A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed

© Science

Dinosaur Shocker

Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth

  • By Helen Fields
  • Smithsonian magazine, May 2006

Article Tools

  • Font
    		•  Share/Save/Bookmark Share
  • Email
    		•
  • Print
    		•  Digg Digg
  • Comments
    		•  StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
  • RSS
    		•  Reddit Reddit

    Photo Gallery

    Red blood cells

    Dinosaur Shocker

    Explore more photos from the story

    Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”

    After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

    It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

    Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

    It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.

    She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.

    In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
    Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

    What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

    Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”

    After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

    It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

    Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

    It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.

    She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.

    In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
    Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

    What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

    Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”

    In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.

    It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.

    Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.

    To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.

    As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.

    In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

    In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.

    Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up. Instead, Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin. Collagen makes up much of the bone scaffolding, elastin is wrapped around blood vessels and hemoglobin carries oxygen inside red blood cells.

    Because the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. And because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example.

    Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.

    Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

    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.”

    By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

    But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)

    Astrobiology is one of the wackier branches of biology, dealing in life that might or might not exist and might or might not take any recognizable form. “For almost everybody who works on NASA stuff, they are just in hog heaven, working on astrobiology questions,” Schweitzer says. Her NASA research involves using antibodies to probe for signs of life in unexpected places. “For me, it’s the means to an end. I really want to know about my dinosaurs.”

    To that purpose, Schweitzer, with Wittmeyer, spends hours in front of microscopes in dark rooms. To a fourth-generation Montanan, even the relatively laid-back Raleigh area is a big city. She reminisces wistfully about scouting for field sites on horseback in Montana. “Paleontology by microscope is not that fun,” she says. “I’d much rather be out tromping around.”

    “My eyeballs are just absolutely fried,” Schweitzer says after hours of gazing through the microscope’s eyepieces at glowing vessels and blobs. You could call it the price she pays for not being typical.


    1 2 3 4


     
    Comments

    Fantastic discovery, work, and patient PEOPLE. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS....PLEASE CONTINUE...!!!! You're Great!---john nieb

    Posted by john nieb on November 19,2007 | 01:46 AM

    So they still don't explain how that tissue survived for 65 million years.....

    Posted by zip on January 8,2008 | 05:09 PM

    I agree with zip. Their ideas on decay could be wrong (after all, how many laboratory tests have been done to show an animal decay into a fossil?), or maybe the ideas are right and the time frame is wrong by a few million years. To Schweitzer I would say, get God out of the box you made for Him, and let the evidence speak for itself: that the Bible is correct in all matters, not just where she decides it should be for her personal agenda. Science was made by God in the manner described in Genesis and elsewhere. Secular science will invariably prove God and disprove godless, humanistic evolution, and if Schweitzer is truly a Christian then hopefully she will switch sides to fight the good fight, which will invariably win.

    Posted by smoore on January 12,2008 | 06:49 PM

    this is a pretty cool discovery, paleontology rocks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by qwertyuiop on January 13,2008 | 05:02 PM

    Dr. Schweitzer sounds like a pretty cool person. I congratulate her (belatedly) on her discoveries. It's an amazing thing when people challenge stagnant ideas and conceptions and show us how incredible our world is. P.S. I would ask that smoore refrain from accusing Dr. Schweitzer of lacking Christianity. It's really quite rude to assume things about the beliefs of others when you don't know them at all, regardless of how they may be portrayed. Besides, just because her beliefs don't fit into your personal agenda doesn't mean that they're wrong.

    Posted by allo on January 15,2008 | 08:13 PM

    Well I guess we won't ever see the 14C Dating data on these T-Rex bone fragments (not the fleshy stuff). It's bad enough that Mary has 'rocked the boat' with this new discovery. Why capsize it with radiometric dates like 49K to 2K BP. Heck that would put T-Rex's within human coexistence. Fancy that the enigmatic T-Rex inscribed Ica Peru petroglyph artifacts* could not be a hoax** after all. I wonder if that impacts the similar prehistoric animal ceramic artifacts found at Acámbaro, Guanajuato, Mexico by the late Waldemar Julsrud? Naah - paleontologists are not trying to hide anything... Are they? Protecting their turf from hard empirical data? That's crazy talk isn't it? ;-/ *Ornamental lacquered stones found by the late Dr.Javier Cabrera **Identified as hoax by UPENN.edu paleontologists

    Posted by Dr. Anon Yusef Mous on January 16,2008 | 06:59 AM

    I think your fantastic, please keep up the great work your doing, God gave you the gift to be able to look into bones and find blood cells. As for the bible; who really knows what a day was when God made the earth, all the animals, and Adam and Eve. God gave us the free will and the mind to invent things and to look into the past. Don't stop too long, digging in the ground looking for fossils. We need you to find more about the past, and why they all died. I look forward to your next discovery! Yvonne

    Posted by Yvonne Lubman on January 24,2008 | 08:17 PM

    JURRASSIC PARK!!! Let's make it happen!

    Posted by pollux.rees on January 29,2008 | 07:23 AM

    If science shows that the book of nature contradicts darwin's strange ideas (descent-with-modification, or macroevolution), then there must be a mistake somewhere. And since darwinism is infallible (just ask teachers who were fired for questioning evolution - NOT 'teaching creationism' [sic]), it necessarily follows that the mistake is being made by scientists, “Schweitzer’s work is just showing us we really don’t understand decay. There’s lots of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.” So which should we trust?... The known laws of science or the “assumptions” darwinists “just make”… so they can keep believing in darwin? Heaven forbid secular scientists ask the question, "Is this SOFT dino tissue really 68 million yrs old?" THAT'S a scientific question that is not allowed to be asked! Regardless, it's important for darwinists to be able to harmonize their philosophy with science because many are members of knowledge-intensive occupations. It's never a good time to be a secular scientist.

    Posted by windarr on February 6,2008 | 05:02 PM

    The imagination soars at such promise this discovery entails! Who was the vet that accually found and voiced the fact that they were red blood cells in the bone? I believe that the vet should be named and have a clear claim to the discovery of the cells, don't you think? Right is right and fair is fair. Thanks Al.

    Posted by Al Brown on February 10,2008 | 09:15 PM

    So they still don't explain how that tissue survived for 65 million years..... See, that's the cool part about science. It doesn't claim to know everything. That's how you know it's science, not faith.

    Posted by Adam Shinbrot on February 14,2008 | 01:00 PM

    That's my professor. She's great!

    Posted by KA on February 16,2008 | 08:43 AM

    its been a long journey science versus faith( the creationists) remember that these folks believe the world is flat that the earth is the centre of the universe man walked with the dinosaurs that the virus and bacteria do not exist and many other debunked theories science is not perfect but its is open minded it speculates yes but all speculations and must be proven by hard cold facts the creationist do not use facts they use faith that does not have to prove anything but a belief in god nothing wrong with faith einstein was asked does he believe in god he replied "god does not play dice with the universe " but faith has to realize that man has been given the ability to think and reason by evolution or by god take your pick

    Posted by leslie martin on February 24,2008 | 11:10 PM

    The tissue didn't survive 75 million years, according to the Bible, the Earth is really quite young, maybe only 50 thousand yrs. or even less. Since Job is the oldest book in the Bible read what he says aboput the Behemoth, and he even states that the "The Earth hangs on nothing" (Space), how did he know that since "Science" books weren't written way back then. and lastly, take a good look at Icca stones, these petroligths have carved drawings on them with men fighting dinosaurs, yep, man lived with dinosaurs up until the flood , Noah's flood, which by the way is up in the Moutains of Ararat, which is why Turkey won't let any credible scientist, (Christian) or otherwise go up there, the discovery would be to much of a shock to our "politically correct culture". Hang in there people, Jesus is coming soon, bye.

    Posted by Mike Sexton on February 25,2008 | 08:12 PM

    I would absolutely love to read an article on the kind of soil that was around this particular dino. Reason being, what preserved this dino so well and could it something that would help out modern world? Also, would it not be so cool to come across actual blood?

    Posted by Mel Taylor on March 8,2008 | 01:02 AM

    Congradualtions on a great scientific find. It is a amazing what dilute acid reveals on fossilized slices of bone matrix. We also have uncovered mammoths with collogen found inside the bones on the Peace River Florida in the late nineties. For the past three summers we have been digging in the Hell Creek formation and have found numerous fragemsnts of Tricertops with tips of T. rex teeth found in situ. Although there have been millions and millions of fossils collected over the years the verdict honestly is still no clear record of how we got here. There are just as many transiitioanl fossils missing as we make case for new species. The Hell Creek formation only with even the most of the modern finds added there only according to Norrel et.al. from the American Musium of Natural History states that the can only identify 40 different kinds of dinosoaurs becasuse the fossil record is incomplete in his words "we suspect it may be very bad." The dino dig we are involved in is revealing that many tricertops mad their demise there. We are looking at catastrophic event perhaps like a global flood. It should be mentioned that they preent Geological column is made of index fossils that are 95 % shallow water invertebrates mostly shell fish. Beacuse of this new discovery of Dr. Schweitzer there have been Carbon dating studies done on other femurs which indicate that there Carbon 14 found which give dates in lower thousands versus 65 million years. It is our contention if the research leads to earth that dates young - lets go with it. Good science allows conclusions that are not censored! Tom D

    Posted by Tom D on March 22,2008 | 12:08 AM

    Great discovery! Great to see someone trying something like this that others would not. I think an honest scientist will admit they have some sort of bias or model or a scenario into which the pieces of the evidence puzzle are placed and by which they are interpreted. A useful scientific model should be able to make some predictions, and in my opinion the Biblical model with shorter time scales is better at predicting this type of evidence than if this critter had lived millions of years ago. However, I understand why others may think it must have been preserved for millions of years because that is the model they are working with, so they are looking at the evidence in that context. I don't automatically think millions of years when I see a fossil because I hold to the Biblical model, like the great scientist Sir. Isaac Newton ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views. I also believe that fossils in general can't take a very long time to form because decay before fossilization would ruin it. As far as I know most living tissue decays quickly; even the Egyptians couldn't fully beat that. A fossil that shows features that are not very durable must have formed quite quickly e.g. the fossil jellyfish shown here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071031-jellyfish.html

    Posted by Joel P on March 28,2008 | 03:34 AM

    People, let us deal with evidence and facts...not beliefs. I too could write a wonderfully told story, have many people translate it into and out of different languages, and pass it off as my beliefs - but would that make every aspect of the stories true? Would a multitude of people interpret the exact wording (after many translations mind you) to be 'fact'? Would they use those exact words to try to prove a point? Where is the empirical evidence to support it? That is what makes religion a system of beliefs, not facts. Yes, these beliefs have merit and a place in our societies. They help many people govern themselves and also guide their behaviors and actions. It also gives a valuable checklist of what actions benefit and hinder the progression of societal interaction. These tenets have helped us progress to the place we are in today. But remember folks, it is a series of stories told to help guide and govern our behaviors and actions. It is a belief. It is not fact-based like science. Science does not deal in beliefs. Let's compare apples to apples, not apples to kiwi. Kudos to those scientists who continue to look at things in different ways and who try new methods to gain knowledge.

