Forum | Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model

http://www.icr.org/article/4949/

Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Evolutionists have maintained that the fossil record supports a long-ages history for earth, but material extracted from dinosaur bones is providing an interesting challenge to that theory. The recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissues, defined cell matrices, elastic blood vessels, and clearly observable cell microstructures such as cell nuclei have been a source of both shock and excitement to the paleontology community.

The shock comes from the fact that degradative processes somehow did not completely destroy all evidence of tissue from the supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. The excitement comes from the fact that, given the pristine state of these tissues, scientists should be able to extract macromolecules. These would then be used in studies of molecular evolution to bolster the evolutionary ideas that are competing for supremacy in the scientific community, such as the currently touted "dinosaur to bird" transition model.

In fact, soft tissues from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex and a Brachylophosaurus canadensis (duck-billed hadrosaur) did yield protein fragments that were subjected to amino acid sequence analysis and then used in theoretical computational analyses.^{1, 2} But did the data demonstrate a dinosaur to bird transition, or was it possibly manipulated in the spirit of academic politics?

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…..6215/posts

Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?

by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community, however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior to publication–and thus be effectively censored from public access.

Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,¹ dinosaur DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research) continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.

Dino DNA

An article published in Science in 1993 illustrates how and why dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored. "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype" by Virginia Morell stated that "several groups are racing to get the first DNA out of dinosaur bones, but other researchers say their efforts are taking attention away from the real scientific value of ancient DNA."

This article referenced then-recent findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:

Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"²

Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation? Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."

However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago.³ The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

Research Censorship

Evolutionary "damage control" is observed in the form of "chilling" (i.e., coerced) censorship of research, with severe consequences to those who "buck the system." Consider the research flow chart pictured below describing the process of extracting dinosaur DNA. Note steps 7 and especially 8. Why must the research results be dismissed if the DNA extract doesn't look like birds or crocodiles? The answer is evolutionary gatekeeping:

To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been contaminated.

That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know when they're on the right track, given that there are no living dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.⁴

In other words, only DNA research that provides dinosaur DNA sequences similar to those of birds and crocodiles is allowed. As the flowchart indicates, all other results are deemed anomalies that should be rejected as though they were known contaminants, like fungal genes. This approach is not observation-directed empirical research; this is assumption-driven, theory-dictated censorship–"science" falsely so-called.⁵

Coerced Spoliation of Evidence

This purposeful pattern of coerced concealment of the nonconforming DNA data from unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled "an anomaly" on the chart) involves what courtroom lawyers and judges call "chilling" coercion and "spoliation of evidence"–inducing the concealment (and eventual destruction) of embarrassing information in order to prevent one's opponent from using it at trial.

Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions the spoliators' motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence suggests that the spoliators' argument or theory would be weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of presumptive inference in law courts. In other words, if someone hides evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.⁶

A kindred rule to the foregoing…is that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the cause of the spoliator.…The deliberate destruction of evidence gives rise to the presumption that the matter destroyed is not favorable to the spoliator.⁷

This shows that the civil law courts understand the importance of evidence spoliation–it points to a willingness to conceal or otherwise suppress truth in order to advance a specific cause. The name Arthur Andersen comes to mind, as this accounting firm's shredding of Enron documents hindered SEC investigators.⁸

Follow the Procedure, or Else

In suppressed dinosaur DNA research–which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed, dinosaur soft tissue discoveries–the same issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why? Because today's dinosaur DNA controversy in particular, and today's dinosaur "connective tissue" controversy in general, directly puts at issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live millions of years ago, or in much more recent history on an earth inhabited by humans–descendants of Adam and Eve?⁹

How will anyone really know what dinosaur DNA sequences look like until uncensored data from dinosaur bones are published for public scrutiny? And how will such data be published at all if "embarrassing" research results are routinely discarded as anomalous, simply because they didn't "look like chicken"? One way to acquire more reliable data in this case would be to repeat the DNA research across multiple labs, until consistent results emerge.

