Dinosaur rib bones reveal remnants of 195-million-year-old protein

Seems it's all about knowing how to look - and where to look. The collagen was found only in the small vascular canals, where it was protected by hematite particles likely derived from hemoglobin.

Also note: Proteins are much more stable than DNA.

Dinosaur rib bones reveal remnants of 195-million-year-old protein

New research provides the first evidence that proteins have been preserved within the 195-million-year-old rib of the sauropodomorph dinosaur Lufengosaurus.

...The collagen was found together with lots of small, spherical hematite particles. Hematite is a mineral that can be formed from the iron in hemoglobin, the oxygen-transport protein in red blood cells. The chemical bond between iron and oxygen is what gives blood cells their red colour.

Reisz and his colleagues believe that these hematite particles were derived from the original blood of the dinosaur, and that they acted as the catalyst for preserving the protein in the vascular canals of the bone. These collagen pieces are probably remnants of the blood vessels that supplied blood to the bone cells in the living dinosaur.

"Interestingly, there was no evidence of preservation of organic remains in the main mass of the bone, only in the small vascular canals that ran along the length of the rib, where hematite was also present" says Reisz.

Thank you for posting this. But please, people, use your common sense regarding the observations at hand.


Empirical Evidence

1) intact proteins are found in dinosaur remains (even soft tissue is found in dinosaurs: link)
2) Protein degradation is a relatively quick process even when it is uncatalyzed (link). Proteolysis (protein degradation) at its fastest can occur within days and sometimes minutes (link 2)


Speculation

1) It's 195 million years old.

a reply to: cooperton

I would say that you weren't aware of the various dating methods that led to that figure but you have had them explained to you in the Origins & Creationism forum multiple times. You just choose to ignore scientific evidence to support your crazy belief that the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed with Man.

a reply to: GetHyped

It's a broken record of willful ignorance and confirmation bias. You can lead a horse to water but if it doesn't believe that water is wet, it's not going to drink it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

I would say that you weren't aware of the various dating methods that led to that figure

Carbon dating is the only method that dates the remains of the actual organism and here are some results:

C-14 dating on allosaurus and acrocanthosaurus from the University of Arizona indicate an age of 9,890 and 16,120 years old: Link

C-14 dating on dinosaurs at Georgia's AMS lab indicate an age of 33,000 and 41,000 years old: link

When the lab later discovered that these samples they dated were dinosaur bones, they rescinded their results to avoid scrutiny from the "scientific" priesthood:
link

Further info: link

a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

Bone contains proteins which contains carbon.

Regardless, Soft tissue is found in dinosaur bones; Schweitzer found collagen and blood vessel fragments in tyrannosaurus bones.

a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating (and when it is/is not used) has been explained to you a million times before. If you haven't grasped it by now, give up.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

Bone contains proteins which contains carbon.

Regardless, Soft tissue is found in dinosaur bones; Schweitzer found collagen and blood vessel fragments in tyrannosaurus bones.

No matter how many times you repeat it, the tissue was never soft in situ. Only after it was dehydrated in the lab was it semi pliable. All of the tissue in question underwent permineralization and was fossilized.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating (and when it is/is not used) has been explained to you a million times before. If you haven't grasped it by now, give up.

Give up?
Seriously, seriously, you believe,
collagen in 185 million year old bones, you believe that, you actually believe that
Is there anything a man in a white coat talking about dinosaurs and evolution you would question, anything
Seems stretching the creditable is now considered authentic science
Collagen in bones 185 million years old, talk about confirmation bias, you have to believe, you have to believe

You say that Cooperton has confirmation bias but Cooperton doesn't have to believe, yet get hyped, Vlar, crow, you all have to believe, you have to believe the man in the white coat is telling the truth, you have to believe, you can't not believe, it's imperative you believe, demanded of you and you all are servants to confirmation bias

As a Christian, I don't lose my God if I choose evolution, on the other hand, evolutionists have no choice, you are loyal subjects to what you are demanded to follow,
collagen in 185 million year old bones, confirmation bias,
185 million year old bones with collagen.
185 million year old bones with collagen, I can't repeat that enough, it's so stupid it needs repeating over and over again

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils
Carbon dating is not used to date fossils
Fossils don't have collagen in them
Fossils don't have collagen in them
185 million year old bones with collagen in them are not 185 million years old, something is wrong, stop drinking the cool aid

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: Raggedyman


HEADS UP!

This is Science and Technology! You want the Creationists Forum!

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: Raggedyman


HEADS UP!

This is Science and Technology! You want the Creationists Forum!

i know, I wondered why this thread was posted in science and tech when it is a thread about religion and faith
You all just got the wrong forum

195 million year old tissue in a fossil, that is some amazing faith and belief on show

Can you tell me why scientifically the collagen wasn't fossilised?

a reply to: Raggedyman

No.

I want you to go back to your faith and religion forum and leave people who are interested in science free to talk about the science.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Raggedyman

No.

I want you to go back to your faith and religion forum and leave people who are interested in science free to talk about the science.

Well let's discuss the science
Why wasn't the collagen fossilised

Yay! The creationists have turned up!

Expect some shrewd scientific insight into the OP from people who literally believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed with Man.