    Posted by JMSC on May 7,2008 | 04:44 PM

    Rates of decay has been proved for decades. For quite some time scientists have been sure of these rates. So, logically, if the cells have not decayed, then they CANNOT be millions of years old. There are two relevant facts here: 1) Cells decay at a certain rate. 2) Cells have been found in a bone. So the conclusion to be drawn is: these cells are not older than the proven rates predict. Which means....the dino is not as old as everyone thinks. What's so bad about dinosaurs surviving for longer than expected?

    Posted by NKCar on May 16,2008 | 02:09 PM

    "Rates of decay has been proved for decades. " Wait - are you seriously claiming that data exists demonstrating controlled measurement of decay over millions of years - heck, I'll settle for scientific experiments on decay that were initiated 6,000 years ago with an unbroken chain of observation? Lots of claims in the comments, but no substantiating evidence. That alone is a red flag.

    Posted by Skeptic on June 1,2008 | 11:27 PM

    While I understand Dr. Schweitzer’s angst about the implications of her discovery and the response of some Christians, her characterization of biblical faith being in someway blind is not accurate. Biblical faith is not blind, it requires spiritual insight, but God's Word contains many infallible evidences for the reality of God and the infallibly of His Word, e.g. the proof of Prophecy. Read Isaiah 53, written seven centuries before the birth of Christ, for just one example. The real problem for Dr. Schweitzer is the evidence indicates a miracle has taken place, that flesh and blood has been preserved for 70 million years. That is truly blind faith.

    Posted by Steven Rowitt on June 5,2008 | 02:30 PM

    JMSC- Fact and Belief are in the eye of the beholder. Facts come from investigation and analysis of information. What you are calling belief sounds strangely like a hypothesis. Faith is something else. That's where a person holds a view that is based on information PLUS other contributing elements: emotional, instinct, hope, intuition etc. Science is great for solving simple problems, but only faith and a personal relationship with God can answer the real questions that matter. This is a wonderful discovery, and I think is bringing the ministry of Jesus to hardworking scientists who are challenging their belief in the "truth" from "facts."

    Posted by Jonah P on June 5,2008 | 03:49 PM

    Fact is NOT in the eye of the beholder. A FACT is something that cannot be disputed (eg the sun came up this morning, electricity is powering my computer, two plus two equals four, blood cells were apparently found preserved in a dinosaur fossil, etc) Belief is a choice. You accept something as true. It does not require (and most of the time does not have) any facts to back it up. You may have some personal reason to believe the way that you do, but you have no real proof, nothing you can show to someone else to compel them. In order to turn that belief into a fact (ie to get it accepted in science), you need evidence that is universal, something that most of the people you show it too agree is the same conclusion you have come to. Creationism does not have that kind of evidence. All it has is misleading and ineptly gathered data, improbable conclusions and holes in accepted science (which are growing smaller all the time) that it tries to exploit. Proving that I don't know everything does not make you right.

    Posted by Will G on June 13,2008 | 01:42 AM

    To smoore, zip and any others who might be thinking that tissue survival for millions of years is impossible: the agents of biological decomposition in the sense of "rotting" or chemical digestion are microbes, such as Bacteria and Archaea. There isn't some magical ether that pervades everything and makes organic things decompose after death. If for some reason microbes don't have access to biological tissue, decomposition will not happen. The dense bone marrow of a dinosaur bone, likely microbe-free in life, is relatively inaccessable to microbes after death, and the miraculous discovery of soft tissue structures millions of years old may make sense if viewed in this light. Working from this first principle, it almost makes the discovery of the preserved soft tissue all the more remarkable, if we think of how efficiently microbes have otherwise removed almost all traces of the biological veneers on Earth's surface that made up past worlds.

    Posted by AMD on June 21,2008 | 06:04 PM

    Nice try, AMD! Problem that you face though, is that stupidity is an incurable disease and all the explaining and using complicated stuff like facts is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that the main difference between scientists and "religionists" is that the former group, when presented with new facts, will take them on board and revise the science accordingly. The problem with the "faithful" is that they will never let facts get in the way of their opinions. The discoveries made by Ms Schweitzer, living proof that not all Christians are idiots, may change the face of palaeobiology beyond all recognition in the (near) future. For this we can all be grateful. For the other group of idiots: "Jurassic Park" was a movie, not a documentary!

    Posted by Dancat on July 4,2008 | 10:28 PM

    I am a Registered Nurse for 23 years since I was 21. I worked in an operating room for 7 years. If we didn't put enough formalin on any tissue that had to be sent to the lab we got blasted by the pathologist. Red Blood Cells, tissue, skin, and cadaver smell- does not last. What I dont understand is, why didn't the scientists prior to Mary Schweitzer look inside the bones of the Dinosaurs? Thats elementary and common sense, you dont have to be a scientist to know that- no disrespect to any scientists on here. Another thing- why didn't anyone prior to Mary Schweitzer not notice the "cadaver smell" in Hell Creek? How could someone not notice that? Maybe a team of Medical professionas- RN's, MD's- Pathologists, Veterinarians- like the one who told Mary Schweitzer about the Red Blood Cells, and CSI investigators should be doing the examining of these Dinosaur bones. Pathologists in particular- they would give you a more accurate date to the age of the specimens. Susana RN

    Posted by Susana on July 15,2008 | 08:54 AM

    Will G Stated: Fact is NOT in the eye of the beholder. A FACT is something that cannot be disputed (eg the sun came up this morning, electricity is powering my computer, two plus two equals four, blood cells were apparently found preserved in a dinosaur fossil, etc) Will I dispute your fact that the sun came up this morning. The sun did not come up the earth rotated giving the appearance of coming up. It is how you interpret the evidence. You say that soft tissue from the t rex was 68 million years old. you say that it has to be so because this type of dinosaur died out 65 million years ago. Why not test the soft tissue to see what its age is? Already many are saying why test it we know because we know what the age is. If ms Schweitzer had used this kind of thinking she would never have found red blood cells. What prevented this kind of discovery from happening over the past fifty years. To be honest it is because every scientist worth his salt knows beyond a doubt that blood cells would not survive 68 million years. That is why no one did it before. The best and most logical conclusion is that the bone is not millions but thousands of years old. That is good science.

    Posted by Chris on July 19,2008 | 12:41 PM

    ROFL "To Schweitzer I would say, get God out of the box you made for Him, and let the evidence speak for itself: that the Bible is correct in all matters, not just where she decides it should be for her personal agenda." As if requiring the Bible to be infallible isn't putting your God in a box. You'd be funny if that comment wasn't so insanely ignorant.

    Posted by Thegreatpuma on July 29,2008 | 03:46 PM

    Wonderful discovery indeed! Sorry I'm so "after the fact" in posting here, but I only came across this article today after doing some research on dinosaurs. I heard about this discovery while at the Creation Museum in Cincinnati (which hopefully everyone who reads this gets a chance to tour), and can't help but be amazed at how God chooses to reveal truth. This to me is firm evidence that the earth is not millions of years old, but more like 6,000 years old, as some of you suggest. Consider another twist. At the time of Creation, God did not create death. Why would he have, because he created a perfect world. It was only after the fall of Adam and Eve that death occurred. Now, if things didn't die before sin came about, then that would mean that animals and humans lived at the same time. Have humans been around for millions of years? I think not! We have accurate records in the Bible that Adam was the first man, and also how old he and his descendants were when they died, which gives us a time frame for the age of the world. Based on that, we can see that scientists have their rock and fossil datings way off course! Dinosaurs living only a few thousand years ago? Sure! Dinosaurs and humans cohabiting? Of course! Did dinosaurs become extinct after the flood? Quite likely. Remember, there would have only been two of every type of dinosaur in the ark, and it is quite likely that earth conditions after the flood were not conducive to sustaining their life. Who knows? God could have allowed them to die off just to give scientists something else to disagree on.

    Posted by Roger S on July 31,2008 | 08:13 AM

    I agree with Roger's post (July 31, 2008). What I don't understand is why are some so against letting nature proves itself and that God's Word is true? Why are some so afraid of the proof showing that God created all? If I were an atheist I would think that I'd jump for joy to be shown through evidence that Creationism is the truth and not evolution, as this means that one's life is not over when the body dies. Why wouldn't anyone want to be shown evidence of this truth? Is it because they don't want to change their way of life and live as Christ had shown us we should and as the Bible instructs? Even if that could be the reason I don't get it, as who wouldn't be willing to live as God wants us to in return for eternal life with Him...and what's so hard about accepting Jesus as one's Saviour and after he suffered so on the cross for our sins...a free gift of our Lord's love, as opposed to works and a sinless life, which no man (or woman) can say they are without sin? I will just never understand why some wants so badly to believe in the lies of evolution. Another thing that I will never understand- how can evolutionists truly convince themselves that all was created by a big bang and everything fell into perfect balance as opposed to chaos, as that would take much more faith to believe? Well, one day God will reveal to all but unfortunately for those who refuse to be open to the truth, it will be too late...and so many who despise Christians (true Christians whose lives are in line with Jesus' teachings and love and not those who call themselves such but actually teach hate)for what they call, pushing religion down their throat, will finally realize that it was just their brotherly (or sisterly) love for them and wanting no one to parish, but to have ever lasting life with our Creator, just as our Creator wants for all of his Children.

    Posted by Turbe on August 9,2008 | 11:10 PM

    Turbe, I completely agree with you, this is a gift that's extended to all people's, they only need to accept it. We have nothing to gain outside of perhaps another friend for helping the godless see that God indeed is ready willing and able to be there for them for all things., This discovery is the smoking gun, there are plans to break open more fossles, we have only scratched the surface on this one.