In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.¹⁰ They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.

These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).

Interestingly, Schweitzer has never published any of her purported DNA research on dinosaur tissue, although she has published on tissue analyses and, recently, data on protein sequence. While the tissue analyses reported over the past decade are nearly impossible to dispute, this recently published dinosaur protein sequence from a T. rex came under extreme criticism and the data were highly questioned by peers as having been manipulated to produce close similarities with chicken and ostrich protein.¹¹ Was this done as per the "paleontological theory and protocol" described in 1993?

Conclusion

The gatekeeping approach to ancient DNA research established as a protocol in 1993 is a product of dogmatic evolutionary theory. The 1994 results put the dogma to the test, with the result that:

1. Ancient DNA, known to be unstable, was extracted from "80 million-year-old" bone.
   
2. The sequence, though it showed evidence of decay, was no more bird-like than it was mammal-like.

The coerced suppression of the results by the evolutionary scientific community has dissuaded anyone else from publishing dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship "chills" empirical research, which prevents the public reporting of observable DNA sequences in order to insulate the larger story of particles-to-people evolution from cross-examination.

Where are the real scientists in dinosaur DNA research who refuse to kowtow to evolution's gatekeepers?

References

1. Thomas, B. 2009. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay. Acts & Facts. 38 (9): 18.
   
2. Morell, V. 1993. Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118): 160.
3. Ibid, 161. (This illustrates the thermodynamic maxim "as time increases, chemistry wins over biology.")
4. Difficulties With Dinosaur DNA, ibid, 161.
5. 1 Timothy 6:20.
   
6. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 46 Tex. Supr. Ct. J. 685 (Tex. 2003) (summarizing Texas jurisprudence regarding spoliation of evidence), citing Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505, 93 Engl. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722) (illustrating how spoliation of evidence, as a legal problem, predates the USA's existence).
7. Quoting H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bruner, 530 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex. Civ. App. – Waco, 1975, writ dismissed by agr't), citing McCormick & Ray, TEXAS EVIDENCE (2nd ed.), Volume I, § 103, pages 141-142.
   
8. See, e.g., In re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation, 2003 WL 25508889 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (discussing how Arthur Andersen accountants committed spoliation of evidence by shredding Enron documents to hinder the SEC's investigation of Enron, etc.).
9. There are indications that dinosaurs have lived within the last few thousands, and maybe even hundreds, of years. See Cooper, B. 1995. After the Flood. Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 130-161, which documents and discusses historical records of human encounters with strange creatures during various centuries after Christ, involving detailed descriptions of wild animals that today would be called dinosaurs.
10. Woodward, S. R., N. J. Weyand and M. Bunnell. 1994. DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments. Science. 266 (5188): 1229-1232.
    
11. For more details, see Tomkins, J. 2009. Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 12-14.

* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.

Post edited 4:14 pm – 02/06/2010 by iamhere

http://news.nationalgeographic…..teins.html Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More John Roach for National Geographic News May 1, 2009 The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says. The research was led by the team behind the controversial 2007 discovery of protein from similar soft tissues in 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bones. "It was not a one-hit wonder," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School, who led the protein-sequence analysis. 

Well-Preserved Dinosaur The proteins were recovered from a hadrosaur femur that had been encased in sandstone, which appears to prevent complete tissue degradation, Asara said. Preliminary microscopic analysis revealed structures resembling blood vessels, cells, and collagen, he noted. Those initial speculations were confirmed by applying antibodies to the tissue that are known to react with proteins. The tests suggested the presence of collagen and other proteins, including hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells.

Post edited 4:43 pm – 02/06/2010 by iamhere

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont…..52_F3.jpeg [Image Removed by User]

http://www.icr.org/article/5112/

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Finally Makes News by

Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Although creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even "may be changing the whole dino ballgame," according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.¹

The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it. It stuck like Velcro. She then asked paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, "This is 80 million years old and it can do that?" "Yes," Schweitzer said confidently.

