Biggest find in the history of paleontology

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-03-25 03:14pm

the USGS says that the Cretaceous O2 levels were nearly 35%, after analysis of air bubbles in amber.
http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/0amber.htm

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2005-03-25 03:22pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Vicious wrote: This seems unlikely. Having never encountered modern germs before, they would lack the antibodies to deal with them. I would think that the inverse would be most likely; the dinosaurs, at least the first ones, would be extremely vulnerable to modern germs.

The sword is double edged. Pathogens can only infect hosts under certain cinditions. They have to have the right cell membrane structures and internal environment for the disease to propogate.

And I wouldnt doubt that, like crocodiles, their blood contains antibiotics to fight off infection. Any animal that would get into territorial fights like T-rex would need them.

While this is true, new bugs have evolved since the dinosaurs kicked it, and I highly doubt that they would be so genetically different from other living organisms that they would be entirely immune due to cellular differences. The reason crocodiles and other ancient animals have the antibodies is because they've been living alongside the germs as they evolved. The newly cloned dinosaurs haven't, and thus they haven't been exposed and so they haven't developed the specific antibodies to those new germs. They may possess general antibiotics, but they will, on the whole, be less effective than ones tailored to a specific germ. I wouldn't doubt that T-rex had a robust immune system, but to be completely immune to a new germ they've never encountered is rather stretch.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-03-25 03:57pm

and its not like its an alien germ with no genetic similarity either. both have the same number of nucleotide pairs, the same left-handed amino acids, and the same general structure in their DNA. Bacteria, with their high reproductive rate, could easily adapt to the rex's particular immune system and thrive, long before T. rex could defend itself.

besides, the the rex was endothermic, it would be a veritable breeding ground for bacteria.

yes, this rex would be contained in a sterile laboratory with higher O2 levels for its whole life, until some serious genetic engineering went underway.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-03-25 08:53pm

Master of Ossus wrote:WOW! I wonder how common such things really are, and whether this is a freak event or if people just haven't looked hard enough.

It's not a freak event. They opened up some more bones and found more preserved tissue in some cases. It's just that cracking open dinosaur bones isn't something paleontologists are usually very enthusiastic about.

And, in celebration, I declare the month of February to be national dinosaur tissue appreciation week and offer up this joyous noise unto nobody in particular: YAAAAAAAAY! Do the happy palentology dance!

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2005-03-25 11:43pm

This is so amazingly cool.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-25 11:47pm

sketerpot wrote:And, in celebration, I declare the month of February to be national dinosaur tissue appreciation week

SLAP!!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-03-26 12:31am

hile this is true, new bugs have evolved since the dinosaurs kicked it, and I highly doubt that they would be so genetically different from other living organisms that they would be entirely immune due to cellular differences.

Not entirely immune no, but heavily resistant. SHit man, most viruses dont cross the species barrier.

The reason crocodiles and other ancient animals have the antibodies is because they've been living alongside the germs as they evolved.

Not antibodies. Antibiotics. Scientists have isolated an antibiotic in their blod that fights off bacterial and fungal infections after they rip each other's legs off.

The newly cloned dinosaurs haven't, and thus they haven't been exposed and so they haven't developed the specific antibodies to those new germs. They may possess general antibiotics, but they will, on the whole, be less effective than ones tailored to a specific germ. I wouldn't doubt that T-rex had a robust immune system, but to be completely immune to a new germ they've never encountered is rather stretch.

antibiotics are indescriminant killers of fungal and bacterial infections. If we can infer that they evolved antibiotics in their blood to fight off infection after territorial fights like crocs have, then that takes care of those two problems. and Viruses are very specific in what they can attack. If they cant infect dino cells they cant infect dino cells. plain and simple. the ones that can are probably viruses that t-rex might have at least SOME defenses against.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2005-03-26 01:49am

Oh my God. Oh my God. If possible, I would whole heartily advocate cloning. This one find might revolutionize the way we think about dinosaurs. The potential information is so enourmous: proteins, enzymes, fragmented DNA...the list goes on.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2005-03-26 07:22am

Mmm...soft dinosaur tissue...[/Homer]

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2005-03-26 07:40am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:*snip*

I will concede the point here, as your knowledge in this area surpasses mine. I just hope we eventually do clone a dinosaur. That would rule utterly.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-03-26 02:11pm

ARGH!
Someone on a 'blog I read (in defiance of all good sense) has jumped on this discovery to take it as definitive proof that there is NO WAY that the soft tissue can have been preserved for 65 million years, and thus it proves that dinosaurs could not have been alive more than a few thousand years ago...

AAAGH! My brain's trying to kill itself, he scared it...*clutches his head and starts whacking it against the nearest desk*