Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old. rex bone were justifiably identified as ‘blood vessels’. Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens! Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Furthermore, she said, ‘The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.’ She also is reported as commenting that ‘preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.’ She has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Dr Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present. The bone was still largely hollow and not filled up with minerals as is usual. The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil to lift it by helicopter. One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is ‘flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape’. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.ī: Another instance of ‘fresh appearance’ which similarly makes it hard to believe in the ‘millions of years’.Ĭ: Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure. (From A: The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |