the decomposing bacteria Rhodococcus sp. [14] showed conclusively that bacterial contamination was present, even though the original bone was deeply buried, [15]. Rhodococcus sp. exhibits morphological differentiation and can be found as both cocci and filaments [16] consistent with forms found in lacunae from this survey (Fig. 10). Recent discoveries of collagen-like proteins in bacteria and viruses [17] add to the problem of unambiguous identification of vertebrate biomolecules.
Biofilms are complex systems produced by virtually all bacteria on almost any water/surface boundary and are ubiquitous in nature [18], [19]. They provide a protective medium against changes in the broader environment from pH levels, toxins, etc. They are viscous, flexible and long lasting through mineralization. Recent biofilms would be naturally pliable and elastic while duplicating the shape of the surfaces they form on. Biofilms harbor ionic bonds which make them pre-disposed to mineralization [20] and is exemplified by calculus on human teeth. Examination of modern biofilms showed copious quantities of bacteria living in the films, however, SEM images only show a smooth undulating profile of the biofilm surface consistent with previous studies [21]. The voids in dinosaur bone provide the micro-environmental equivalent of a natural cave where the discovery of biofilms has become an area of active study.
The detection of similar structures by the previous body of work across time and taxa, suggests an overlap with this survey [2]. When biofilms coat a substrate, and that substrate is subsequently removed, the biofilm will retain much of the original morphology. This can explain the quantity and similarity of structures found in fossil bone and indicates that these structures are unlikely to be preserved dinosaurian tissues but the product of common bacterial activities.


one from the other extreme
Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels?

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Over a decade ago, paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer accidentally discovered soft tissues preserved inside dinosaur bone.1 While examining the bone structure from an incompletely fossilized T. rex nicknamed "B. rex," she came upon what appeared to be blood vessels and blood cells on her microscope slides. In an interview years later, she recalled, "I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can't be. Red blood cells don't preserve."2
Evolutionary scientists have had a very difficult time fitting this evidence into a neo-Darwinian framework. After the soft tissues were verified, creation scientists interpreted them as confirmation of a young earth. "Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago," Creation magazine reported.3
Of course, questioning the paradigm of eons of time seems nonsensical to most scientists because "geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it."2 However, this appeal to authority ignores the possibility that the geologists themselves "established" this age based not on science, but on assumptions of millions of years of earth history, the authority of the biologists who date fossils based on their alleged evolutionary path, and the veracity of the geologic column itself, which was defined in the 19th century, prior to the accumulation of 90 percent of current geologic data.
The belief that "millions of years" is established fact seems here to trump the empirical evidence that biomolecules should not last longer than 100,000 years. One resilient biomolecule found in many fossils, including B. rex, is collagen. However, "in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents."4
With a lifespan of 30,000 or so years, collagen should not exist in a 68-million-year-old sample. To get around this, some evolutionary scientists challenge the measured molecular decay rates. "Schweitzer's work is 'showing us we really don't understand decay,'" paleontologist Thomas Holtz said in Smithsonian magazine.2 But even allowing 100,000 years for collagen longevity, perhaps due to superior preservation, this is still only 1/680th of B. rex's assumed age. It would seem that the natural preservation of collagen for 68 million years would have required a miracle on the same scale as creation.
A new possible solution was published in July 2008. Researchers took electron micrographs of the "soft tissues," and concluded that they are bacterial secretions called "biofilms."5 Though this is possible, the weight of evidence still seems to favor the interpretation that they are genuine dinosaurian tissue. First, collagen protein sequence data is not a bacterial product, but "colleagues at Harvard successfully sequenced the dinosaur protein that Schweitzer had extracted from the tissue, identifying the amino acids and confirming that the material from the T. rex was collagen. 'From a paleo standpoint, sequence data really is the nail in the coffin that confirms the preservation of these tissues,' Schweitzer says."6
Second, as Dr. Schweitzer pointed out for National Geographic, no biofilms have been observed with hollow, branching tubes. Third, biofilms would have been thicker at the bottom, pulled down by gravity.7 And fourth, the flimsy biofilms themselves could never have retained the shape of the original dinosaur blood vessels, to which they allegedly conformed, for 68 million years.
Not only should the unfossilized bone and its collagen have turned to dust long ago, but there should certainly be no vestige of blood vessels, or even bacterial slime still shaped like vessels. These tissues remain a pesky enigma for long-age thinking, but they fit right in with the young world viewpoint that an unbiased Bible reader would understand.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.



one from a neutral source


Soft Dinosaur Tissue Dispute - Probably Just Biofilm, Says Study
By News Staff | July 30th 2008 12:05 AM | 5 comments

More from News Staff

• Hairspray Linked To Hypospadias Genital Birth Defect In Boys
• Beta Pictoris Finally Gets Imaged
• Turbulent Flow Doesn't Always Stay Turbulent, Says Study

All
Paleontologists in 2005 hailed research that apparently showed that soft, pliable tissues had been recovered from dissolved dinosaur bones, a major finding that would substantially widen the known range of preserved biomolecules. But new research challenges that finding and suggests that the supposed recovered dinosaur tissue is in reality biofilm – or slime.

The original research, published in Science magazine, claimed the discovery of blood vessels and what appeared to be entire cells inside fossil bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex. The scientists had dissolved the bone in acid, leaving behind the blood vessel- and cell-like structures.

Iron mineralization in vascular canal. SEM image of fractured bone surface across canal. Bottom half is EDS overlay with red representing a mineralized iron coating and green, calcium from the original bone. The transition from bone to coating is not immediately apparent without elemental analysis. UWBM 89326 Scale bar, 10 µm.

In a paper published in PloS ONE, Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the T. rex bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.

He likens the phenomenon to what would happen if you left a pail of rainwater sitting in your backyard. After a couple of weeks you would be able to feel the slime that had formed on the inner walls of the bucket.

"If you could dissolve the bucket away, you'd find soft, squishy material in the shape of the bucket, and that's the slime," Kaye said. "The same is true for dinosaur bones. If you dissolve away the bone, what's left is biofilm in the shape of vascular canals."

Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in the previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.

The researchers found that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually structures called framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various time periods, including an extinct sea creature called an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood.

"We determined that these structures were too common to be exceptionally preserved tissue. We realized it couldn't be a one-time exceptional preservation," Kaye said.

The scientists also dissolved bone in acid, as had been done previously, and found the same soft tissue structures. They conducted a comparison using infrared mass spectroscopy and determined the structures were more closely related to modern biofilm than modern collagen, extracellular proteins associated with bone. Carbon dating placed the origin at around 1960.

Using an electron microscope, the researchers saw coatings on the vascular canal walls that contained gas bubbles, which they associated with the presence of methane-producing bacteria. In addition, they examined what looked like tiny cracks within the vascular canals and found that they were actually small troughs, or channels. Study at high magnification revealed the channels had rounded bottoms and bridged each other, indicating they were organically created, likely by bacteria moving in a very thick solution.

"From this evidence, we could determine that what had previously been reported as dinosaurian soft tissues were in fact biofilms, or slime," Kaye said.

Kaye TG, Gaugler G, Sawlowicz Z (2008) Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808

and one from national geographic

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins

Scott Norris
for National Geographic News
April 12, 2007 Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone—has been extracted from the remains of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, according to two new reports.

The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization.

Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).

In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.

In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.

Multiple Tests

For the protein sequencing study, Asara's team isolated seven fragmentary chains of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—from the T. rex specimen.

The results are by far the oldest such data ever recovered. Previously, the earliest protein sequence data came from a 300,000-year-old mammoth specimen.

Asara's team extracted the amino acids using a highly refined version of the analytical technique known as mass spectrometry.

They also used the technique to isolate more than 70 amino acid sequences from a mastodon thought to be between 160,000 and 600,000 years old.

Comparing the dino and mastodon samples to data from modern animals allowed the team to identify sequences that link the ancient amino acids to modern collagen.

Schweitzer and colleagues independently used a variety of chemical and molecular tests to identify the preserved collagen.

Both of the new studies, which will appear in tomorrow's edition of the journal Science, were conducted using the same unusual T. rex remains Schweitzer and others first described in 2005.

In that report the researchers described the seemingly inexplicable preservation of soft tissues—including branching blood vessels and bone matrix—in a T. rex fossil from Wyoming.

Some experts were immediately skeptical, saying that preservation of organic material over such a vast period of time should not be possible.

"The accepted viewpoint is that collagen, like other organic molecules, will degrade relatively rapidly, so that after a maximum of about a hundred thousand years nothing will remain," Schweitzer acknowledged.

But when conditions for preservation are just right, she said, "degradation rates may differ from predictions. Data from both [new] papers suggest that original protein may be preserved."

Burden of Proof

Hendrik Poinar is an expert in fossil proteins and DNA at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Like others in the field, he had questioned whether Schweitzer's 2005 report made a sufficiently strong case that the preserved tissues came from a T. rex and were not the result of more recent contamination.

The new studies have him more convinced.