    Posted by Brian on August 17,2008 | 08:00 PM

    It's just so, so unfortunate that there are so many supposedly intelligent people who premise their opinions on the contradictory mish-mash that makes up the Bible. Waving a book under my nose proves NOTHING. Waving a book of selected, legendary anecdotes proves even less. A book that has gone through hundreds of translations, often slanted and edited to prove the point of a certain religion, be it Judaism or Christianity. A book based on the premise that a Jewish Rabbi, born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead and will return sometime to judge all mankind. Let science govern itself without interference from the Christian ultra right wing. These saved-agains remind me of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic church. May I be preserved from the denizens of this Bible Belt. David.......31-8-2008

    Posted by David on August 31,2008 | 03:44 PM

    what is your proof, David? about the bible being mish-mash....evidence and facts or is it based upon your opinion? The fact that you breath and that your mind is an amazing testimony of the fact that God created such a complex intstrument. God is real. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord."

    Posted by David on September 7,2008 | 06:24 AM

    Well there it is, on the tip of your nose... Evolution is a scam, in fact it has become a religion where many can't see straight anymore. LOL, evolution's minions are trying to reinvent molecular biology to "stick with Darwin's cloth" with ideas of polymers??? C'mon this stuff (heme/red blood cells) doesn't last beyond 10,000 years, being generous say 30,000 years. I am an atheist and have been working in the field of science and engineering for over 20 years. Clearly if you can't see the time of day, well it's time to move on to something simpler. This discovery is a paradigm shift but some still won't quit or seriously question the outdated theory of evolution. In fact astonishing artifacts in multiple carvings have been uncovered in South America (Dr. Cabrera: ICA rocks, Google it) depicting humans and dinosaurs in the same carving: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Ica+Stones&ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tab=iv# http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html Similar discoveries have been made in Texas (Taylor/Turnage Patton Trails) with human and dinosaur footprints on the same sedimentary rock layer... Rumors of recent dino carcase discovered by natives in remote South East Asian jungle!... Read Dr.Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, Without being a Christian or of any other religion, the fact it that this planet as stated in the Bible (and other native culture histories from all over the planet) has went through a recent major catastrophe, period.

    Posted by MakeSense on September 7,2008 | 12:17 PM

    It is both amazing and appalling to me that people will seize upon one facet of a piece of astounding research and abuse it for political purposes. There is nothing whatsoever in this research that suggests either that man and dinosaurs coexisted or that the fossilized remains studied are younger than believed. Rather, Schweitzer has opened a new door in science and revealed an area in which there is more learning to do. This is the wonderful thing about science. As we learn more, we can turn away from our misunderstanding of certain phenomena and toward a greater understanding of our world.

    Posted by Scott McLean on September 26,2008 | 12:17 PM

    Science is the search for the truth Where does the evidence lead in this case? Darwinian Evolutionists please do not look for silly explanations lest you make yourself a fool, if still thinking dinos lived 70 millions years ago, keep on dreaming If evolutionists continue defending an old age position I will say I do not admire they intelligence but their blind fait and please do not call evolution neither evolutionary theory science, you can call it science fiction

    Posted by Jesus Ortega on September 27,2008 | 04:40 PM

    We have our original E.D. Cope fossils from Garden Park at your famous place which would have come there around 1875-1895. As a volunteer who works in the lab @Dinosaur Depot in Canon City,CO, I would like your advice on what to choose for a new or used microscope and lighting system for use at home and/or in the lab. What is a good source for me on a limited budget but such an avid volunteer worker in our lab? I would surely appreciate any help you could provide. Thank you and we are sending back some of your fossils we worked on and will be picking up more soon.

    Posted by Chris L. Christensen on September 29,2008 | 02:04 PM

    Is it possible that "science" and the "truths of God" can coexist? If there is only one truth, of which none of us have the perfect interpretation, it would seem that science would help us to find the answers. I would think that any "Godly" person would embrace the theories of science, because when fully "proven" it should provide a basis of faith, if there is a God. My question, is it not simple, "childlike", logic to presume that the "days" of Genesis 1 are "time periods, given that the "24 hour day" whas not "created" until the FOURTH time period???

    Posted by justwondering7 on September 30,2008 | 09:53 PM

    In response to "just wondering", I ask: Do you think that the earth just began to revolve on the 4th day? My, what a cataclysmic event that would have been. All the vegetation of day 3 would have been totally wiped out with the sudden movement at the equator of over 1000 mph. A simple solution to your problem is that the earth obviously was spinning from the first day of creation, because When God said: "let there be light" the bible next states that the evening and the morning was the first day. From this narative it is obvious that the earth experienced night and day in respect to that source of light. The creation of the Sun, moon and the stars being made on day 4 was for the purpose of determining years and months, times and seasons. Scientists cannot tell how the dinosaurs were formed nor how they died out. The meteor theory is ridiculous. Why did not the elephants die out, or the giraffes? Jim 10-1-08

    Posted by Jim on October 1,2008 | 03:59 PM

    This find has nothing to do with the age of the earth. No matter how old the fossil really is (68 million years old, 4000 years old as creationists claim), there should not be any tissue inside. Making the age of the fossil younger (down to a few thousand years) will not explain the presence of the tissue because 4000 years is still too old for tissue to exist. Following creationist logic, the correct age of the bones should only be less than a year (which is highly ridiculous). Therefore, the true reason why there is tissue in the fossil lies somewhere in the processes of preservation. Although I accept evolution, I am not arguing it's validity here; I'm just saying that this specimen is not evidence for a young earth.