In demonstrating that dinosaur bones still somehow contained soft, bendable tissues after all these eons, Schweitzer and her former mentor Jack Horner have been subjected to "one of the biggest controversies paleontology has seen in years."¹

This resulted from Schweitzer’s unexpected discovery in 2000 of "elastic, like living tissue" from inside the femur of a recently excavated Tyrannosaurus fossil nicknamed "B. rex." 60 Minutes reported, "It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone. This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old!" The report replayed some of the original video of the tissues taken in 2000. "They were there. Things that looked suspiciously like flexible, transparent blood vessels."¹

Stahl stated that "being a fossil, there should have been nothing left. But there was." Thus, "blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells, pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science―that organic material can’t possibly survive even a million years, let alone 68 million."¹

But it is not some arbitrary "rule of science" that dictates that flesh usually rots quickly. It is extremely well established by common observation, as well as by decades of easily repeatable experiments, such as those measuring protein decay that occurs in mere days.² Instead, the "science" being challenged is perhaps the deep-time evolutionary dogma that remains widely held despite contradictory evidence.³

When Schweitzer’s work was originally published in the journal Science, it was greeted with more than just skepticism.⁴ Her laboratory was suspected of accidentally contaminating the samples, or worse. But her original findings were firmly established when her team—after taking great pains to prevent contamination or spoiling of specimens from the field to the lab—found even more soft dinosaur tissue, this time in another species, that was verified by a third party.⁵

Viewing "80-million-year-old" hadrosaur tissue through a microscope, Stahl asked, "Is that a blood vessel?" Schweitzer replied, "This is a blood vessel. Do you see the branches right there? And look at all of them."¹ But even with the evidence in front of their eyes, and despite their own incredulity, the two still accepted the story that organic remnants that should have rotted long ago had somehow been preserved for longer than many current species have supposedly existed on earth.

By removing the unscientific interpretive filter of "millions of years" placed on it, the conundrum created by this soft evidence evaporates. If these dinosaurs were buried during a recent and major watery catastrophe, then the discovery of their still-soft tissues is much easier to explain.⁶

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.co…..osaur-goo/

May 6, 2009 What’s New About Hadrosaur Goo

A preserved blood vessel of Brachylophosaurus, with what may be degraded dinosaur blood inside. From the Science paper.

One of the first things I learned about dinosaur fossils was that soft tissues are never preserved. Impressions of skin, hair, and even internal organs can leave their mark in the fossil record, but no one is ever going to find an intact, non-fossilized Tyrannosaurus heart. Like many of the things that "everyone knows," though, it now seems that this view is not exactly right. In very exceptional circumstances , remnants of dinosaur soft tissue can be preserved, and a recently published paper in the journal Science throws new support to this controversial hypothesis.

For several years now paleontologists have been debating whether structures found inside a Tyrannosaurus femur were preserved soft tissue structures or something else, like bacteria, that took the shape of things like blood vessels. The pioneering scientist behind this research has been Mary Schweitzer. The new report by her and her colleagues focuses on a new case of soft tissue preservation, but it is not about Tyrannosaurus. Instead it features preserved soft tissue structures from the hadrosaur Brachylophosaurus, a dinosaur from the other great branch of the dinosaur family tree, the Ornithischia.

The researchers who found the Brachylophosaurus leg in which the soft tissue structures were found were careful right from the start. They did not expose the bones in the field but kept it in a plaster jacket until they got it into a lab. Only then did they expose it and quickly take their samples to prevent possible contamination or degradation of what might be inside the leg. What Schweitzer and her colleagues found were bone cells, blood vessels, and what appeared to be degraded blood products, real remnants of dinosaur soft tissue and not bacterial biofilm. They tested the material, re-tested it, and even sent it to other labs, and the overwhelming consensus was that the material truly was the ancient leftovers of dinosaur soft tissue.