Paleontologists Discover Traces Of 80-Million-Year-Old Collagen In A Dinosaur Bone

80 million year old bone from a Brachylophosaurus, and the scientist are finding bio molecules. Contamination is a concern, but the scientists are looking for a bio molecule called collagen and this is abundant in bones. And that is what they have found.

www.forbes.com... 184f66a3
Not so long ago, finding traces of organic biomolecules in any fossil over about one million years old was thought to be an insurmountable challenge. Paleontologists never thought to look at dinosaur bones as a source of either DNA or protein sequences.

Proteins are made of peptides, and the goal of these studies is to find discernible peptide sequences in dinosaur bones that have not been contaminated. With an 80-million-year-old fossil, the question of contamination is important—are these real peptide sequences that reflect ancient biomolecules of once-living dinosaurs? Or something else, like bacteria, that moved in after they died? Schroeter and Schweitzer were looking for a specific peptide sequence called collagen I, which is the most abundant protein in bone. Previous research has found this protein in a 66-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil and an 80-million-year-old Brachylophosaurus specimen. A sensitive chemical analysis technique called mass spectrometry is used to detect these faint organic signals of ancient life.

This is pretty far out there, they did the same test in 2009 and found the same peptide called collagen and they just found it again in 2017. So the test is repeatable, and passes another test to go from a theory to a law.

Findings of peptide sequences in dinosaurs need to be replicated to be reliable. In this study, they use new experimental methods that are variations on ones used in the previous studies—along with a new lab set up and a freshly cleaned mass spectrometer to reduce the chance of contamination. Eight peptide sequences were recovered from the reanalysis of the Brachylophosaurus femur, with two of the same sequences recovered in both the 2009 and 2017 study, showing that these results are reproducible. "We are confident that the results we obtained are not contamination and that this collagen is original to the specimen," Schroeter says.

a reply to: seasonal

Aaaah yeaaaah! SUPER EVOLUTION!

Great Article, S&F

a reply to: seasonal

Jurassic Park - a reality? Jeff Goldblum would advise against I'm sure..

a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you



Still learning about posting youtube

a reply to: Raggedyman

link no good

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Like this:

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

www.livescience.com...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you

Still learning about posting youtube

Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

That is the question you should be asking. Do not fall for insufficient excuses as to how organic soft tissue can now suddenly last for millions of years. Under normal conditions soft tissue cannot be preserved for millions of years. Research "carbon dating dinosaurs"... we are on the verge of a revolutionary rewriting of our history.

Thank you for posting this, you're venturing down a lovely part of the rabbit hole

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you

Still learning about posting youtube

Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.

Yeah but I am not stupid enough to be calling it science, dood

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you

Still learning about posting youtube

Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.

Yeah but I am not stupid enough to be calling it science, dood

That's a problem, you must first know what science is.
You my friend have proven time and time again, that your're scientifically illiterate.
And if you're not as scientifically illiterate as you pretend to be, then you deliberately misrepresent the facts to prop up your willful ignorance.

Do not fall for insufficient excuses as to how organic soft tissue can now suddenly last for millions of years

Oh please, stop thinking everything in science is a conspiracy, it's ridiculous.

If you want to find lots of conspiracies look at the conservative realms of religion, war, business and political corruption.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

Its science, its a fact, you just have to believe, they are telling you

Still learning about posting youtube

Dude you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men because bible so you're in no position to be talking about unquestionably accepting information.

Yeah but I am not stupid enough to be calling it science, dood

That's a problem, you must first know what science is.
You my friend have proven time and time again, that your're scientifically illiterate.
And if you're not as scientifically illiterate as you pretend to be, then you deliberately misrepresent the facts to prop up your willful ignorance.

Well I am of the belief
Repeatable
Observable and
Testable

You?

Please argue with that definition with your non ignorant views

Next...

originally posted by: CB328

Do not fall for insufficient excuses as to how organic soft tissue can now suddenly last for millions of years

Oh please, stop thinking everything in science is a conspiracy, it's ridiculous.

If you want to find lots of conspiracies look at the conservative realms of religion, war, business and political corruption.