    Posted by jiggy on November 7,2008 | 08:52 PM

    It would be great to test some of these samples for Carbon-14 and pulish the results.

    Posted by Bill on November 14,2008 | 09:53 PM

    Oh Susana: This shifting perspective clicked with Schweitzer's intuitions that dinosaur remains were more than chunks of stone. Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones. This is from a more detailed interview. Christians, stop worrying about science and start tending to your neiighbors

    Posted by tim o on January 14,2009 | 04:19 PM

    I feel like I'm open to the possibility that scientific dating of things is wildly wrong. But it seems weird to me that people who start from the premise that nothing is more than 6000 years are latching on to this so firmly. The reason why it's exciting, presumably, is that they think they can declare that this sort of material can't be millions of years old. But if you genuinely believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, you ought to believe that _nothing_ is millions of years old, that you yourself and everyone else has never seen anything that old... so how can you begin to come up with _rules_ that say what can be millions of years old and what can't, to present to the rest of us as evidence? How would you trust yourself or anyone to come up with any guidelines for what can be really really old and what cannot be, if no one has ever seen anything really really old? It seems paradoxical. It seems as though you'd examine God himself and declare, "That cannot be more than 6000 years old!"

    Posted by Quoth on January 22,2009 | 06:43 PM

    Is there no commonsense in the scientific community? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the tissue is not millions of years old as they assume. Just because they "believe" that dinosaurs "had to live millions of years ago" this is an amazing find (considering it withstood millions of years battling the elements. Hah!). Come on now, time to come out of lah-lah land and get back to real science.

    Posted by Martin on February 1,2009 | 03:34 AM

    If media outlets would present a fair unbiased showing of the facts and both sides of the scientific debate we might reject the millions of years ideas. What we get is dogmatic assertions and propaganda techniques instead. One must ask isn't science supposed to be an unbiased search for the truth rather than blatent indoctrination, even if you don't like the implicatons? This is just one example that the parigdim we are trapped in is simply wrong. I love Dr Schwietzers video interview on MSNBC however her claims of being misrepresented are not very well founded, no one has to change anything just hit play. This does support young earth creationist ideas far better than the uniformitarion geological hypothesises.

    Posted by JFB on February 10,2009 | 10:11 PM

    The problem is the dating methods are false. They dig up a bone and it is contaminated, yet they think it is all hunky dory. The dig up a fossil and because there is no fossil, but a replacement or a recrystalization they date the material by a dubious method. So they date the ground around the bones and fossils, and say the fossis are the same age as the dirt, rock and anything around it. That is intellectual fraud. The found a femur that is modern and dated it at 6.1 million years, and the "evodelusionists" don't talk about this much (leave it out of the classrooms or barely touch on it, because it destroys thier belief system. There are at least four scientists who have stated that the dating system is false and they make assumptions, about a hypothesis, on the atomic theory to date things. There are so many contradictions like this bone with blood that destroy this belief in evolution. The longest any human has been on earth is less than 10,000 years from study of the fossil record. These people are nuts.

    Posted by James on February 25,2009 | 01:53 AM

    I agree with James. As for the evolutionists: Is there such a thing as evil?

    Posted by Z on March 9,2009 | 07:39 PM

    I agree with many people here who say that this might be proof for a young earth. BUT, BACK OFF for a bit and let the reasearch be FINISHED. No need to rush to conclusions. I personally believe in a old earth creation model(where a single day could have been millions of years.)

    Posted by Hons on March 13,2009 | 04:45 AM

    Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
    Schweitzer stated.
    “Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, whereT. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.”
    The assumptions that go into geological radiodating are quite major. We live much of our daily humdrum lives based on assumptions that work out most of the time. But the further things are away in space and in time from us the more inaccurate are the assumptions .I do not doubt that Schweitzer has some doubts about the dating methods and if enough contradictory evidence comes up in her research she will be the first to publish it.

    About the Bible being mish-mash –The message of the Bible is that a superloving God exists and cares for us. It is not a message about science or math theories, even though God in His creation puts down the foundation for both these areas of human thought. Although the Bible exhibits the fingerprints of a mathematically superable being, this is just incidental to the main message – which isn’t mishmash.
    Some people like Bible Math. I refer those to the maths of Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 as detailed in
    http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/First_Princs.htm#Part5 or
    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_John1.asp

    Posted by robert bryant on March 15,2009 | 10:40 PM

    Why the arguements? We have ancient pictures from cultures all over the world and writings both biblical and non-biblical showing proof that man new what dinosaurs (a.k.a dragons)looked like. In my world pictures and writings equal proof.

    Posted by ageclectic on March 16,2009 | 08:58 PM

    Someone mentioned that the bible mentions 'the behemoth' and says that this was a dinosaur. The bible also states that this behemoth breathed fire. Doesn't sound like any dinosaur that ever existed...sounds like a made up creature to me.

    Posted by J Brum on May 2,2009 | 09:21 PM

    J Brum-the bible doesn't say anything about a fired breating behemoth(brachiosaurus). It only says that it is one of the biggest creatures to ever rome the earth and that its tail "moveth like a cedar tree". It sounds like a brachiosaurus to me.

    Posted by Grant on May 22,2009 | 12:35 AM

    Do you think they might be able to clone it? Is there even a chance?

