Red Blood Cells from T-Rex? Just how old are they?

I posted this in another thread and thought others might think it interesting also. What are the ramifications of red blood cells from dinosaurs being found that did not fossilize? What about the dating ramifications?

I also stated that PBS is not exactly a 'religious' network so bias is not a part of this find. Take a look and tell us what you think.

Preserved soft tissue, including possible blood vessels and red blood cells, are turning up in dinosaur fossils.

See what Mary Schweitzer's team found within the primordial remains of everything from a mammoth to a Triceratops.

T Rex Blood


LINK to watch it...

Are they actually red blood cells, or the remnants of red blood cells?

to answer your question, Melatonin:

Q: The NOVA scienceNOW show and its Web site both state that these are possible blood vessels and possible red blood cells. When will you know if they definitely are, and if they are, what questions about T. rex (and perhaps other extinct animals) might that confirmation help answer?

A: I can't make any claims for those structures that appear to be like their modern counterparts until the chemistry reveals whether they are molecular remnants of the original structures, even if altered greatly, or if they are some kind of microbial pseudomorph or even some kind of as yet unknown biogeological process unrelated to structures or molecules produced by the dinosaur itself. If, for example, I were able to isolate those round red structures in the vessel and analyze them separately, and if I were to see any signals that are consistent with heme or hemoglobin, I would be much more likely to believe they are related to the dinosaur cells and proteins. For right now, I am assuming they are not.

They are pretty intriguing tho, aren't they?

Well apparently the scientists that found these originally were laughed at until the others saw the evidence.

It will be interesting though, and to think they cut the bones that were not fossilized, T-Rex bones.........

So, the chances are the best they will be is molecular remnants of blood cells. Cool. Not blood cells then. Sorry, Ed.

So, all we have is remnants of blood cells in ancient bones that underwent anoxic non-perimineralisation.

According to their studies (i.e. they measured the levels of D enantiomers), these bones are very very old, Ed. They just didn't undergo normal mineralisation processes, allowing biochemical remnants of blood to remain.

www.pnas.org...

They are not sure as of yet, read it again. The scientists will not guess as the ridicule he/she would take would be enormous.

Still we will have to wait and see..

Dunno, Ed. The authors seem quite happy to accept they are millions of years old:

Publications

Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex
Mary H. Schweitzer, C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, John R. Horner, and J. R. Starkey, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1997, 17(2):349-359

An exceptionally well preserved specimen of the tyrannosaurid dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn shows little evidence of permineralization or other diagenetic effects. It appears that the cancellous bone tissues of the specimen may have been protected from water infiltration or mineral deposition by the very dense cortical bone which surrounds them. The cancellous tissues provided an opportunity to test the hypothesis that indigenous biomolecules might be preserved over the course of millions of years under the appropriate conditions. HPLC analysis of extracts from the bone tissues revealed the presence of molecules with light absorbance maxima consistent with nucleic acids and peptides/proteins. Analyses of bone extracts for amino acid content yielded ratios similar to those found for modern ostrich and horse bone. A high molar glycine ratio and the presence of hydroxylysine peaks in bony tissue samples from the T. rex suggests the presence of collagen type I remnants. Results indicate that the analyzed tissue contains numerous biomolecules. While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues.

www.vertpaleo.org...

Significant levels of D-enantiomers of individual amino acids (39) suggest that the source proteins are ancient.

www.pnas.org...


[edit on 5-8-2007 by melatonin]

But the NOVA episode refers to a much more recent find...MUCH MORE.

In 2005, Dr. Mary Schweitzer announced two groundbreaking discoveries in dinosaur paleontology. One was the identification of the gender of a dinosaur based on the bone tissue from its femur. The other was the discovery of soft-tissue preservation of blood vessel-like structures within the same individual. Perhaps even more important was that these finds were made in the a heavily studied dinosaur species, Tyrannosaurus rex.

LINK

A couple of years ago, paleontologists were stunned to find that the soft tissue of a 70 million-year-old dinosaur was preserved within a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex. Such a thing had never been seen before. The discovery opened the door to all sorts of speculation about reconstructing dinosaur DNA, just as it was in the fictional "Jurassic Park" tales.

Today, paleontologists are still stunned - not only to find material that looks like dinosaur cartilage, blood vessels, blood cells and bone cells, but to see the stuff in so many different specimens. "It's very scary, I guess, to find this stuff so widely distributed when nobody has ever seen it before," said North Carolina State University's Mary Schweitzer, a pioneer in the field. Although scientists don't plan to create dino-DNA anytime soon, Schweitzer and her colleagues say the growing number of tissue samples are opening the way to a scientific realm almost as exotic as Jurassic Park.

