Mama, I want a pet Tyranasaurus for Xmass!

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Aug 11, 2005
3,511
8
Behind the lens
F***en AMAZING!

I dont know what to say other than, holy hell, I can't believe it!



HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery

Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex.

When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.

A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.

Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.
 

L

Lau

Guest
That picture makes me kind of hungry. :eek:

<goes off and makes dinner> :D
 

Leareth

macrumors 68000
Nov 11, 2004
1,569
6
Vancouver
its for real , I have seen various articles of this in the academic journals for the last month or so

I don't think they will get much useful protein/dna from it though
 

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Aug 11, 2005
3,511
8
Behind the lens
well, even if they dont, this is some scientific find, for paleontologists AND geologists.

the fact that "living" tissue can survive 70,000,000 years is new, at least survive in that they didnt turn to dust.

i say "living" because bones, most fossils, are not "alive" as they are just calcified minerals etc. whereas this stuff seems to be stuff that was once actually beating with blood.


I mean cmon, did you ever think as a kid that the fossils you saw in museums actually might have "blood" still in them?

gives free reign to the hacking up of various other fossil specimens I am sure.

eventually I think this may lead to ONE complete DNA sequence from long ago. maybe.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,360
963
New England
PlaceofDis said:
this is just amazing. great and acidental find. love it.
Museums, hide your T Rex skeletons! Those pseky scientists who like to make sure stuff is repeatable will go around breaking every T Rex skeleton they can get their hands on.... :p

B
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,576
2,886
Incredible, if true (there seems to be doubters) then this is just insane.

Forgive me, but what does this have to do with resurrecting T-rex's? is the DNA more "pure" or something. I really don't know anything on the subject :)
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
raggedjimmi said:
Incredible, if true (there seems to be doubters) then this is just insane.

Forgive me, but what does this have to do with resurrecting T-rex's? is the DNA more "pure" or something. I really don't know anything on the subject :)
nothing to do with resurrecting a TRex, unless DNA strands can actually be found as we have little to nothing about their composition as it is now.

but this small sample will teach us a lot about these creatures, some things which never were thought to be learned.
 

gauchogolfer

macrumors 603
Jan 28, 2005
5,555
5
American Riviera
raggedjimmi said:
Incredible, if true (there seems to be doubters) then this is just insane.

Forgive me, but what does this have to do with resurrecting T-rex's? is the DNA more "pure" or something. I really don't know anything on the subject :)

Just that DNA is not present in bone, but is found in soft tissue like blood vessels. If there actually is viable DNA in this sample (unlikely) then that could lead to possible clones being developed. This wouldn't be possible without the soft tissue that was discovered. Fossilized bones don't cut it.
 

comictimes

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2004
874
1
Berkeley, California
that is so ridiculously awesome. I know that the chances of usable DNA surviving 70 million years is essentially nil, but as soon as I read the beginning of that article I already had Jurassic Park images going through my mind :D
 

Leareth

macrumors 68000
Nov 11, 2004
1,569
6
Vancouver
gauchogolfer said:
Just that DNA is not present in bone, but is found in soft tissue like blood vessels. If there actually is viable DNA in this sample (unlikely) then that could lead to possible clones being developed. This wouldn't be possible without the soft tissue that was discovered. Fossilized bones don't cut it.
actually dna is present in bone.
I make a decent living extracting aDNA from bone and teeth.
 

gauchogolfer

macrumors 603
Jan 28, 2005
5,555
5
American Riviera
Leareth said:
actually dna is present in bone.
I make a decent living extracting aDNA from bone and teeth.
I stand corrected then. Thanks!

So, is the aDNA not suitable for cloning work, then? I'm obviously not a paleobiologist :).
 

Leareth

macrumors 68000
Nov 11, 2004
1,569
6
Vancouver
gauchogolfer said:
I stand corrected then. Thanks!

