Searching for a better understanding of earths history
Dinosaur blood, collagen, and soft tissue material has been found in increasing frequency inside dinosaur bones. This should lead to the conclusion that dinosaur bones are not that old. The unreasonable assumption that all dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago has blinded most scientists to the fact that some dinosaur bones are relatively recent within the span of human existance.
The Paleo Group has a keen interest in anomalies of science. They often mark the beginnings of some new phase of discovery in science.
Scientists recently broke open a dinosaur bone by mistake and discovered soft tissue, blood cells collagen and vessels inside the bone. They have also used acid on dinosaur bone and after dissolving the hard material they are left with this soft tissue material. This experiment was repeated many times to be sure the effect and results were real and repeatable. This anomaly was discovered by the world famous paleontologist Jack Horner and his associates.The recent discovery of blood inside dinosaur bone is such an anomaly. There should be NO collagen or soft tissue left after 30,000 to 100,000 years let alone millions of years!
After all if dinosaur bones are 65 million years old there is no way that blood could survive that long without decomposing into smaller molecules. If you look in all the science literature you will never find any scientist who believes that soft tissue or blood vessels could survive more than 10 to 100 thousand years. Think of all the years of heat and cold in the ground and all the exposure to cosmic rays. There is no way blood can survive that long. The most obvious conclusion then is that for this particular bone it is not 65 million years old.
During the recent "60 minutes" T.V. program of November 15,2009, the scientists admitted they were shocked that soft tissue and blood vessels could survive 65 million years. Not once did they ever consider that the bones were NOT 65 million years old. If they were good logical scientists they would then raise the question: Perhaps this bone is not 65 million years old after all? If that is possible what other test could be run to determine the age of the soft tissues? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to think: What about radiocarbon (RC) dating of the soft material or collagen? This would be an independent way of determining the age of the tissues and raise serious questions about the age of the strata. What you could determine with radiocarbon dating is that when you find no radiocarbon present you have proven that the material is older than 80 thousand years old. However if you find any radiocarbon present then we must conclude that the soft tissue is only thousands of years old! Perhaps that particular bone is not 65 million years old. Perhaps the postulate "that the bone came from a 65 million year old strata and therefore it must be that old" is also wrong. Since we at the Paleo Group have no sacred dogma to defend, we will plan to carbon date some of that soft material. We challenge other scientists to do the same including collagen and bio-apatite and let the chips fall where they may! We therefore say: Date the fossils, NoT the rocks!
In addition we of the Paleo Group have already taken dinosaur bones and sent them to a licensed lab where they were pretreated in the proper method as outlined by the Radiocarbon journal and the various carbon dating labs. Then the bones were dated by the Accelerated Mass Spectrometry method. These tests run on numerous samples have confirmed that those dinosaur bones are less than 50,000 years old - not 65 million years old. Refer to the link Carbon 14 Dating for the results.&NBSP; (refer to our page for the results.) Carbon 14 Dating. Presently we have tested bone collagen, bone apatite(CaCo3) and total organics but not any soft tissues.
Further information on this subject is from the July 2009 ScienceDaily publication intitled Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains ScienceDaily (July 31, 2009)
A new analysis of the remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex) that roamed Earth 68 million years ago has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage. The findings, scheduled for publication in the Sept. 4 issue of the Journal of Proteome Research, is the latest addition to an ongoing controversy over which biochemical remnants can be detected in the dinosaur.Further information on this subject comes from a new article in Scientific American of December 2010 page 62. apparently the controversy has been laid to rest. There is definitely soft tissue blood cells and organic matter in some dinosaur bones. Many bones from different locations have been found and tested and there is no longer any controversy. dinosaur blood and tissue from Scientific American article of 2010
In the study, Marshall Bern, Brett S. Phinney and David Goldberg point out that the first analysis in 2007 of a well-preserved, fossilized T. rex bone identified traces of seven distinct protein fragments, or peptides, from collagen. That material is one of the primary components of bone, tendons and other connective tissue. However, later studies disputed that finding, suggesting that it was a statistical fluke or the result of contamination from another laboratory sample. The scientists describe reanalysis of the T. rex data and also report finding evidence of substances found in collagen. "In summary, we find nothing obviously wrong with the Tyrannosaurus rex [analysis from 2007]," the report states. "The identified peptides seem consistent with a sample containing old, quite possibly very ancient, bird-like bone, contaminated with only fairly explicable proteins. Hemoglobin and collagen are plausible proteins to find in fossil bone, because they are two of the most abundant proteins in bone and bone marrow."
RECENT ARTICLES RELATING
Dinosaur blood vessels found dinosaur blood
Dinosaur soft tissue Utube presentation U tube presentation
Dinosaur soft tissue found dinosaur blood and tissue from scientific american article of 2010
Dinosaur soft tissue an excellent review here dinosaur blood discussion
Dino experts bust up prehistoric party theory
See our article on Carbon 14 Dating.
Squid ink preserved squid ink
Virginia Morell, "30 Million Year old DNA boosts an Emeging field" Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862
Hendrick N. Poinar et al., "DNA from an Extinct Plant, ,Nature, Vol 363, 24 Junw 1993, p. 677
Rob DeSalle et. al., "DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications," Science, Vol 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1033-1936
Raul J. Cano et al., "Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120-135 Million Year old Weevil," Nature Vol. 363, 10 June 1993 pp. 536-538
Mary H. Schweitzer et al., "Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone," Proceedings of the National Acsdemy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291-6296
Schweitzer, M.H. J.L. Wittmeyer, J.R. Homener, and J.K. Toporski 2005. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex Science 307: 1952-1955.
Neilsen-Marsh, C. Biomolecules in Fossil Remains . Biochemist, June 2002 Approach to endurance