T. rex MOR specimen 1125 and my annoyance with AIG

[Petrel]

Last year this month Dr. Schweitzer and colleagues obtained a broken T. rex femur fossil from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, which has been dated to 65-70 million years old. The fossil didn't appear as densely mineralized as expected, so Dr. Schweitzer decided to examine it. She demineralized fragments of the endosteal cavity. The result was tiny fragments (about 3 mm across) of a variably pliable network resembling connective tissue, with vessels that appeared to contain intact cells. Additionally, the sample showed slight affinity for bovine osteocalcin and chicken type I collagen. Through most of the article it is difficult to say if Dr. Schweitzer thinks these are actual preserved cellular and biomolecular components. Her conclusion indicates that she is not sure--probably the preservation is mostly morphological but hopefully some of the original molecular components might remain.

The elucidation and modeling of processes resulting in soft-tissue preservation may form the basis for an avenue of research into the recovery and characterization of similar structures in other specimens, paving the way for micro- and molecular taphonomic investigations. Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain. However, we have identified protein fragments in extracted bone samples, some of which retain slight antigenicity (3). These data indicate that exceptional morphological preservation in some dinosaurian specimens may extend to the cellular level or beyond. If so, in addition to providing independent means of testing phylogenetic hypotheses about dinosaurs, applying molecular and analytical methods to well-preserved dinosaur specimens has important implications for elucidating preservational microenvironments and will contribute to our understanding of biogeochemical interactions at the microscopic and molecular levels that lead to fossilization.

Lest we leap to too hasty a conclusion, a research summary in that issue of Science says:

Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived.

Of course none of this troubled AIG a bit! They immediately proclaimed:

Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”.

When I read this last year I rolled my eyes and waited with interest to hear of the results of Dr. Schweitzer's molecular analysis, knowing it could take several years.

AIG is not that patient. To celebrate the one-year anniversary of this find, they published another article, this time saying snidely that . . . well, I'll quote the most annoying fragments.

[Dr. Schweitzer] elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. . . So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time. . . she claims to be on one possible track. . .

Well, I found this irksome, so I went to see if she had published anything since last year. Interestingly she had, a mere three months after the first paper. She had found some fragments of unusual bone in the fossil, mentioned in her first paper, that got her thinking that it might be related to avian medullary bone, a special type of bone laid down on the inside of long bones and used for rapid calcium mobilization for egg laying. This type of bones is only found in birds and has not been found in crocodilians, even when hormonally stimulated.

The location, origin, morphology, and microstructure of the new T. rex tissues support homology with ratite MB. The T. rex tissues line the medullary cavities of both femora of MOR 1125, suggesting an organismal response. The tissues are similar in distribution to those of extant ratites, being more extensive in proximal regions of the bone. They are clearly endosteal in origin, and the microstructure with large vascular sinuses is consistent with the function of MB as a rapidly deposited and easily mobilized calcium source. The random, woven character indicates rapidly deposited, younger bone. Finally, the robustly supported relationship between theropods and extant birds (15–18, 24, 25) permits the application of phylogenetic inference to support the identification of these tissues (26, 27).

The existence of medullary bone in T. rex is a very exciting find, adding another piece of evidence to support the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs (I know anti-evolutionists would say that the last sentence of this quote is circular reasoning, but when you have a large amount of evidence, a new piece of evidence serves to confirm that theory while the body of knowledge can help confirm the validity of the new evidence--the evidence forms a network of mutually confirming facts). Oddly enough AIG failed to even recognize the existence of this paper.

AIG first leaped to the conclusion that this pliable mesh was unfossilized tissue, then smeared a person's reputation by suggesting she is dishonest based upon no evidence, and then hid an inconvenient paper from their readers in order to leave them thinking that these findings do nothing but confirm a young earth. (Either that or they didn't bother researching before writing the second article, which is only a bit better.)

Even as a Young Earth creationist I didn't think much of Answer's in Genesis' purported "answers," and now that I am no longer as predisposed to give them the benefit of the doubt I find they are downright disreputable.

"Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex." M. Schweitzer, J. Wittmeyer, J. Horner, J. Taporski, Science 307, 1952-1955, (2005).

"Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects." E. Stokstad, Science 307, 1852, (2005).

"Gender-Specific Reproductive Tissue in Ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex." M. Schweitzer, J. Wittmeyer, J. Horner, Science 308, 1456-1460, (2005).

 

[Deacon]

Nice analysis.
Welcome to the club.

Rob

 

[Petrel]

Here is an article from Smithsonian Magazine covering Dr. Schweitzer's research and her reaction to YEC misinterpreting her work.

young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Emphasis mine. Unfortunately this is true.

Still no response from AIG, by the way.