Isn't your strawman argument just stupid, "everything in science is a lie" that's not the issue
Stupid is stupid, the issue is organic soft tissue lasting millions of years when grand Nan's body doesn't have any left after a few decades
Please let's play with common sense in this thread, not airy fairy stuff

Your argument is disingenuous and spathetiv

Soft tissue lasting millions and millions of years, it's stupid

Very interesting op! But until poleshift (and the sudden strata build up it creates, in a day!) Are acknowledged by mainstream, then the dating methods of fossils are unreliable!

They are not this old! Also including the fact we still have Dino's roaming, such as mokelele mbembe for example.

This planet's gravity could also not support these creatures and in my research dinosaurs were once residents of tiamat, that was destoyed and became earth. The science is there to support this,many new revealations.

There you have it!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: CB328

Do not fall for insufficient excuses as to how organic soft tissue can now suddenly last for millions of years

Oh please, stop thinking everything in science is a conspiracy, it's ridiculous.

If you want to find lots of conspiracies look at the conservative realms of religion, war, business and political corruption.

Isn't your strawman argument just stupid, "everything in science is a lie" that's not the issue
Stupid is stupid, the issue is organic soft tissue lasting millions of years when grand Nan's body doesn't have any left after a few decades
Please let's play with common sense in this thread, not airy fairy stuff

Your argument is disingenuous and spathetiv

Soft tissue lasting millions and millions of years, it's stupid

Exactly! Explained above

originally posted by: seasonal
This is pretty far out there, they did the same test in 2009 and found the same peptide called collagen and they just found it again in 2017. So the test is repeatable, and passes another test to go from a theory to a law.

FYI, that's not how science works. Theories don't become laws when proved or verified. You are thinking more along the lines of hypotheses becoming theories, but even that requires way more than a few tests.

originally posted by: seasonal


This is pretty far out there, they did the same test in 2009 and found the same peptide called collagen and they just found it again in 2017. So the test is repeatable, and passes another test to go from a theory to a law.

This seems to be an increasingly common misperception regarding science, hypothesis, Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws. There isn't a hierarchy where a Scientific Law supersedes a Scienrific Theory. A Scientific Theory describes HOW something occurs whereas a Scientific Law describes WHY a given phenomenon occurs. A Scientific Law, just like a Scientific Theory, can be disproven provided that newer data supports altering or disproving the Law in question. Typically, a Law can be shown in the form of a mathematical equation such as Newtonian Physics. But a law is not a next rung up on the scientific ladder so to speak. Theories and Laws describe different aspects of phenomena but Theories don't make some magical leap to Law based on repeatable testable data. Both Laws and Theories in science are based on proven hypothesis and being able to independantly repeat the results.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FamCore

My first question is how can there be "left overs" like this? 80 million years....

That is the question you should be asking. Do not fall for insufficient excuses as to how organic soft tissue can now suddenly last for millions of years. Under normal conditions soft tissue cannot be preserved for millions of years. Research "carbon dating dinosaurs"... we are on the verge of a revolutionary rewriting of our history.

Thank you for posting this, you're venturing down a lovely part of the rabbit hole

But soft tissue isn't "suddenly" able to last for millions of years as you claim. Nobody bothered to look inside of long bones to see if any soft tissue survived because it was assumed for nearly 300 years that there was no possibility of this occurring. Considering that nearly 50% of samples going back nearly 200MA have been found to contain fossilized soft tissue(yes, it's fossilized. It's not still soft tissue and has undergone permineralization). Comparing collagen to epidermis for example, is a piss poor analogy because the types of tissue aren't comparable other than the fact that they weren't bone. Not understanding a process doesn't make the process impossible.

yes, it's fossilized. It's not still soft tissue and has undergone permineralization

You are wrong. Soft tissue has been found in animals that are supposedly 100s of millions of years old. This is in fact soft tissue and such evidence is currently befuddling mainstream rhetoric: Source

originally posted by: peter vlar
Considering that nearly 50% of samples going back nearly 200MA have been found to contain fossilized soft tissue

It is the imagination of scientists that claim these samples are 100MA+. The soft tissue of these supposedly "100+ million year old" organisms have already been carbon-dated to be less than 40,000 years old... It is only a matter of time until mainstream science can no longer downplay these empirical findings. The truth will be revealed eventually and I would hope your old biases won't prevent you from objectively analyzing empirical evidence.

Anyone interested in carbon-dating being done on dinosaurs in scientific sub-cultures (because mainstream refuses to acknowledge the empirical evidence at the moment) can start with this link: Data on C-14 dating dinosaurs