It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by Scooby Doo

The reason this has been rejected by popular science is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for proteins to remain INTACT for MILLIONS of years. This is based on simple science - or the KNOWN decay rate of the peptide bonds.

There simply is no presevative that could do this - ask a mortician.

So the only other SCIENTIFIC answer is this scrap of tissue, while being authentically that of a T-Rex, is simply THOUSANDS, and not millions of years old.

wow where did you get that?

Impossible in this case has been proven-wrong-. An here is the deal, they did not uncover a complete chain of DNA, it was vastly fragmented. Personally I think its wonderful when we learn how tenacious life is!

No need to rewrite the history books on this one.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:36 PM
Goes into a lot more detail about other findings

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
Mary Higby Schweitzer Jennifer L Wittmeyer and John R Horner

..........These morphological data indicate that material persists in fossil bone which is intimately associated with the mineral phase, but that upon demineralization retains morphological aspects of the original organic and cellular components of bone, such as fibrous texture (matrix), transparency, flexibility, suppleness, hollow lumen (vessels) as well as intravascular and intracellular components. From the limited samples examined thus far, no single environmental component has been identified as a predictor of soft tissue preservation. However, the specimens from which soft tissues are recovered predominantly derive from fluvial sandstone environments, and none were recovered from fossils preserved in terrestrial mudstone (MOR 1128) or marine sediments (UF123664 and WCBa-20), although in the latter, fragments of possible crystalline osteocytes were observed. However, specimens preserved in sandstones (MOR 1125) and sands intermixed with muds (MOR 555 and UA 9044) show soft tissue preservation, although preservation varies greatly within each specimen.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:49 PM

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by chiron613

Ever been to Paluxy,TX? There is a Dinosaur Valley State Park there, and in a creek or river bed are footprints - Very large dinosaur footprints in rock. And Oh, yeah, human footprints also. This is well known, and the info is in many books (but not in NGeo, the Smithsonian, and other sy-fy government shills of misinformation.)

In other words, human and "dragons" (which is what they were called before the mid-nineteenth century) co-existed. And it was thousands, not miilions of years ago.

Not to get off topic, but no, not human footprints
Most of the creationist sites have distanced themselves from that claim.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:12 PM
They tried to do the same thing with a mammoth. They used its DNA and tried breeding it with an elephant. It didnt work because the DNA was damaged.

As seen in Jurassic Park 1, there was a peace of tree sap with a mosquito trapped in it for millions of years and in it had possible ancient dinosaur blood. That was just a movie but its possible.

If they could bring back a dinosaur from the past that would be really interesting and it would be the 8th wonder of the world, other then there are dinosaurs still living today. I always wondered if they could manipulate the DNA of a reptile today to get something like a huge dinosaur. Though playing with genetics over a long period of time may lead to bad outcomes.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

Ancient Man riding T-Rex would be awesome!

Whats that Alexander the Great? You got Elephants? LOL My T-Rex cavalry will crush your forces! Send in the Raptor Chariots!

Its Sarah Palin riding a T-Rex, lol

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:39 PM
So if the religious arguments can stop for a moment can I get I get an answer to my question from early on? All bs aside, if those proteins wind up being viable (is that the correct term here) could we conceivably have a chance at bringing a dinosaur back to life? I'm obviously not a scientist and I'm sure I'm not the only one watching this with questions. This thread devolving into a religious battle is a disservice to this site and anyone who is truly curious about the subject.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by skycopilot

Or that the decay rate isn't always as constant as believed.

