December 1, 2015 | David F. Coppedge

Breaking! Dino Blood Is Real

Blood vessels found in a hadrosaur said to be 80 million years old are the real original material, researchers say.

Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil” is the headline from North Carolina State University:

For Immediate Release

December 1, 2015
Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years, and the data not only confirm earlier reports of protein sequences in dinosaurs, they represent a significant advance in methodology.

The work was done using multiple methods, including high-resolution mass spectrometry. The researchers found original myosin protein. They used chicken and ostrich bones for controls: “In both the modern and ancient samples, peptide sequences matched those found in blood vessels.” A photo of the blood vessels is shown in the press release, captioned “Blood vessels from deminineralized bone of B. canadensis.

They call this “the first direct analysis of blood vessels from an extinct organism” although others have found similar tissues in other dinosaur bones (see 6/10/15). Here is the abstract of the paper in the Journal of Proteome Research:

Structures similar to blood vessels in location, morphology, flexibility, and transparency have been recovered after demineralization of multiple dinosaur cortical bone fragments from multiple specimens, some of which are as old as 80 Ma. These structures were hypothesized to be either endogenous to the bone (i.e., of vascular origin) or the result of biofilm colonizing the empty osteonal network after degradation of original organic components. Here, we test the hypothesis that these structures are endogenous and thus retain proteins in common with extant archosaur blood vessels that can be detected with high-resolution mass spectrometry and confirmed by immunofluorescence. Two lines of evidence support this hypothesis. First, peptide sequencing of Brachylophosaurus canadensis blood vessel extracts is consistent with peptides comprising extant archosaurian blood vessels and is not consistent with a bacterial, cellular slime mold, or fungal origin. Second, proteins identified by mass spectrometry can be localized to the tissues using antibodies specific to these proteins, validating their identity. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD001738.

Mary Schweitzer is listed as co-author of but others did the primary work. Schweitzer opened up a can of worms in evolutionary circles in 2005 with her finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones (watch 60 Minutes video). Since then, many other cases have been reported.

Update 12/10/15: Live Science added its confirmation that this is original dinosaur tissue:

Now, several tests show that the specimens are the original blood vessels, making them the oldest blood vessels on record to survive with their original components, the researchers said.

The article focuses on what kind of evolutionary information might be derived from the proteins, without questioning that they survived somehow for 80 million years. It’s hard to see any evolution, though:

The researchers also tested the bones of chickens and ostriches, both of which are living relatives of dinosaurs. In both the modern and ancient samples, the peptide sequences were the same as those found in blood vessels, the scientists said.

Included among the intact proteins is myosin, a molecular motor common in smooth muscle and the walls of blood vessels. The findings thus give evolutionists a double headache: (1) explaining how delicate tissues remained intact for 80 million years, and (2) explaining why there was no evolution of these proteins between a hadrosaur and a chicken over 80 million years. Eliminating the 80 million years would solve both problems.

Evolutionary dating in Darwin Years is hereby falsified. The earth is young.

Prediction: The implications of this discovery (and others like it) are so staggering, so monumental, evolutionists will not believe it. They will either deny it, or escape to the absurd conclusion that soft blood vessels can survive for millions of years. Lay people, by contrast, will be quick to see the implications. The assumption of millions of years will persist in the science community, leading to a deeper divide between Big Science and lay people, similar to the currently-observed divide between Big Science and lay people on climate change. Unless new scientists rise through the ranks who are open to the possibility of a young earth, nothing will change until the Old Guard retires. Suggestion: to hasten the revolution, hold up these pictures in their face, and don’t let them bluff their way out of it.

 

Comments

  • joyfulsinger says:

    I checked out the 60 Minutes video and am amazed at how reporters will state the obvious and then will proclaim the improbable. They admitted that DNA could not last “a million” years, then went on to say that it lasted 70 million years. Do they listen to themselves? Or do they just like the sounding of their voice? Truth is not their goal. Beware! Apart from the Lordship of Jesus, The Christ, one cannot know truth.

  • Fitimtari says:

    As in astronomy, so in paleontology, scientists would do well to remember who ultimately funds their wages and work, and that it’s in their own best interests not to insult their paymasters’ common sense once too often.

  • Jeckyll says:

    Wow… thank you for staying on top of these hot news items! This will receive little if any press at all and yet it represents an astounding find with incredible scientific implications. Love your work!

  • Darwinrocks71 says:

    @Fitimtari One of the hallmarks of good science is the fact that it is objective. This means that it doesn’t matter who pays the bills, just what they find. Research should never be conducted with a goal in mind, only a series of hypothesis or questions you would like to know the answer to. As to what your referring to I am at a loss to see your point apply to this article.

  • St-Wolfen says:

    @Darwinrocks, it’s apparent that you’ve not been reading this site very much, as modern science is definitely not objective, it’s very subjective, as evidenced by the articles presented here. And as to your question, the American taxpayers support science research in this country, and we’re a bit tired of being treated as dummies by scientists and their toady reporters; get it now?

Leave a Reply