Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tyrannosaurus Rex Protein May Confirm Link To Birds

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Steven L. - 25 Apr 2008 06:34 GMT
T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
Scott Norris
for National Geographic News
April 24, 2008

A new study of ancient proteins retrieved from a Tyranosaurus rex fossil
confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs
and modern birds, experts say.

The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or
other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the
researchers note.

A close relationship between the two groups was already widely
suspected, based on similarities in skeletal features.

The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which
scientists reported the recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T.
rex and mastodon proteins.

Both dinosaur studies examined samples of collagen, the main protein
component of bone.

In addition to cementing the dino-bird connection, the new study
provides the first molecular evidence that mastodons and elephants are
also closely related.

"This shows that if we can sequence even tiny pieces of fossil protein,
we can establish evolutionary relationships," said co-author John Asara
of Harvard Medical School, who also led the previous T. rex study.

Chris Organ of Harvard University is the lead author of the new report,
which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

From T. Rex to Chicken

The T. rex proteins were extracted from soft tissues preserved inside
68-million-year-old fossil remains first described in 2005.

The mastodon remains were much younger, dating to between 160,000 and
600,000 years ago.

Using a variety of techniques, the researchers compared the T. rex and
mastodon protein sequences with those of 21 living animals, including
ostriches, chickens, and alligators.

Such comparisons are commonly used by biologists to construct
evolutionary "family trees," since similar protein structure is a sign
of shared genetic makeup.

Until very recently, however, protein sequences have not been available
for ancient organisms such as dinosaurs, since most fossils do not yield
proteins or DNA.

The family trees of dinosaurs and other ancient vertebrates are instead
known largely by comparing many fine details of skeletal anatomy.

If molecular data become more widely available for dinosaurs, Asara
noted, researchers will be able to fill in gaps and overcome possible
errors in existing classification based on physical features.

To illustrate his point, he noted that the shared ancestry of two
present-day groups—elephants and shrew-like tenrecs—is known solely from
DNA and protein comparisons.

"Nobody could make that connection based on bones," he noted.

"The amazing part of this study is that we could establish the
dinosaur-bird connection using only 89 total amino acids [the building
blocks of proteins]," Asara said.

With only a small amount of sequence data, he continued, "we can take an
unidentified or fragmented fossil bone and not only identify the species
but also help place it in evolution."

Fossil Molecules

It remains to be seen whether even small sequences can be extracted from
ancient fossils with any regularity, experts say.

Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University is a co-author of the
new study and made the initial discovery of the T. rex soft tissue remains.

She has argued that such remains may be relatively common in
well-preserved fossils but are often overlooked.

Others have said that protein preservation over tens of millions of
years should not be possible. Some scientists have continued to question
whether Asara's and Schweitzer's sequences really came from an ancient
T. rex.

Proteins from some other biological source could have somehow
contaminated the dinosaur remains, the skeptics note.

The new finding that the proteins are most similar to those of birds,
Asara said, helps rule out the possibility of contamination from other
sources such as mammals.

But doubts remain. Peggy Ostrom is a biologist at Michigan State
University in East Lansing and an expert on fossil proteins.

Many have remained skeptical about the T. rex protein findings, she
said, because of the small size of the sequences.

"They have a very tiny bit of data relative to the size of the collagen
molecule," Ostrom said.

"What's going to be really convincing is to actually see some more
sequences," she added.

"If [preservation of dinosaur proteins] is a ubiquitous occurrence, then
that should be forthcoming."

Ostrom also noted that many recent findings, including the mastodon
remains dated to nearly half a million years ago, have greatly pushed
back previously accepted time limits for protein molecule preservation.

"In 2000, there probably wasn't one biochemist around who would tell you
we'd find a protein over 40 thousand years old," she said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon.html

[
Reportedly, this article in "Science" will go on to show that
Tyrannosaurus rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and
chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25dino.html?em&ex=1209268800&en=8584de
9989db6f38&ei=5087%0A

]

Signature

Steven L.
Email:  sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

KlausH - 25 Apr 2008 12:47 GMT
> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
> Scott Norris
> for National Geographic News
> April 24, 2008

> The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which
> scientists reported the recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T.
> rex and mastodon proteins.
>
> Both dinosaur studies examined samples of collagen, the main protein
> component of bone.