In fact that would be the more likely explanation, since two hundred years of study and paleontology has yet to place dinosaurs anywhere more recent than the very early Paleocene (and even that's been questioned), much less within the Holocene.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:00 AM
As a kid i LOVED dinosaurs, growing up in the early 80's. When my mom took me to the store, ide always beg her to get e dino toys! Later i got into putting mdoels fo thm together.
Now, this news of protiens being preserved, does sound far fetched. BUt i wouldnt rule it out 100%. Why? Rememebr the bog man, that was found in europe, like 10 years ago? If orget how old he was, 800 years? maybe more. HE was preserved in swamp mud..with the rope that choked him to death, still around his neck! They never mentioned if his protens and DNA were preserved specifically, but still, nature can preserve in rare cases!
Look at our landfills. I remember hearing storys through the early 90s;, old landfills covered up back in the 40's, and so on, r dug up, and newspapers were still entirely readable. Appraently, decomposition DID NOT take place so efficiantly. Of course, thats newer age..dinsoaurs are still from hundreds of millions of years go. Carbon dating is not 100%, yes, i never understood nor belived in it. BUt, looknig at fossils at certain levels in the gorund, is as good as it gets.
I had a similar idea once years ago..could it be, when NOAHA's ark flaoed, that was god destroying the dinosaurs so humans could survive? Sounds crazy, but hey, technically it cannot be ruled out! Makes one wonder...imagine, if dinosaurs were around when humans were here. Humans breed almost like rabbotss, wouold would hve made us food essentialy, for them. Their was taht guy in 1980, who made tha humanoid lizard model of what humans could have lokoed like, theoretically, IF we had evolved along with the dinosaurs. KInda like 33 df alines similar to those lizard tings fomr land fo the lost.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by bigern

To answer, the odds are so far against ever finding useful DNA out of dinosaur remains, that the "Jurassic Park" scenario is almost guaranteed to never happen. Cloni9ng the things is likely to remain securely in the land of fantasy.


It would apparently be possible to build one from scratch. Sort of. By tweaking Gene regulators,geneticists have managed to make bird embryos grow tails, hands, and teeth. To date none of these embryos has been brought to full term, instead simply using them to study development.

However. With sufficient knowledge of both how to manipulate the genetic "on / off" switches, or even if we were to get a better-detailed map of a dinosaur's genome and using it as a "key" we could use this method to essentially reinvent the dinosaur. odds are that even then we would be limited to therapods, and they wouldn't "really" be dinosaurs, but rather retrograded birds with uncanny resemblances to their ancestors.

Unless of course we manage to come up with the ability to build an entire genome from scratch. This is definitely a possibility, even probability, but is pretty far ahead of what we're capable of today, and it would, again, require a dinosaur blueprint.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:03 AM
Now.. what bothers me the most about dinosaurs and evolution, is how creatures so huge and big..some biger than houses! over time shrank to the size a fist and smaller, grew feathers and flew,a nd becaome some of the msot beuiful of sepcies on earth.Thats what bothers me the most..casue ti dosnt click or make sense. flesh eating carnivores, wtih razor sharp machette teeth, predators, turned into little chirp chirps who eat only bread and insects...
Thats like one day, humans evolving into insects and praying mantisis!

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by reticledc

The bible is a collection of Sumerian texts that describe the ark and great flood and the rebellion of the lesser gods to the larger gods and the creation of man (can anyone say Annunanki). Especially when the Hebrews came from the Babylonian City of UR. I believe the reptilian individuals (I have never heard of these guys until just a few years ago) may have been a species of dinosaur that was able to evolve into their own. I can't believe that over tens of millions of years that not one or more of the smaller reptiles where able to evolve.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

Ancient Man riding T-Rex would be awesome!

Whats that Alexander the Great? You got Elephants? LOL My T-Rex cavalry will crush your forces! Send in the Raptor Chariots!

Ummm, more like this:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:41 AM
they should clone a t-rex that would be awsome, jarassic park

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:43 AM
Who cares if it's millions or thousands of years old.

Clone the damn thing!

That would be cool.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:45 AM
LOL mako, yes it would !!! would come with one hell of a responsabilty though. I doubt it would survive long, as they are, in a sense wild animals and msut remain to run free.In captivity like with other species modern day, they will probably die much faster.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

Ancient Man riding T-Rex would be awesome!

Whats that Alexander the Great? You got Elephants? LOL My T-Rex cavalry will crush your forces! Send in the Raptor Chariots!

No, that's obviously Sarah Palin as the GOP hopeful for the next POTUS.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Well what proves that God created it? It is not as if something proving Evolution wrong immediately proves that God did ANYTHING! That would take an entirely new theory in and of itself!

All we would be left with if Evolution is proved wrong is NOTHING!

God has ZERO proof for ANYTHING!

It is not an Evolution / God debate! Creationism would prove absolutely JACK SQUAT about the existence of God!

Get your nose out of the Bible and into a Science book!

