Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers!

Once again... Cannot post in the correct forum due to a glitch!

A discovery found in China is having some rethink just how far back the age of the dinosaurs existed. This brings to light many questions for me, and perhaps also for you.

I'll begin with the information:

China's 'Jurassic Park' yields more feathered dinosaurs, the earliest swimming mammal and strange salamanders

•Fossils of curious creatures living 160million years ago were discovered in rocks beneath the famous Jehol Biota in north eastern China
•They shed light on life in the Middle-Upper Jurassic when birds are believed to have evolved from feathered dinosaurs
•Fossils of a salamander with external gills, the first swimming mammal with a beaver-like tail and early feathered dinosaurs were uncovered

A feathered dinosaur, Epidexipteryx, was found at the site. The inset shows feathers and soft tissues revealed by the use of ultraviolet light

A fossil of the salamander Chunerpeton shows not only the preserved skeleton but also its skin and external gills (pictured) The site in China sheds new light on the array of fauna living 160million years ago

"These are just fossils!", you say? Not just fossils... Fossils with tissue! With skin! With feathers! So what's the possibility of this actually being for real? How is this even possible? This has got to be a hoax, right?

Ladies and Gents... I give you 60 Minutes for more information.


This may have been posted some time ago but I'm surprised I didn't hear of it and why hasn't more been said about this? If this speeds up a possible distance clock from dino to man... is it possible that... well, i'll just wait till the end of the post...

A new study has classified these fossils as belonging to a distinct ecological group, or biota from the famous 130-million-year-old specimens, which include the world's most exquisitely preserved feathered dinosaurs.


The Middle Jurassic fossils date from a time when many important vertebrates including mammals were undergoing evolutionary diversification.

So what does this say about evolution? Are the millions of years of time still applicable here, even though there is proof that animals that lived "130 million years" seemed so fresh in stone that there is still tissue preserved? I wonder if there is enough DNA avilable where they could grow one and what would it look like....

Others are picking this information up and running with it to strengthen their claims that some have no idea what they were talking about all along, that we were missled.. taught bogus information to keep us from a deeper truth.
Source

this shocking discovery is once again going to have paleontologists scrambling to find a way to prop up the popular myths that they have been promoting. What they have been telling us simply does not fit the facts. The truth is that this latest find is even more evidence that dinosaurs are far, far younger than we have traditionally been taught.

Once upon a time, scientists believed that it would be impossible to find anything other than the hardened fossilized remains of extinct dinosaurs. And if those dinosaurs really were millions of years old, those scientists would have been 100% correct. But instead, we are now starting to find dinosaur soft tissue all over the place.

Can we blame them? This is unlike anything we have ever been taught in school. According to anything we know in such fields, this is very impossible. Were we led astay on purpose?

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”

Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

the Smithsonian???

How Fowl!

But there was more... Many more!!

Of course since that time, many others have also dug up dinosaur soft tissue. At this point, more than thirty specimens have been discovered and tested, and the specimens have come from an impressive array of various dinosaurs…

But alas, I do agree with this to the fullest... They made a really great point here:

That is something to think about.

I realize that this article is going to directly challenge things that a lot of people have believed all of their lives.

But we are never going to get anywhere if we just have blind faith in whatever the system tells us to believe.

It pays to question everything and to allow logic and reason to lead us to the truth.

So what do you think, ATS?

Leave no stone unturned!

Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be? What does this mean for the scientific community and for the day and age of dinosaurs?

Me thinks perhaps there is still much about our world that we do not know or understand. This is certainly one of them. All I know is, they need to get to cloning soon.. I want my own baby TRex!

Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be?

No.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

www.smithsonianmag.com...

"We know that iron is always present in large quantities when we find well-preserved fossils, and we have found original vascular tissues within the bones of these animals, which would be a very hemoglobin-rich environment after they died," Schweitzer said. "We also know that iron hinders just about every technique we have to detect proteins. So iron looks like it may be both the mechanism for preservation and the reason why we've had problems finding and analyzing proteins that are preserved."

www.natureworldnews.com...

