Dr. Mary Schweitzer was very reluctant to publicize her dinosaur blood cells and soft tissue finds.  Even though Schweitzer accepts the theory of evolution, the real data before her had to be handled with extreme care because hard-core evolutionists react with such fury against anyone who dares find evidence that cast any doubt on the ruling paradigm of our evolutionary ascent, over vast, long, out of reach, out of scrutiny time.

Reading through old Rock and Gem magazines is fun.  I came across Earl Spendlove, October, 1985.  He writes, “When you start working with fossil bone, don’t be alarmed if the bone “bleeds,” and colors the saw oil and water used on the grinder a bright red.”  This man accepts evolution, so is no closet creationist.  He’s merely reporting facts, like down to earth rockhounders tend to do.

One experienced dinosaur fossil collector said at times when you cut the bone, a terrible smell, like rotting flesh assails your nostrils.  But if a scientist prefers not to get pilloried, tarred and feathered and run out of his profession, he had better be very circumspect with such observations.  Dino bones are simply said to be too old to retain any ‘rotting‘ remains of the once flesh and bones, living creature, and these kind of comments can cast doubt on those ascribed ages, (which will cause you lots of grief among your evolution-believing colleagues.)

Carbon 14 can only give a maximum reading up to 50,000 years, (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html) but the story-line of evolutionist must have TIME,  way more time than that.  To get the needed, vast, long, far back time, other methods must be found.  The ages attributed to fossils are not based on any sound dating methods.  We have nothing that can accurately date 65 million years back.  We devise computer models, then we feed the computer all the info we want.  We decree that the present is the key to the past, except when the evidence refuses to co-operate. We infer from present observations and measurements and extrapolate backwards.  We decide how old a given fossil MUST BE in the imaginary tree of life, then we date the rock layers by the fossils.  And we date the fossils by the rock layers,…….except when that gives a date we do not want.  Then we declare it to be contaminated, or an anomaly.  Whatever date we want, is the date we will get.

A common theme,…..in fact the dominant theme in fossil articles is the clear evidence of water burial, even in arid, high places.  The entire world is a massive fossil graveyard.  75% of the earth’s surface is sedimentary deposit, and the remainder shows signs of geologic events that scrapped away the overburden, as did glaciation in the Great Canadian Shield.   The global flood of Noah’s day shouts at us in earth’s geology.  The rocks cry out,……we should listen.

Blind, religious zeal for the just-so stories of evolution do make us blind to evidence that might lead us to re-examine our beliefs.  Real science tests all the data, and follows all the evidence, even where we do not want it to go.   You may enjoy looking at some of the many YouTube  videos about Mark Armitage, who paid a very steep price for finding soft tissue in Triceratops. Here is one link,   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxk3gts8PuA –   Gerda

 

XXXXXXXIMG_1132 IMG_1116 IMG_1134 IMG_1121 IMG_1135 IMG_1123 IMG_1129 IMG_1116 (1)

Mary Higby Schweitzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mary Higby Schweitzer
Citizenship United States
Nationality American
Fields Paleontology
Alma mater B.S., Communicative Disorders,
Utah State University, 1977
Ph. D., Biology,
Montana State University, 1995

Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who is known for leading the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a pregnant female when she died.[3] More recently, Schweitzer’s work has shown molecular similarities between Tyrannosaurusremains and chickens, providing further evidence of the bird-dinosaur connection.[4]

Biography[edit]

Schweitzer earned a B.S. in Communicative Disorders from Utah State University in 1977, and got a Certificate of Secondary Education in Broadfield Science from Montana State University in 1988. Under the direction of mentor Jack Horner, she received her Ph.D. in Biology from Montana State University in 1995.

She has three children.[5]

Based at the North Carolina State University, Schweitzer is currently researching Molecular Paleontology, molecular diagenesis and taphonomyevolution of physiological and reproductive strategies in dinosaurs and their bird descendants, and astrobiology.[6]

Discoveries[edit]

In 2000, Bob Harmon the chief preparator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies discovered a Tyrannosaurus skeleton in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. After a two-year retrieval process, Jack Horner, director of the Museum, gave the femur leg bone to Schweitzer. Schweitzer was able to retrieve proteins from this femur in 2007.[7]

Schweitzer was the first researcher to identify and isolate soft tissues from a 68-million-year-old fossil bone. The soft tissues are collagen, a connective proteinAmino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickensfrogsnewts and other animals. Prior to Schweitzer’s discovery, the oldest soft tissue recovered from a fossil was less than one million years old.[8] Schweitzer has also isolated organic compounds and antigenic structures in sauropod egg shells.[9] With respect to the significance of her work, Kevin Padian, Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology, has stated “Chemicals that might degrade in a laboratory over a short period need not do so in a protected natural chemical environment…it’s time to readjust our thinking.”[8]

Schweitzer previously announced similar discoveries in 1993.[10][11] Since then, the claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil has been disputed by some molecular biologists. Later research by Kaye et al.[12] published in PLoS ONE (30 July 2008) challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. A more recent study (October 2010) published in PLoS ONE contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer’s original conclusion.[13] Evidence for the extraction of short segments of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions.[14] The extraction of protein, soft tissue, remnant cells and organelle-like structures from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed.[15][16][17] Blood-derived porphyrin proteins have also been discovered in a mid Eocene mosquito fossil.[18]

Schweitzer has also discovered that iron particles may play a part in the preservation of soft tissue over geologic time.[19]

XXXXXXXXXX

NATURE | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Sharing

Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells

New evidence adds heat to the argument over prehistoric dinosaur tissue.

22 October 2012

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

ScottRobertAnselmo, via Wikimedia Commons

Do fossils of dinosaurs, such as Tyrannosaurus rex, contain soft tissues?

An article by Scientific American.

RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.

Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.

Schweitzer and her collaborators detailed their findings in a paperreleased online October 16 in the journal Bone and in a talk given October 17 in Raleigh at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. “Here’s the data in support of a biofilm origin,” Schweitzer said in her presentation as she showed a blank slide. “We haven’t found any yet.”

More from Scientific American.

*Update, Oct. 20, 2012, 11:24 a.m.: Mary Schweitzer emailed me to clarify a point that did not come across in her talk. “PHEX is actually found in many taxa. However proteins have thousands of antibody binding sites on them. Some antibodies that bind to epitopes shared among groups are broadly cross reactive. Ours, OB 7.3 was selected for only one epitope out of thousands, and that epitope is, so far as it has been tested by the primary researchers, only reactive to osteoctyes from birds. It has been tested against bird osteoblasts, cells on the same lineage as osteocytes, and does not react, and it does not react with osteocytes from non avian taxa tested. So it is the selective specificity of the antibody for bird osteocytes that is important. We are not saying birds and dinos are the only ones that have the protein, but because the sequence is inherited, it has different ‘shapes’ in each group and the ‘shape’ this antibody binds seems to be unique to bird osteocytes in living taxa.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11637

 

Advertisements