It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientist find soft tissue of T-Rex

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Good find for these scientist

So...how long will it be before theme parks on deserted tropical islands are created?


(on a side and somewhat similar note - what's the latest on that mammoth?)

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050324/sc_nm/dinosaur_to_dc




Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Bone

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," added Schweitzer, whose findings were published in the journal Science.

"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue.

Studying the soft tissues may help answer many questions about dinosaurs. Were they cold-blooded like reptiles, warm-blooded like mammals, or somewhere in-between? How are they related to living animals?

JURASSIC PARK?

"If we can isolate certain proteins, then perhaps we can address the issue of the physiology of the dinosaur," Schweitzer said.

Of course, the big question is whether it will be possible to see dinosaur DNA. "We don't know yet. We are doing a lot in the lab now that looks promising," Schweitzer said.


[edit on 24-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Wow, if they could create a T-Rex that would be amazing, i would go and see it no matter how far away they have it.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
OMFG Jurassic park for real D:!

sorry but im a dinosaur fanboy



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Kind of difficult for me to believe that ti is real. 70 million years in sandstone but what the hell do I know.

Would be cool if it is true.

Roper



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep T-rex i'll try to keep an open mind.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper

Would be cool if it is true.

Roper


Its true, its on headline news and everything. Its definitly for real.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
They have recovered soft tissue from wooley mamoth........Why not the king of the lizards? This is pretty interesting information.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Maybe I am missing something.. what would be the major benefit of bringing back a T-Rex, they are incredibly large and I would bet pretty deadly. It is something could not release into the wild.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
All I can say is wow. This is kind of like a holy grail to dinosaur lovers. Evan if they do clone it we wouldnt have to fear anything since T-Rexs were SCAVENGERS. Theyre just not fit to hunt. I would think that the tissues would have decomposed by now. I can understand that the wooly mamothers didnt because it was frozen, but Im having a hard time believing this.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
This will lead to awnsers for so many questions we have about Dinosaurs. It may end the controversy over whether or not Dinosaurs were cold blooded, warm blooded, or something in between.


I still don't understand? I know that there are enthusiasts of paleontology but I am not sure what scientific benefit there would be about finding out whether they were hot blooded or cold blooded or whether they preferred Coca Cola or Pepsi? Could you explain this to me because as much as this intreaging, I cannot see any benefits for this in our world.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
...

I don't even know what to say. Im pretty sure they're quick to say things look promising, even if they aren't. Still, finding soft tissue is fantastic, and this is absurdly fantastic. I can't help but dream about some good stuff coming out of this, even if I don't get a pet T-Rex (but OH I want one).



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klepto

Originally posted by Terapin
This will lead to awnsers for so many questions we have about Dinosaurs. It may end the controversy over whether or not Dinosaurs were cold blooded, warm blooded, or something in between.


I still don't understand? I know that there are enthusiasts of paleontology but I am not sure what scientific benefit there would be about finding out whether they were hot blooded or cold blooded or whether they preferred Coca Cola or Pepsi? Could you explain this to me because as much as this intreaging, I cannot see any benefits for this in our world.


Many animals have evolved internal "technologies" to aid their survival.
What technologies may a T-Rex have evolved to make it so successful, for such a long time? I'm talking about immune systems, skeletal systems, even behavioral patterns. You cannot assume nothing would be learned.
To be honest, even if we learned nothing, we will have learned that there was nothing to learn! Then, we move on...

[edit on 24-3-2005 by spacedoubt]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Many animals have evolved internal "technologies" to aid their survival.
What technologies may a T-Rex have evolved to make it so successful, for such a long time?


Last time I checked, they were extinct.



I'm talking about immune systems, skeletal systems, even behavioral patterns. You cannot assume nothing would be learned.
To be honest, even if we learned nothing, we will have learned that there was nothing to learn! Then, we move on...

[edit on 24-3-2005 by spacedoubt]


Perhaps the immune system would be an advatage to study, but I would imagine that it would open a can of worms. (unless they were able to recreate an exact duplicate only doestic cat size.)

Dinosaurs are dead and buried and to be honest that is probably the best place for 'em. If they were mean't to be alive in this day and age, they wouldn't need our help.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
To be honest, even if we learned nothing, we will have learned that there was nothing to learn! Then, we move on...


MUAHAHAHAHAHA WE CAN'T FAIL!

We can see how they existed. Mammals broke off from dinosaurs a long time ago, and it would be very interesting to see what dinosaurs evolved on their own (as actual results are limited to crocodiles and the like, which don't tell very much). We really don't know much about them other than the fact that they existed and died. DNA is a cornicopia of information, most of which we can't even begin to realize.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
If this is true, it is one of the most important discoveries of our time. A JP scenario would be hard to pull off. Remember in the movie how they spliced "frog DNA" in, to complete the missing gaps.


Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.

She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.

I guess 'soft' means that they'll have intact blood cells inside. Does that mean they can tease the T-Rex DNA from that one cell?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klepto
Last time I checked, they were extinct.



So? I don't see your point here.


Perhaps the immune system would be an advatage to study, but I would imagine that it would open a can of worms. (unless they were able to recreate an exact duplicate only doestic cat size.)

Dinosaurs are dead and buried and to be honest that is probably the best place for 'em. If they were mean't to be alive in this day and age, they wouldn't need our help.


Not every can of worms is a bad one. A can of mysteries just means we know more and have more to do. Better to know what we don't know than to stay ignorant of it.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Klepto,

Yes they are extinct. So are MOST species that ever existed.
Big Rocks from the sky will do that sometimes, maybe even to us, at some point. But T-rex, and it's progenitors were around for millions of years.

I believe there is something to learn here..



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Well, we can;t clone it with current technology... nothing around could carry it to term. Need surogate mothers for cloning.


apc

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I see no reason we could not clone a Rex if an intact strand of DNA was discovered. We know how to make maturation chambers, it isn't hard. It just takes a few hundred embryonic attempts before one lives more than a week. The truely amazing things that may come of this are the medical discoveries to be made. These creatures (dinosaurs) were around for tens of millions of years.. they evolved immunities beyond what we can even conceive in present day environments. It is reasonable to assume that they had bred out cancer and a host of other genetic problems. If we could determine their genome we could easily apply it to human physiology, just as we have with [many] present day species.

It is not far fetched to think that the lining of a dino's stomach could be an instant cure for HIV, or a concentration of their white blood cells could automatically destroy a tumor. We won't know until we have a baby Rex growling at a pair of latex wrapped hands, but I don't think that is very far off now.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by apc]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Well, we can;t clone it with current technology... nothing around could carry it to term. Need surogate mothers for cloning.


Dinosaurs lay eggs don't they?

Anyways, my main concern about cloning a dinosaur would be that its genetic code would not be suitable to deal modern bacteria. And also its metabolism may not be suited to any food humans could produce for it.

It's an interesting thought though.. if we bring back the dinosaurs before we become extinct, at least we'll know that we'll be back in a few million years



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join