HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery

Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex.

When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.

A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.

Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

Yes. You bring the steak, I'll bring the A1?

And I swear, if they clone a dinosaur in my lifetime I will be so happy. Even if it gobbles folks up like in Jurassic Park.

Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probablynot – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

Helllllll no. That's way too scary for the human race to handle. If everyone attacks each other and we already have a problem with endangered animals, what's stopping people from one day harming "dinosaurs in the future"? It just seems a bit too strange and far-fetched.

I'd like to see a successful human clone before I'd even begin to believe that cloning an 80 million year old species would be possible ever.

Also fuck dinosaurs. What the fuck is with the acid spitting headflaps one? That scared the shit out of me as a child.

Keep in mind that there is no DNA in this example. Even if they did get some DNA who knows if they could use it. On top of that its only one type of dinosaur, not a whole parks worth.

Helllllll no. That's way too scary for the human race to handle. If everyone attacks each other and we already have a problem with endangered animals, what's stopping people from one day harming "dinosaurs in the future"? It just seems a bit too strange and far-fetched.

I liked both just as much. I couldnt say what one I like better because I liked them both for different reasons. I thought the second was a little more scary, just because the island was more of a "natural" enviroment for the dinosaurs. I freaking hated the movie version. They changed pretty much every aspect. I mean its bad enough the movie kept Hamond alive, but still...

yeah the second book made the second movie look like a joke.

I mean nothing beats watching a baby t-rex chew and rip apart someone alive... er alive as you can be after being beaten by a t-rex lol.

You should read the book. What the dinosaur does to Nedry in the book is really brutal. He gets acid in his eyes so the whole scene is done from his perspective. Basically he gets sliced open and knocked over and then the dinosaur chews on his head until he passes out.

I read that book before the movies came out (by a year or two) and I read them again last year. Totally worth reading.