So, is the aDNA not suitable for cloning work, then? I'm obviously not a paleobiologist :).
well any dna that is recoved from specimens older than 50 years requires special techniques and a special lab, this stuff is generally called ancient DNA ( aDNA), the older it gets the more fragmented the DNA gets plus it is easier to get mtDNA than the nDNA, mtDNA codes for the energy producing organelles in cells where as nDNA or cDNA codes for who you are, the ratio is 1:1000's nDNA to mtDNA per cell so you are most likely to recover the mtDNA and that is only good in most cases for 10,000 years then it fragments into meaningless pieces.

If they do manage to get mtDNA out of the t rex bones it would be interesting way to test the molecular clock hypothesis, and dino-birds etc but you would not be able to make a t-rex out of it.
So most aDNA is NOT suitable for cloning work, its in too many pieces and parts are missing.
 

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Aug 11, 2005
3,511
8
Behind the lens
Um dude, Jurassic Park.

/nuf said

"them thar holes in them thar DNA strands mr DNA! Oh, boy howdy, we can just plug dem der holeses with FROG DNA kiddies! WHEEEEEEE!"
 

dsnort

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2006
1,904
68
In persona non grata
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the whole system they use for dating finds is highly suspect, with several paleontologists saying the system could be off by orders of magnitude......
 

Leareth

macrumors 68000
Nov 11, 2004
1,569
6
Vancouver
Sdashiki said:
Um dude, Jurassic Park.

/nuf said

"them thar holes in them thar DNA strands mr DNA! Oh, boy howdy, we can just plug dem der holeses with FROG DNA kiddies! WHEEEEEEE!"
Umm... NOT jurassic park

IF they recover any dna it will be mtDNA not nDNA, which does NOT code for the individual. When I say highly fragmented I mean it, pieces of less than 300 base pairs would be the best you can hope for.

Maybe you ought to take high school biology - the difference between all living things is less than 2% of coding DNA, so even a couple of base pairs off may mean a completely different creature.
Think how one letter mutation causes havoc in humans! here you would be missing entire "sentences"
 

slabbius

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2006
86
0
Ummm... YES jurassic park. sorry we can't all be biologists. i took high school biology and it sure as hell didn't teach us about mtDNA and nDNA. I remember RNA and DNA that's about it. And just so you know: Jurassic Park Please Read

oh damn please don't try to correct me about what time period either meszoic, cretaceous, jurassic, whatever.

Leareth said:
Umm... NOT jurassic park

IF they recover any dna it will be mtDNA not nDNA, which does NOT code for the individual. When I say highly fragmented I mean it, pieces of less than 300 base pairs would be the best you can hope for.

Maybe you ought to take high school biology - the difference between all living things is less than 2% of coding DNA, so even a couple of base pairs off may mean a completely different creature.
Think how one letter mutation causes havoc in humans! here you would be missing entire "sentences"
 

Leareth

macrumors 68000
Nov 11, 2004
1,569
6
Vancouver
slabbius said:
Ummm... YES jurassic park. sorry we can't all be biologists. i took high school biology and it sure as hell didn't teach us about mtDNA and nDNA. I remember RNA and DNA that's about it. And just so you know: Jurassic Park Please Read

oh damn please don't try to correct me about what time period either meszoic, cretaceous, jurassic, whatever.
ok here you are talking about 10,000 years ago versus millions of years ago.
the maximum useful ever recovered is at 100,000 years from frozen specimens

second every living eukaryotic cell contains two types of DNA: mitochondrial and nuclear (cellular), most plants have a third type- chloroplast, each type has a independent mutation rate, and the number of each type per cell is different , usually there is one copy of cellular, and 1000's of mtDNA and Chloroplast so you will most likely recover the mtDNA which does not code for the individual only the energy organelles.
look it up on wikipedia...
 

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Aug 11, 2005
3,511
8
Behind the lens
Dood, Jurassic Park.

/nuf said.

Lawls.

Cmon, cant we just dream, jeez. I was once a child who wanted a pet dinosaur, werent you? Dont be such a killjoy.