So far, Schweitzer is reluctant to say that what she's seeing are actual dinosaur blood vessels, blood cells, bone cells and bone matrix. That's what they look like under a microscope, all right, but Schweitzer is still working on the chemical analysis. "Until the chemistry is done, we can't really say at the molecular level what's going on with these," she said.

FINDING A DINOSAUR'S SOFT SPOTS

Just some more information that I found...






[edit on 5-8-2007 by edsinger]

Aye, the 2005 find. So, we have evidence that biochemical remnants can last millions of years. So? What is the issue?

Lets, for arguments sake, say these are blood cells. What does that mean?

It certainly doesn't mean that they are a few thousand years old. It suggests that under certain circumstances biological material can be preserved for a very long time.

That is what the authors are saying.

ABE:

The other was the discovery of soft-tissue preservation of blood vessel-like structures

Vessel-like structures.

not only to find material that looks like dinosaur cartilage, blood vessels, blood cells and bone cells

Looks like.

So far, Schweitzer is reluctant to say that what she's seeing are actual dinosaur blood vessels, blood cells, bone cells and bone matrix

She doesn't know. And going by what happened before with her last study and other finds, they are probably remnants.

and, finally, the important quote:

A couple of years ago, paleontologists were stunned to find that the soft tissue of a 70 million-year-old dinosaur was preserved within a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

70 million years old.

Not from some mythical flood period.

So, in answer to thread question - Just how old are they?

You have an answer.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by melatonin]

You place a lot of 'fact' on Carbon 14 dating...

Originally posted by edsinger
You place a lot of 'fact' on Carbon 14 dating...

How so?

Originally posted by edsinger
You place a lot of 'fact' on Carbon 14 dating...

yes, placing a lot of 'fact' on a measurement that's based on a constant is something science tends to do.... especially when it's completely reliable to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

There are many who question the accuracy of dating that way, especially when over 4000 years old. Look I am not a 6000 year old earth guy. I would accept it if facts were presented that showed it, I do not read that into the Bible, I think of days as 'eons' or 'eras'.

But I hold very little to Carbon dating when its older than 4000 years. I recently read of a situation were lava that was less than a year old was dated to 120 million years. I can not remember where I read it but there are plenty of these type of claims.

Originally posted by edsinger
There are many who question the accuracy of dating that way, especially when over 4000 years old. Look I am not a 6000 year old earth guy. I would accept it if facts were presented that showed it, I do not read that into the Bible, I think of days as 'eons' or 'eras'.

But I hold very little to Carbon dating when its older than 4000 years. I recently read of a situation were lava that was less than a year old was dated to 120 million years. I can not remember where I read it but there are plenty of these type of claims.

They do not use carbon dating to measure dates over about 50,000 years.

Other techniques are used.

Originally posted by melatonin

They do not use carbon dating to measure dates over about 50,000 years.

Other techniques are used.

and carbon 14 isn't supposed to measure things that are days old.... just thought i'd add that.

And as I said some scientists consider anything older than just a few thousands years cannot be accurately dated using carbon dating.

Originally posted by edsinger
And as I said some scientists consider anything older than just a few thousands years cannot be accurately dated using carbon dating.

So, carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with dating the T-rex fossils at 70 million years.

Why say I have to rely on it for the dating of the fossils then?

You place a lot of 'fact' on Carbon 14 dating...

posted by edsinger
But I hold very little to Carbon dating when its older than 4000 years. I recently read of a situation were lava that was less than a year old was dated to 120 million years. I can not remember where I read it but there are plenty of these type of claims.

Well, the people that did that are morons then.

C14 dating is only to be used on previously living material. Using it on a lava sample is stupid and was probably done by some "creationist" types to try and prove it wrong, but as usual, didn't actually understand what it was.

EDIT: Sorry for the tangent, I realise this isn't about carbon dating at all.

[edit on 7/8/07 by stumason]

Ah good point. Lava would not be dated using that method , my mistake.

It was some method that they use to date material millions of years old, the same method was used to date the lava that was 1 year old. I could swear it some some isotope of carbon but I am not sure, I will try and find it later.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Ah good point. Lava would not be dated using that method , my mistake.

It was some method that they use to date material millions of years old, the same method was used to date the lava that was 1 year old. I could swear it some some isotope of carbon but I am not sure, I will try and find it later.

would you use a yardstick to measure an atom? honestly, when you use an improper measuring device you're going to get the wrong result. the dating methods that they use for things that are millions of years old won't work for things that are 1 year old