    Posted by Grant on May 22,2009 | 12:36 AM

    No, this is not some conspiracy invented by creationists and though the stifling effect of the dominant long-age evolutionary paradigm leads some scientists to blindly reject the clear implications of the evidence of red blood cells and positive tests for hemoglobin; namely, that red blood cells could not have survived for millions of years, let us not jumb to the absurd conclusion that they could not have survived for thousands of years. Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab." Of course, blood cells could not have survived for millions of years, but they could have survived for thousands of years, despite the nonsense one hears to the contrary; for example, that the bones could only exist for a year. This idea, wherever it came from, certainly did not originate with creationists who have been maintaining and rightly so that this discovery is powerful testimony that dinosaurs are not millions of years old, but speaks powerfully of the Biblical truth of a recent creation.

    Posted by Rayburne Winsor on May 30,2009 | 08:13 PM

    Oh my! They assume that it's 68 million years old! How stupid can one get!

    Posted by JA on June 18,2009 | 11:51 AM

    I'm really wondering if there is ANY evidence that will EVER cause scientists to perhaps doubt their model or even parts of it. I think if God came down and told them they were wrong they would say He was conspiring with creationists!

    Here is a CLASSIC case of adjusting the evidence to fit an evolutionary model.

    “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland.

    THEIR BELIEFS affect even how they research--why don't you guys fess up to it?

    Posted by Steve Gaddis on July 19,2009 | 08:58 AM

    I'm not sure why my post dated July 11, 2009, is no longer on this blog, but here it is again... I think it is interesting that some scientists choose to totally dismiss a "young earth" scenario. Evolution says that everything is getting bigger and stronger, but in all actuality, everything is winding down. If 100,000 years is the best you can get from carbon dating (and everything has carbon), where do you come up with millions or billions of years? There is absolutely no proof of an old earth. Take a look at Dr. Mary Schweitzer's find with the t-rex bone (soft tissue was found). How can soft tissue be there when they claim it is 68 million years old? Maybe, just maybe, our dates have been wrong. Science may claim to have issues with a “god”, but Science NEVER has issues with the word of God!

    Posted by Tammie Stone on August 3,2009 | 02:28 PM

    Science is based just as much on belief as religion is.

    Remember that it was once a scientific "FACT" that the world was flat.

    It was once a scientific "FACT" that the earth was the center of our solar system.

    It is also a scientific "FACT" that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago in some sort of unexplainably cataclysmic "K-T" event.

    Taking a piece of evidence and trying to cram it into an evolutionary model where dinosaurs are 65 million years old is exactly the same as trying to cram it into a Biblical model where the world is 6,000 years old.

    Get rid of your predispositions! Not everything you read, hear or watch is necessarily true.

    The laws of science are changing every day just like they have been for thousands of years. Don't get so married to a model like evolution that you hamper the progress of true, open-minded science.

    Posted by Connor McArthur on August 4,2009 | 11:00 AM

    I have a dig site that has yielded what I believe to be a pit viper.The head piece is 10 and 7\8in. long. One body part is 8in. by 8in.and has what appears to be a modern looking bird and a frog.Another body part is 15in. by 15in. all of the parts have very distinct "anatomy" in common. I have conventional xrays and 3 cat scans that I think substaintiates my theory. There is a midline with bilateral structures. It's not just (bones),there is fossilized soft tissue on each piece. I also offer this fossil as proof of evidence of creation.(it was found in upstate Ny). Aug 04 11:26 pm 2009

    Posted by Mike Wood on August 4,2009 | 11:27 PM

    I am amused continually by the contortions that evolutionists go through to support a theory in trouble. Such great faith they have. They are able to believe in things that are SO INCREDIBLE, like soft tissue can survive for 65 million years underground. But believe that an intelligent sentient individual has a way to control pure energy to form into "matter" and can control how all those different elements interact. We can imagine this being done. It is portrayed as a "holodeck" on the starship named Enterprise, and it seems quite reasonable. But suggest that it actually has happened? Then it becomes "you rednecked right wing Christians believe in fairy tales". When an evolutionist can answer just one question, then they can ridicule the science of creation.

    That question is "Since like charges repel, why does matter hold together". Just answering "strong nuclear force" is insufficient. We do not know what that force is. We can not identify it. We can not isolate it. It has no existence as a force that can be duplicated. It has no existence in matter. All we can do is observe that it must be there because nothing blows apart. Since science is demanding empirical evidence of God, the strong nuclear force is that empirical evidence. All of matter holds together, but as far as science is concerned, the force is unknown. The Bible says that Jesus created all things, and all things are held together by the power of His word. Evolutionists have no explanation. Creationists do.

    Posted by Bro Cope on September 1,2009 | 12:33 AM

    Dr. Mary, take your evolution glasses off and see the evidence for what it is. This dino "dragon" has only been dead for a few thousand years instead of millions. The scientific evidence for a young earth is all around, you just need to interpret it differently than your secular evolutional education has duped you into believing. This may just be your God given ministry to help people turn to Him. I will keep you in my prayers. May God bless your work and may you use it to His glory.

    Posted by MarStar on September 13,2009 | 10:25 PM

    LOL to David, "These born-agains remind me of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic Church." I find it encouraging to see that someone else has thought of the same idea. Creationists, I think, forget that the most important gift one can bestow on a child is the ability to think logically. And after examining the evidence let them make their own decision and leave it at that. But that's what they are afraid of isn't it? They fear their "little ones" will grow up to believe something other than what they interpret to be true.
    Also, to Bro Cope, the theory of creation explains nothing. It does not explain gravity or any other natural force. To simply say "God did it" is not an explanation, its dogmatism and quite frankly I'm rather tired of it. If anyone can show me actual HARD evidence to the contrary I will be converted, beacause thats what I follow, Facts and evidence to support it.