Eh, who am I kidding. Don't feed the trolls.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Or we could discuss why you can't read the requisite data for yourself? Or is it that large of an intellectual hurdle to have to actually read that you are incorrect and that the collagen is in fact fossilized? Let me rephrase that. The collagen was not fresh, it was not soft and it had in fact undergone permineralization.

Nature Communications
Tools
Evidence of preserved collagen in an Early Jurassic sauropodomorph dinosaur revealed by synchrotron FTIR microspectroscopy
Close menuClose menuClose menuClose menu
Altmetric: 409More detail
Article | OPEN

Evidence of preserved collagen in an Early Jurassic sauropodomorph dinosaur revealed by synchrotron FTIR microspectroscopy
Yao-Chang Lee, Cheng-Cheng Chiang, Pei-Yu Huang, Chao-Yu Chung, Timothy D. Huang, Chun-Chieh Wang, Ching-Iue Chen, Rong-Seng Chang, Cheng-Hao Liao & Robert R. Reisz
Nature Communications 8, Article number: 14220 (2017)
doi:10.1038/ncomms14220
Download Citation
Palaeontology
Received:
13 December 2015
Accepted:
09 December 2016
Published online:
31 January 2017
Abstract
Fossilized organic remains are important sources of information because they provide a unique form of biological and evolutionary information, and have the long-term potential for genomic explorations. Here we report evidence of protein preservation in a terrestrial vertebrate found inside the vascular canals of a rib of a 195-million-year-old sauropodomorph dinosaur, where blood vessels and nerves would normally have been present in the living organism.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Carbon dating (and when it is/is not used) has been explained to you a million times before. If you haven't grasped it by now, give up.

Give up?
Seriously, seriously, you believe,
collagen in 185 million year old bones, you believe that, you actually believe that
Is there anything a man in a white coat talking about dinosaurs and evolution you would question, anything
Seems stretching the creditable is now considered authentic science
Collagen in bones 185 million years old, talk about confirmation bias, you have to believe, you have to believe

Nobody has to believe anything. The difference though is that I actually read the Lakers before commenting whereas you just run with your usual schtick and stuck to the script while accusing others of doing that which only you are guilty of.

You say that Cooperton has confirmation bias but Cooperton doesn't have to believe, yet get hyped, Vlar, crow, you all have to believe, you have to believe the man in the white coat is telling the truth, you have to believe, you can't not believe, it's imperative you believe, demanded of you and you all are servants to confirmation bias

Again, nobody has to believe anything. The only thing I "have" to do is read the paper and evaluate the evidence. The evidence supports the findings of the authors. I don't believe it because someone else told me to. I read the data and used critical thinking and knowledge from having an actual education pertaining to the subject matter to evaluate whether or not the data was accurate or even plausible. You didn't even bother to go that far. You read the thread and immediately took a dump on it based on nothing More than your own willful ignorance.

As a Christian, I don't lose my God if I choose evolution, on the other hand, evolutionists have no choice, you are loyal subjects to what you are demanded to follow,

Everyone has a choice. I don't know who these evolutionists are, I'm an Anthropologist. I'm allowed to think for myself and dispute data sets and information that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You constantly make these ignorant blanket statements that have no basis in reality because you can't be bothered to educate yourself. That's on you, nobody else.

collagen in 185 million year old bones, confirmation bias,
185 million year old bones with collagen.
185 million year old bones with collagen, I can't repeat that enough, it's so stupid it needs repeating over and over again

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils
Carbon dating is not used to date fossils
Fossils don't have collagen in them
Fossils don't have collagen in them
185 million year old bones with collagen in them are not 185 million years old, something is wrong, stop drinking the cool aid

And another fine edition from the brain trust showing that you haven't even read the most basic facts pertaining to this find. You haven't demonstrated any errors from the papers authors, you simply dismiss it out of hand because you've got not clue what you're talking about as usual. Why not look at the data first and then crap all over it? Or are there too many polysyllabic words for you in that big mean paper?

195 MA preserved collagen. That means fossilized for those without a thesaurus.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Raggedyman

No.

I want you to go back to your faith and religion forum and leave people who are interested in science free to talk about the science.

I love science, but people like you have turned it into a New Age religion.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Fossilized organic remains are important sources of information because they provide a unique form of biological and evolutionary information, and have the long-term potential for genomic explorations. Here we report evidence of protein preservation in a terrestrial vertebrate found inside the vascular canals of a rib of a 195-million-year-old sauropodomorph dinosaur, where blood vessels and nerves would normally have been present in the living organism. "

www.nature.com...

Peter you have to get a grip... You posted the first half of the abstract that made a general statement about fossilized remains, yet goes on to say:

"(we) identified (Aggregated haematite particles) inside the vascular canals using confocal Raman microscopy, where the organic remains were preserved."

Proteins are organic remains. This is why I mentioned how quickly the process of protein degradation is, and how proteins cannot last for the mythical 195 million years. If you were a true scientist that follows all observable clues, you would be begging to get this stuff carbon dated to check its age, but you blindly disagree and refuse to even consider something that disagrees with the old dogma.

More interesting stuff.

Twisted structure preserved dinosaur proteins

Collagen coils might have kept Tyrannosaurus molecules safe from harm for millions of years.

Preserved Proteins from Extinct Bison latifrons Identified by Tandem Mass Spectrometry; Hydroxylysine Glycosides are a Common Feature of Ancient Collagen*

Protein preservation and DNA retrieval from ancient tissues