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

a reply to: soficrow

Has it still its primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure (its natural form)? And how do they know?

originally posted by: cooperton

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."

While I'm out looking for a grip, perhaps you should visit Amazon and order yourself a thesaurus because in the context of the abstract is important. In they you are correct. However, preserved is a synonym for fossilized. It's a useful but of knowledge when reading papers regarding paleontology and paleo-anthropological papers. Just to be clear, preserved means that the tissue was fossilized.

I see your grip and raise you a clue.

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.

The collagen in question was found in the canals that blood vessels flow through. The collagen is most likely to have originated with the blood vessels as opposed to and connective tissue. Because of the hematite present in the vascular system, the proteins were protected long enough for some to become fossilized. This is actually a well known and understood process for people who have become hooked on phonics and care enough to absorb and retain new information.

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.

Another clueless rant utilizing broad generalizations and preconceived notions to feed your confirmation biases and dismiss anything I post simply because you view me as the antithesis of everything you believe which prohibits you from entertaining any notion contrary to what you already want to be true.

I don't tow any party line. I don't take marching orders from anyone. I read the data, I look at how the obtained their results, I evaluate their conclusions for myself and I read and dissenting opinions to see if there's something I hadn't thought of and then see how and why they reached their dissenting opinion and once again, I evaluate the veracity of that opinion for myself. 20 years ago, I was in the small minority of Paleoanthropologists who believed that there were episodes of admixture between HSS and Neanderthal based on a small but growing body of evidence. We were ridiculed and openly derided by many peers and were told that even IF it were true there would be no way to ever prove it because we would need to be able To compare DNA and we were insane to think that DNA could last long enough and if somehow there were traces of genetic material, it would be so contaminated that there was no possibility of being able To get a viable sample ft comparison. Today for a small charge to your credit card and a cheek swab you can find out if you carry any of the 20% of the Neanderthal genome that managed to survive to this day. And you never have to leave your house. That's a basic low end package for the consumer market. It's not even in the same ballpark as the wide array
Of radiometric dating methods available. As you don't believe in and dating techniques except for misappropriating 14C data obtained under fraudulent circumstances which invalidates the entire fiasco, but I digress... An important thing for anyone who might be lurking and actually wants to understand how things work, is that when a date (and its margin of error) is ascribed to remains, an artifact etc... , that those dates are not the result from a single dating method. There are always multiple dating techniques used. There needs to be confirmation of dates. Nobody relies on just one dating method when assigning dates. Except apparently young earth creationists who needed to perpetrate fraud to obtain their samples and to get the testing done. It's a joke to think that there's an iota of integrity or veracity to the bull S# claim of 40KA dinosaur remains walking alongside men. I've never had to lie to people and I always left access to my work and results for anyone who wanted to look it over for themselves. THAT is how one conducts science. They do not lie and cheat to obtain their samples or to get the tests performed. The morons who did it should be ashamed of themselves and so should you for pushing a known fraud.

originally posted by: galien8
a reply to: soficrow

Has it still its primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure (its natural form)? And how do they know?

No idea.

...and no time to search it. Sorry.

originally posted by: peter vlar

However, preserved is a synonym for fossilized. It's a useful but of knowledge when reading papers regarding paleontology and paleo-anthropological papers. Just to be clear, preserved means that the tissue was fossilized.

You say a lot to hide the simple facts.

Fossilized (v): to replace organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism.

Proteins are organic material, therefore, these are NOT fully fossilized remains that were found. You try to distract people from your mistakes by long drawn out explanations.

More interesting background about the ongoing scientific study.

1968. PROTEINS IN DINOSAUR BONES

1991. Proteins in the fossil bone of the dinosaur, Seismosaurus.

2015. Signs of ancient cells and proteins found in dinosaur fossils

...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.

...Bertazzo, an expert on how living bones incorporate minerals, uses a tool called a focused ion beam to slice through samples, leaving pristine surfaces that are ideal for high-resolution imaging studies.

...What they found shocked them. Imaging the fresh-cut surfaces with scanning and transmission electron microscopes, “we didn’t see bone crystallites” as expected, Maidment says. “What we saw instead was soft tissue. It was completely unexpected. My initial response was these results are not real.”

The U.K. team tested more fossils and ran microscopic samples from what appear to be collagen fibers through a mass spectrometer to get the weight of the component molecules. The weights came back as identical to those of the three most common amino acids in collagen, the team reports.

...A different type of mass spectrometer that can provide the sequence of the amino acids in a protein fragment would strongly suggest the existence of collagen and replicate the earlier work, Collins says. Maidment says the team hopes to do such studies soon. If they succeed, the work may spur additional efforts to isolate dinosaur proteins and understand how they differed from those of their modern relatives.