And no, sorry, no clones because isn't any DNA in there.

Interesting, I didn't hear of this before...

I have to admit, when I saw this came out of China my knee-jerk reaction was "it's probably a hoax." Long history of faked fossils, especially ones that would be extremely valuable and shift all kinds of paradigms, coming out of China. But after reading the links, my initial response was wrong.

Just goes to show how important that last quote you noted really is...

But we are never going to get anywhere if we just have blind faith in whatever the system tells us to believe.

It pays to question everything and to allow logic and reason to lead us to the truth.

People will try to mold this information to fit whatever worldview they have or want to promote. It's very hard to be completely objective, laymen and scientists alike.

Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure what it all means, but it's very interesting.

Dinosaur mummies:

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.

Iron lady

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

www.livescience.com...

reply to post by StallionDuck


First . . . Thank you for posting this information. I love new discovery newsbites . . .

Second . . . I blame anyone's "shock" at such discoveries on the absolute lack of science literacy in this country (or others). Paleontologists have known since Schweitzer's find that soft tissue can survive the fossilization process. And since '91, many more finds have been made, even by looking at older fossils dug up before '91.

"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.

Dino Soft Tissue solved

Yet, every time one of these new digs hits the papers, everybody goes crazy and starts talking about timelines being wrong, conspiracies of knowledge, and creation mythology.

It's time for America to enroll in a science class . . .

yet some dumb old savages were idiots because they belived an a feathered serpant
oh...maybe a thousand years ago

Danbones
yet some dumb old savages were idiots because they belived an a feathered serpant
oh...maybe a thousand years ago

Yeah...this is cutting right to the heart of the matter.

The whole "young earth" part is just stupid people being stupid. I do not doubt, not in the least, that dino's didn't survive until quite recent times. I wouldn't be surprised to find a few still hiding in the worlds wilderness. I have heard some things out in the Texas Hill Country that scared the hell outta me, even though I was armed to bring down large game.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


lol
yeah, up here the bush is dark and the waters are deep
and that's usually when the flash light goes dead...and the weird noises start
(we need a gun smiley)

somewhere I think i read there is a temple with a stegosaurous or the like carved into it

I'm going to guess maybe ( possibly, just a thought) the same thing that did the mastodon and the saber toothed tiger may have got the last one or two surviving mating pair of dinos too...they just didn't leave fossils that we have found

still i wonder what other old tribal myths are actually the real thing

How old is the earth again
Billions

Its funny the communist Chinese are not afraid of telling the truth.

Maybe, just maybe the earth isnt as old as the two hundred year old science of the geological time scale states it is.

Yep the geological time scale is @ a 2 hundred year old theory that remains unproven and still unquestioned by many scientists..Believe what you want

StallionDuck

Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be?

I'm not ignorant enough to say flat out 'NO' as if I were blinded with an agenda to stomp and kill any out of the box thinking, however to answer both of the questions above, it dose seem unlikely. Over time they may discover new methods of dating or some otherwise previously unknown factors that may change the date of the earth, but I find it extremely unlikely it would do so drastically. Same with the Dinosaurs, but just because they have not found any beyond a certain archeological dating point does not mean it is impossibly so.

Either way, the presented info in the OP is quite interesting!

Danbones
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

somewhere I think i read there is a temple with a stegosaurous or the like carved into it

I remember seeing this somewhere aswell some kind of alien show i think? or documentary and that stuck with me it was very obvious what it was! I think it may have been the same documentary that i learnt dinosaurs apparently had feathers! too bad i cant remember what it is now it will bug me all day! Lol.

& to the OP thanks for sharing!

This is what i think is true. Years ago, maybe 8-10, they had a documentary on dino's with more vascular passageways in their bones than a bird, reptiles have very little. Very hot blooded. Birds? Feathers? Most likely!

we are never going to get anywhere if we just have blind faith in whatever the system tells us to believe

Like blindly believing in religious dogma that's not based on anything logical?

And if fossils with skin are young, then what about the thousands that don't have skin and feathers?