    Posted by Jon on September 14,2009 | 04:59 PM

    I find it interesting that the "faithful" are so willing to put their trust in science, which they believe states that body tissues will automatically decay completely in a matter of a few short years (obviously, it would have to decay in less than the time alotted for the age of the earth, which is only 6000 years old...or is this just a fantasy?)

    If they were at all interested in science they would be asking questions about processes by which biological tissue can be cut off from oxygen and/or micro-organisms, and in what ways such conditions could persist for tens of millions of years. Were they genuinely interested in the way things work, they would seek out more facts, but instead they "assume" that this anomaly "proves" an entire retinue of private fantasies.

    Delusion is ignoring, distorting, or suppressing established facts in order to support one's private (or even shared) fantasy. In listening to many Creationists speak, my judgement is that if they really believe what they say, they are delusional.

    Creationsists seem to be well informed for the sole purpose of distorting and denying known facts. Sadly, many here seem to be poorly informed, which might make it easier for them to deny known facts to support their preconceived fantasies.

    Facts are established by a body of evidence. This means facts can change when new, positive evidence comes to light, and is included in the body of evidence. One should always thoroughly inquire into new discoveries to prevent fraud and mistakes and faulty conclusions based on cherry-picked data. Using this soft tissue data by itself to prove anything is cherry-picking. Where's your body of evidence? And what known facts are you ignoring or distorting?

    Posted by shoelace on September 23,2009 | 02:49 PM

    To: Mary Schweitzer,

    I read all the comments & believe there is only one solution to this quandary. You & you alone need to put this debate to bed once & for all to everyone's satisfaction. Here's how.

    Firstly, keep your personal identity a secret throughout the following experiment since your name could impact the integrity of the results. Secondly, using freshly acquired samples of the T-Rex's blood cells etc. and using several independent labs, run double-blind or triple-blind Carbon-14 tests to see if any age results will be achieved. It's imperative that the identity of the samples remain anonymous as well.

    If these samples are less than 50,000 years old, the tests should give data to silence the sceptics on either side of the argument. If older than 50,000 years, there will probably be no detectable C-14 left and thus no results. Once the test results are in, have them published in peer-reviewed articles and on the front pages of major U.S. daily newspapers and the Internet for all the world to read about.

    By doing this Mary, you will stand head & shoulders above your colleagues & Christians will admire you even more for your bravery. Be forewarned however that there is a strong element of censure within the defensive evolutionist community. Should the results come back saying this T-Rex is less than 50,000 years old, you could be blackballed and "Expelled" from your profession for supporting the "creationist" viewpoint.

    However, be that as it may, I assure you there will be no negative impact on your career from the believer's camp. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, "We will all be only too happy to buy your New York Times #1-Best Selling book on this fantastic discovery." You'll be an even bigger overnight sensation than you are now and a multi-millionaire to boot.

    Posted by Larry on October 17,2009 | 10:55 PM

    I AGREE COMPLETELY!!!! Why doesn't the vet who first saw the cells get the credit?? Because he's not a paleontologist?? He's obviously had enough education to know an animal cell when he see's one.....even in stone non the less!! Give credit where credit is do! THE VET DISCOVERED IT!!!

    Posted by Emsa medic on October 18,2009 | 03:38 AM

    what kind of acid was used?

    Posted by bill myers on November 17,2009 | 09:29 AM

    I totally believe and understand her findings. I am an amateur Paleontologist who has found fossils so preserved due to the iron and clay content in the soil. They were buried quickly, shapes are in tact. They are mostly claws and teeth, but also some bone fragments. I can see how this form of diagenises could be hard to believe but in fact does happen.The fossils were buried so quickly in clay and salt that they hardened with a protective matrix that preserved anything inside because of lack of oxygen. I am located in New Jersey, also in bird and reptile history area. Open minds are always a great thing in science and are essential to new discoveries.

    Posted by Linda P on November 20,2009 | 05:27 PM

    That sounds really cool. What will happen next? Good Luck!

    Posted by chloe on November 24,2009 | 04:53 PM

    This is a momentous discovery, and more so if there is a chance of surviving DNA fragments in the soft tissue. Although millions of years seem like a very long time for anything soft to survive, if its location prevented mineralization and also oxidation, microbial attack, and so on, absent a cause for something to happen to the soft tissue, what else could happen?

    Posted by John Savard on December 8,2009 | 07:34 PM

    What is the carbon-14 date of the soft tissue? Why is there nothing to be found about this discovery since 2006? Any new news?

    Posted by Bill on January 30,2010 | 12:21 PM

    Post a Comment


    Name: (required)

    Email: (required)

    Comment:



    Advertisement


    - - - Advertisements - - -


    Join Us

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Become a fan of Smithsonian magazine's official Facebook page!

    Twitter

    Follow Smithsonian magazine on Twitter

    Smithsonian magazine presents

    6th Annual Smithsonian Photo Contest Winners

    Out of more than 17,000 entries, Smithsonian and its readers select the year's best