"I'd have to say, I'm more optimistic about it than I was previously," Poinar said. "Now the burden of proof is on the skeptics."

One self-proclaimed skeptic is Christina Nielsen-Marsh, an expert on ancient bone proteins at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

"I would love it to be true," she said of the new T. rex findings. "But I do have serious doubts. I know of no other research group that has been able to extract—let alone sequence—indigenous proteins from fossils older than a million years.

"Based on what we presently understand, these T. rex sequences make no sense at all," Nielsen-Marsh said.

"That doesn't mean they are wrong. But if they are right, then we all need to rethink how molecules survive in the geological environment."

Schweitzer and her collaborators, including paleontologist John Horner of Montana State University, agree that their discovery should prompt such a rethinking, which could lead to changes in how fieldwork is conducted.

In a Wednesday teleconference, the researchers said several factors may help explain the unusual protein preservation in the T. rex fossil.

The size and density of some dinosaur bones, they said, may help shield internal structures from decay. And bones preserved in dry sandstone may resist degradation better than those trapped in moist soil layers.

Horner said that a central lesson is that paleontologists need to dig deeper to find exceptionally well-preserved fossils.

"If we spend time getting as deep into the sediment as we can, I think we're going to find that many specimens are like this," Horner said.

"This summer we're sending out a major expedition, going worldwide looking for exquisite preservation."

Extensive Sequences

On the laboratory side, Harvard's Asara said, researchers should expect further improvements in analytical techniques, facilitating the recovery of protein sequences from very old remains.

Previous beliefs that proteins rarely if ever survive beyond a few hundred thousand years have now been proven false, he said.

"The mastodon [analysis] revealed a lot of protein," Asara said. "We can now get extensive sequences from species half a million years old, if they are very well preserved."

The researchers said that obtaining more ancient sequences should lead to a powerful new synthesis of paleontology and molecular biology.

"We can now begin [to study] evolutionary relationships between modern and extinct organisms at the molecular level," Asara said.



but on a side note if i did want to make an argument i wouldn't need a scientific article, but that would help. i just don't want to argue for at least a week

 

[der Astronom]

And how does this scientific article prove or support any of your points in your argument? The whole point of this forum is not to prove you can find scientific articles that might not mean anything; you should summarize what's in the article, show how it has any relevance to your argument and provide a link to it, since the article itself isn't your argument itself, it only supports it, and only if you explain how it's relevant.

 

[Dionysos]

Like Tessbot says it would be wiser to post a link to the article than posting the whole article out on here. It really is a long article, even longer than the other one you had posted up that you deleted.

Perhaps if in the future you could quote parts of the article and give summaries of what it was saying, or just the conclusions really is all that is neccessary. Then we may understand its relevance to it.

 

[phantasmor]

maybe I'm getting a little too off track if I'm going to post something i need to explain how it is relevant so... although they cant agree weather or not it is biofilm i believe that since they have done DNA typing on it and it did produce results they must be blood cells and if they are blood cells that would mean that they would not be very old and that is kind of the conclusion i came to when i read those but since it does not necessarily mean anything so i don't know why i posted that

oh and i found out something. i found out that this argument is pointless since the bible never goes into in depth descriptions of animals like every detail of how they looked except in Job and even in job it does not point out many features of leviathan besides fire breathing and scales but instead it points out how fearsome it is because the bible is about people not animals

 

[Sephiroth's Will]

I was gonna go off on a ridiculous rant about this but i dont think it would get my point across as well as i want. So im just gonna sum it up and be blunt. In my opinion dinosaurs arent in the bible for one reason and one reason only there werent any archaeologist back then to discover them. I mean supposedly they outdate jesus and all that biblical stuff anyways. So clearly they were around BEFORE the bible. Thats why they arent IN the bible.

 

[Seed]

The word "dinosaur" isn't mentioned in the Bible,
but there are a few beasts believed to be dinosaurs mentioned.
Such as Tanniyn, Leviathan, and Behemoth.
Sea monsters, and dragons(not the flying kind) are mentioned.

 

[Bakusa]

Thats a really good question there cannot be an answer to your question since everyone knows that they were never real.If you notice that the bibles that are found today are way diffrent then the one at the vadican just do some research on that.

Heres the answer to your question "NO".

No one has ever proved that they really exist and if they have where is the proof at.

I can't tell if you're being extremely sarcastic or not.

If you're being serious then, wut. Let me weigh a highly suspicious and outdated rulebook with giant bones dug up from our very own Earth put on display, fitting together perfectly to form giant lizards.
Pretty sure the latter is winning.

