Has anyone seen this article before.Doesn’t it look interesting?
It is an interesting article. I’ve heard about these cases. My explanation for the existence of red blood cells in some dinosaurs is that the fossils can’t actually be millions of years old probably no more than thousands of years old.
Wouldn’t it be scary is someone cloned a trex.
NO they are indeed 65+ MILLION years old ( NOT A FEW THOUSAND - the earth is not 6000 years old )
inside some large bone areas some “soft tissue” can somewhat survive and NOT be fully mineralised
once the minerals are removed in a acid solution there CAN!!! be some tissue left behind
this is nothing new , it is a well known fact
but almost NO palaeontologist will willing DISSOLVE THE BONES !!!
I think they would do it for enough money.
I would be interested in seeing some scientific evidence that the soft tissue “can somewhat survive and NOT be fully mineralised” for anything close to 65 million years.
This may give hope for panspermia.
It is generally accepted that proteins decay in 4 million years i.e. much longer than a few thousand years (read the actual article in nature communications and references therein). Already some years ago soft tissue has been found inside exceptionally well-preserved fossil samples (check the article in Science that is mentioned in the the link in the first post), and then it was suspected that an unusually dense mineralization of the bone structure could help preserve the soft tissues for longer times.
Finding soft tissue doesn’t necessarily mean finding nanoscopically intact proteins and DNA. Large numbers of partially intact samples might help to roughly decode them though. I doubt that this will result in cloning. There is a great deal of work ahead of these people.
It’s exciting but it not very likely to be a throw it in the centrifuge and decode now situation.
even if you decoded it, you would need a host animal,
that was large, and did not reject the embryo,
Of course they wouldn’t try to clone a dinosaur from a blood or tissue sample, it would destroy their narrative if they do and have to admit that Darwin was wrong.
A large chunk of science today is about narrative and doing ‘studies’ with the intention of reinforcing it. The pursuit of agendas rather than knowledge. Note how common it is for studies to contradict each other, even if the prior one was done not long before.
Haahaa! How would that prove Darwin Wrong?
Because there’s virtually nothing organic that could last for more than 60 million years without decomposing or becoming something else. That is unless you think the state of organic matter could be preserved by way of natural process for an indefinite period of time (essentially, forever).
there was this movie a long long time go in a land far far away called Hollywood …
the blood in the mosquito in a fossilized bit of Amber would BE non viable
Only a few SHORT!!! bits of dna would be recoverable, but they way too short to be of much use .
now wooly mammoth’s and the “buttercups” they ate , that is a different story
and so is the Neanderthal GENOME that was MAPPED
recreating things from 65 to 350 m ago is a pip-dream – for now .
Because creationists have no agenda, right?
This is fairly old news, btw. Saying that soft tissue c-a-n-n-o-t last this long is the first sign of someone with an agenda, not open to scientific solutions that oppose their worldviews, whereas real scientists look for answers instead. Like here. You see, scientists do have an agenda - understanding how the world works
What are you basing that assumption on?
It is already generally accepted (by people who actually work in this field) that proteins and such more or less decay in 4 million years. So if we put the currently accepted 4 million years as an upper limit for finding an intact protein molecule, is it such a big stretch to have them last 60 million years under the right conditions?
The longer the period, the more ideal that the conditions would need to be (as in, much harder to find).
You’re talking about a period at least 15 times longer than 4 million years, so in this case it could easily be seen as a ‘stretch’ (especially if you expect that the molecules do not even have a scratch).
how do you “scratch” molecules?
Yeah, now that I think of it, finding completely intact molecules is not very likely (not saying impossible), but proteins, and maybe more importantly, DNA can in some cases be reconstructed from smaller fragments.
I simply think that we should all bear in mind that “65 million years” is an educated guess. As is the entire notion that this is actually a bone from an animal for which a complete specimen has never actually been seen. Our educated-guess might be right, or it might be totally wrong, but an educated guess is really all we have to work with. Naturally, I am quite skeptical that a cell … which consists of protein … could possibly be “even remotely ‘that’ old.” But, as for what really is “the real truth in such matters,” my … uhhh … guess would be: “just that.”
When anyone, even the late Dr. Carl Sagan, starts talking about “billions and billions,™” to me that’s just hand-waving. It might be the best educated-guess that we have at the moment, but it’s only a guess.