Seriously, anyone who believes in young earth theory has mental problems.

belief in a young earth isn't even biblical. it's a couple of errors in translation the original texts tell a different story just by the correction of two words in the creation narrative. but if you look in translated English you cannot tell there is anything wrong and it appears to suggest a young age. i just chaff at people who think like that being called "fundamentalists" when they lack an understanding of the fundamentals at a core level.

oh. sorry. that go me so distracted i forgot to post stuff related to the OP. a T rex fossil found in america had better than preserved traces of soft tissue. it had actual pliable soft tissue with some DNA fragments intact. at the time we had not developed genomic science and techniques to the point they are at today. and any DNA older than ten or so thousand years old was not viable for reconstruction. but now provided you have enough fragments to represent the whole genome even if it's pretty well broken off you can actually recreate the original DNA from broken DNA.

then you find the nearest living relative of the creature in question Therapods would mean modern birds as an example- you could compare the genomes and remove certain bits and add the dino bits and get a resurrected dino. they already plan to try this with an extinct ratite known as a Moa. and with mammoths. it's only a bit more complicated to do a dino the same basic way.

the enabling factors that allow them to contemplate this are the advent of modern genomic science; shotgun sequencing and automation in DNA sequencing labs on a chip. that plus finding enough preserved DNA which is happening now.

I'm a little confused - are these findings (this one, the whales, others throughout the past few years such as the mammoth) from opportunities due to ice melt and therefore accessibility or just some lucky drilling and hitting the right spot? Maybe it's a mixture of both due to ground penetrating radar?

Regardless - it's a cool find. The feather thing always amazes me because I always observe pelicans and seagulls with the knowledge of how ancient they are. I know other birds are as ell but these actually look prehistoric to me.

Dianec
I'm a little confused - are these findings (this one, the whales, others throughout the past few years such as the mammoth) from opportunities due to ice melt and therefore accessibility or just some lucky drilling and hitting the right spot? Maybe it's a mixture of both due to ground penetrating radar?

Regardless - it's a cool find. The feather thing always amazes me because I always observe pelicans and seagulls with the knowledge of how ancient they are. I know other birds are as ell but these actually look prehistoric to me.

mammoths pop up from time to time everywhere from the arctic to glaciers to regular ground. the t rex was found in montana or wyoming. the tissue preservation arises from several different things like temperature and coverage from predators, oxygen poor water, soil chemistry. even sometimes partial opalization if i remember correctly.

reply to post by stormbringer1701


The melt of permafrost would explain the woolly mammoth finds. I was given a couple of dinosaur artifacts from a guy who found some stuff on his land in Ohio. Most of his finds went to a museum but the couple of things that were passed to me intrigue me each time I examine them.

With this finding they may very well try to replicate this animal - perhaps do a Jurassic park thing and attempt to mix this DNA with that of something compatible. I heard they were going to try to do this with a woolly mammoth but am not sure if that was just a rumor. I don't think it's a good idea - if only because we should focus on the animals that are going extinct now and not worry about the ones that have managed to evolve. We can definitely learn a lot though.

reply to post by Phage

Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be?

No.

Lol that is one big No! I think we are children with a lot to learn.

Dianec
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

The melt of permafrost would explain the woolly mammoth finds. I was given a couple of dinosaur artifacts from a guy who found some stuff on his land in Ohio. Most of his finds went to a museum but the couple of things that were passed to me intrigue me each time I examine them.

With this finding they may very well try to replicate this animal - perhaps do a Jurassic park thing and attempt to mix this DNA with that of something compatible. I heard they were going to try to do this with a woolly mammoth but am not sure if that was just a rumor. I don't think it's a good idea - if only because we should focus on the animals that are going extinct now and not worry about the ones that have managed to evolve. We can definitely learn a lot though.

there have been at least three tentative plans to recreate a mammoth (if you don't count the fact that i suggested this (whole nucleus replacement method) way back when i was in high school.) two involved actual nuclear DNA cloning and one involved a selective breeding scheme for regular elephants to select mammoth traits that are still in the elephant genome. i have not heard updates on this but the latest blip on this in the media that i caught was a year or so ago.