 

[phantasmor]

first of all i find it surprising that this is still on the first page

second i have noticed how much of an idiot i was back then

third i was watching the discovery channel the other day and they had a special on a "new" discovery of a scaly, fire-breathing dinosaur with four legs and two wings and i find that hilarious and it proves that other dinosaurs could breathe fire as well

fourth no matter what i still believe that those creatures mentioned in the bible were dinosaurs

finally i am willing to discuss this in a non-argument manner if anyone wants to hop on board and discuss this as it is a very interesting topic

 

[SSJTrunks]

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, God created all of Earth's creatures, that includes dinosaurs, there ya go.

 

[Shu]

Honestly, because the people who wrote the Bible had not dug up the bones themselves. I mean you can justify it in many ways really.. even if I don't believe in the christian or Hebrew god - I can help their cause.

People were divinely inspired to write the book, God himself/herself/itself did not write the Bible. It's only the ignorant ones who try to fabricate stuff from small contexts in the Bible. The Bible is nothing more than a good book, trying to explain morals and guidance and law from teachings and meanings. From Psalms and Proverbs to Ruth.. (sticking to old testament only).

I mean if God did exist 2010+ years ago and gave these people the things needed to write the Bible, then I don't think necessarily they have to be 100% accurate. Hence why Atheists annoy me a good bit.. because they have no solid proof that can debunk the Bible (old testament at least).

I could be bashing everything the Bible says, but even I came away with stuff reading it all.

 

[Kei]

You're just repeating the word "He", lad.

I'm not supporting the religions by my statement. However, why aren't Dinosaurs in the Bible? If I remember correctly it is said that the books who are from god are to show people what to do, give them a bit of their kind (Human) history. if you ask why Dinosaurs aren't mentioned then I would ask why micro species are not mentioned in any book. Why the vaccine of a diseases is not mentioned in a book? its supposed to be a gift from god to help his people after all, isn't it?

The books are only for guidance and the stories of men who lived before you not to tell you about the history of all the species.

Also SSJ, as you seem to be a "Believer" in Bible, why Bible was updated every now and then, I'm sure there were like a Jesus of each era that downloaded data from God and updated the Bible, Only Bible that can be taken in consideration is the original Bible that hasn't been edited or been played with. Why am I saying that? Because there are many Bibles saying different things perhaps?

 

[phantasmor]

i have seen many different translations saying different things from being translated loosely and some literally but not many different bibles saying different things

 

[Ewan]

Well the main reason is probably because fossils of dinosaurs hadn't been discovered yet. People just didn't know that stuff back then.
However, the bible details how the christian god created all the animals on the Earth, the bible written by god by inspiring men to do so. You would think that the divine creator of everything would know about dinosaurs.

 

[007sephiroth]

Ok man. This is a legitimate question that comes up in many peoples minds. Do not be ashamed of free thinking, it makes us who we are. I am a Christian, yes, so I believe in the bible, but there are very many scientific discoveries that seem to contradict the text. But that is the misconception, most people take the text too seriously or do not fully understand the scientific aspects of life and so cannot relate the two together like I. Indeed I am a strange Christian, I believe in reincarnation, I believe in evolution; but I also believe God has created all of us out of love and has a plan for all of us, and I believe Jesus is my savior. Now you may come and ask yourself, how can I say all of these things and believe them all to be true? Well here is my answer: In the bible, it says God created the heavens and the Earth in a mere seven days; however, I ask all who take this to be an absolute truth, what is seven days to an immortal spiritual being as omnipotent as God? There is no time, in other words the bible is understating how long (in terms of our time) it took for the process to occur. It does mention dinosaurs, though no one notices, where it says God created all the animals of the Earth. Animals is a very general term, but people have simply taken it to mean that God created the animals we know, like deer or tigers and wolves; no one thinks it could mean giant reptiles, but it does. That is my answer.... Oh and here is why reincarnation is true as well: if you as a soul do not prove to God you are worthy of heaven, then do you think God simply condemns you? NO! The God I believe in as my Lord is a compassionate being who understands us all and will only throw those souls who have proven worthy of hell into its depths.... That is all..............

 

[phantasmor]

hmm i would debate with you about the 7 days thing but this is not the place... now about the dinosaur thing it does mention tanniym/tanniyn a lot in the old testament which is usually translated to mean dragon/dragons but can easily be translated to mean dinosaur/dinosaurs when you put in the fact that the word dinosaur was not in existence back then and it does mention a water creature with scales, big teeth, and a long neck, that breathes fire and.... despite breathing fire it sounds like a dinosaur to me NOTE:IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS LOOK BACK AT PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS THREAD