I never suspected that mastodons were actually dinosaurs.
Daniel Platt - 03 May 2008 03:51 GMT
>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I never suspected that mastodons were actually dinosaurs.

Oh, come on...  you deleted a few important statements:

> The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which scientists reported the
> recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T. rex and mastodon proteins.

> The T. rex proteins were extracted from soft tissues preserved inside 68-million-year-old
> fossil remains first described in 2005.

> The mastodon remains were much younger, dating to between 160,000 and 600,000 years ago.

The article reported on several studies, one of which analyzed samples
from multiple species, namely T. Rex and Mastodont.

Dan
KlausH - 03 May 2008 04:18 GMT
>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Oh, come on...  you deleted a few important statements:

Apparently YOU neglected to read the quote directly above my response.
You know, the one that refers to both Tyrannosaurs and Mastodons as
dinosaurs.
Klaus
Richard Harter - 03 May 2008 16:03 GMT
>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>dinosaurs.
>Klaus

Except that it doesn't - you're misreading it.  The quoted
passage says nothing about either T. Rex or Mastodons being
dinosaurs.

Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
KlausH - 04 May 2008 09:12 GMT
>>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> passage says nothing about either T. Rex or Mastodons being
> dinosaurs.

Really? Then what does "Both dinosaur studies" refer to, if not the
Tyrannosaur and Mastodon protein studies?
Klaus

> Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
> http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
> Save the Earth now!!
> It's the only planet with chocolate.
Steven J. - 04 May 2008 09:44 GMT
> >>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
> >>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Tyrannosaur and Mastodon protein studies?
> Klaus

The article sounds, since it speaks of a "new" study of _T. rex_
proteins as well as a study last year, as though there were two
separate studies of proteins recovered from tyrannosaur fossils; the
one last year was conducted at the same time as a comparison of
mastodon and elephant proteins.

> > Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
> >http://home.tiac.net/~cri,http://www.varinoma.com
> > Save the Earth now!!
> > It's the only planet with chocolate.

-- Steven J.
Richard Harter - 04 May 2008 23:48 GMT
>> >>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>> >>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>one last year was conducted at the same time as a comparison of
>mastodon and elephant proteins.

Just so.  The wording is clear that there are two distinct T. Rex
studies, with the earlier one also including a Mastodon study.



Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
KlausH - 05 May 2008 03:59 GMT
>>>>>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>>>>>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Save the Earth now!!
> It's the only planet with chocolate.

Yup, looks like I misread the quote and misplaced the context.
chosp - 05 May 2008 09:47 GMT
>>>>>>>>> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
>>>>>>>>> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>
> Yup, looks like I misread the quote and misplaced the context.

Your respect for honesty here deserves mention.
Thank you.
John Harshman - 25 Apr 2008 14:35 GMT
> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs
> and modern birds, experts say.

I just love scientific press release hype. Perhaps tomorrow a new study
will confirm the long-hypothesized connection between bacteria and disease.

> The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or
> other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the
> researchers note.
>
> A close relationship between the two groups was already widely
> suspected, based on similarities in skeletal features.

Yes, and it was also widely suspected that the earth goes around the sun.

[snip more hype]
chris thompson - 25 Apr 2008 15:14 GMT
> T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
> Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the
> researchers note.

Creationist: Nyah nyah! Soft tissues from dinosaurs! Soft tissues from
dinosaurs!

Biologist: Using these surprising soft-tissue remnants of dinosaurs
we're able to support the hypothesis that birds are actually
dinosaurs.

Creationist: No soft tissues! No soft tissues!

Chris
Steven J. - 27 Apr 2008 06:45 GMT
On Apr 25, 9:14 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > T. Rex Protein "Confirms" Bird-Dinosaur Link
> > Scott Norris
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Creationist: No soft tissues! No soft tissues!