The book of Genesis is not irrefutable proof for the explanation of how everything was created.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

And a science book is?

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:06 AM
Let's keep in mind here that even if Genesis is an accurate telling of how the universe was created (not saying that it is, just making a point) it was written 2000 years ago (give or take a few centuries or more, depending on what book you're talking about, but mainly just using 2000 years ago as a reference point), those whom it was written for those 2000 years ago had no concept of science or any of the laws of science or physics and thus it was dumbed down for them and further more there is great debate as to how long those first days were. Could each day have been a billion years or more or less? The bible doesn't really say one way or another. Oh there are theories, but "God" didn't really explain in detail for some reason.

The other point is that Science and Religion "can" co-exist quite well. There is nothing wrong with believing in God and there is nothing wrong with noticing that living organisms seem to mutate or evolve to adapt to the enviroment they find them selves in. That is something that cannot be denied. There always seems to be the raging debate between creationists and evolutionists. Evolutionists seem hell bent on ridiculing anyone who mentions god at all and creationists seem to disgard scientific knowledge and theory without a thought.

This is wrong headed thinking, at least in my opinion. Keeping this topic on post, it would be fascinating to pull off a Jurassic Park on a T-Rex! I can't wait! A word to the posters here that it might be better if you backed up your posts instead of insulting each other. You might post a calculation from your biblical research that, for you, proved the earth was young and you might post what carbon dating is etc.


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Thats what bothers me the most..casue ti dosnt click or make sense. flesh eating carnivores, wtih razor sharp machette teeth, predators, turned into little chirp chirps who eat only bread and insects...

Well, you can't say that God doesn't have a sense of humour..

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:39 AM
Although not accredited with any biological sciences degree, I ask the
question that why CAN'T peptide bonds endure for millions of years?

Fossilization and de-oxygenation would be one way to preserve specific
samples of organic matter for at least a few hundred thousand years.
And to prevent decomposition from other breakdown products such as
anything in the Hydrogen and Nitrogen column of the Periodic Table,
burial within deep areas of the earth away from ultraviolet or even
radiological catalysts would also help in the preservation of
peptide sequences.

There is DEFINITELY evidence of blood products preserved within
mosquito-like insectoids encased in amber that was successfully
recovered after tens of millions of years so it is not impossible
that genetic sequences may be retained after such a long period also.

I suspect that in such places as Western Alberta and Northern Canada
where a major inland seashore FULL of major dinosaur life was evident
from up to 65 million years ago, that there would a high probability that
there would be enough sedimentary encasing of organic and sufficient
genetic material that it is likely we COULD recover entire genome
sequences of such a creature as a T-REX.

And if we can sequence even partial sections of the genome,
there is enough MODERN genetic information within modern birds
and reptiles that we could perform "Error Correction" and reconstruct
any missing links in those gene sequences. We could then reconstruct
a basic stem cell culture to reprogram a current reptilian's reproductive
system to allow a reconstruction of a much older creature such as
a Velociraptor or even a T-REX.

Our only current limitation is the current horsepower of our gene sequencing
computers and pattern matching software to match nucleotides with
resulting expression functions. By the year 2015 this current issue
with lack of gene sequencing speed and lack of current
pattern match capability will mostly likely solved due to Moore's Law
of the doubling of CPU horsepower approximately every two years.

These capabilities will ALSO allow us to recover almost EVERY other
creature lost to antiquity if we can find a sample of even limited parts
of its genome. How about recovering the Dodo bird? T-REX,
Neanderthal man, pre-sapient Homo Erectus, 250 million year old
Trilobytes or for more commercial reasons how about giant
megafauna such as the mega-fruits and mega-veggies from
the carboniferous age or giant fish that could feed our teeming billions.

The skies the limit, we just need more computer and software horsepower...!

For the Naysayers, there's far too much evidence of preservation
of organic material even after hundreds of millions of years
to absolutely say with certainty that peptide sequences
and genomes would be IMPOSSIBLE to find within
fossilized/geologically preserved specimens.

As Carl Sagan, a famous but now dead astronomer once said,

Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence! other words....just because you can't see it doen't mean
it isn't there....and that applies to the possibility of
finding the viable Genetic Material of a T-REX
from 60 to 70 million years ago!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in