Actually, at least one prominent creationist organization has not only
refrained from denying that the soft tissues exist, but has refrained
from arguing (at least in this article) that the very existence of
such soft tissues argues against an old Earth.
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/26/news-to-
note-04262008>

Of course, their actual response is much weirder than your paltry,
logic-bound imagination could conceive.  They suggest that this is
evidence deliberately planted by God to show that evolution is false,
because it leads to grotesque, impossible conclusions that, e.g. the
huge _Tyrannosaurus rex_ is related to small chickens, or that giant
elephants are closely related to tiny tenrecs.  They seem to miss the
rather interesting question of why, if tyrannosaurs and chickens are
so completely dissimilar, a close relationship between them was ever
suspected.

> Chris

-- Steven J.
Max - 05 May 2008 06:15 GMT
> On Apr 25, 9:14 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> -- Steven J.

From the article:
"For the evolutionist, who presupposes that similarity in genome means
two species shared a common ancestor (or shared one more recently, to
be more precise, since evolutionists say all life shares a common
ancestor), these connections are unchallengeable. But it’s almost as
though God designed it so that the least similar creatures would have
similar genomes, as if to say, “They didn’t evolve!” Think about it—
evolutionists frequently buttress their theory by pointing to the
genomic and morphological similarity between chimpanzee and humans.
Yet now they claim a close connection between T. rex and chickens, and
between giant elephants and tiny tenrecs. Is it just us, or does
something sound fishy?"

Yet as crazy as this is, their attempt to explain mtDNA sequences left
my head swimming.
"From the time the party stepped off the Ark to the time the party was
over at Babel, the grandsons and granddaughters of Noah, and their
sons and daughters, would have intermarried and redistributed the
three (possibly very different) mtDNA types. Mutations would have
crept in over time, leading to three “families” of mtDNA. But since
mtDNA is only passed on maternally, its diversity can actually
decrease rather quickly, as Dr. Todd Wood describes in “Four Women, a
Boat, and Lots of Kids” (in the latest issue of Answers magazine).
Wood writes:

   How can different genes in the same person come from different
sources? Remember that eight people were on the Ark but only four were
women, whom we will assume were not closely related. Right after the
Flood, a total of four types of mitochondrial DNA were present among
the women of the human population. There were even more types of
nuclear DNA among both the males and females. Now imagine how quickly
the types of mitochondrial DNA could be lost. If Japheth had one
daughter and this daughter did not have any daughters, then the
mitochondria of Japheth’s wife would have been lost, but Japheth’s
nuclear genes would survive through his sons. In this way,
mitochondrial diversity can be lost quickly during a genetic
bottleneck, while nuclear diversity can be preserved.

So here’s a hypothesis: during the time between the Flood and Babel,
the various ratios of sons and daughters born to the descendants of
Ham, Shem, and Japheth could have gradually reduced mtDNA diversity,
such that one mtDNA lineage would have became dominant by the time of
Babel. Nonetheless, the other lineages could have still survived all
the way through Babel, albeit in smaller groups of people. By the time
of the dispersion after God confused language at Babel, perhaps mtDNA
was primarily from (for example) Shem’s wife, whereas only a few
families retained the mtDNA of Ham’s wife. As people left Babel
separately, then later intermarried with other people groups,
populations would have picked up both lineages, but the families who
retained the mtDNA of Ham’s wife—and who, in this example, traveled to
southern Africa—would have still kept a much higher proportion of
Ham’s wife’s DNA even if some intermarriage occurred. This also fits
with the fact that the Khoisan people are isolated hunter-gatherers,
and probably have had relatively little contact with other Africans."

I'm just...  words fail.
Bob Casanova - 25 Apr 2008 22:38 GMT
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:34:35 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@earthlink.net>:

<snip>

>The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which
>scientists reported the recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T.
>rex and mastodon proteins.
>
>Both dinosaur studies examined samples of collagen, the main protein
>component of bone.

There you have it, indisputable proof that dinosaurs were
warm-blooded and hairy.

<snip>
Signature


Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                         - McNameless

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.