The Preservation Of Organic Matter?

[Ammojoe]

Last night whilst during the chat room I and Ben (BlazeExploder) were discussing fossil preservation. Ben introduced me to a concept, which involves, the end product of extracting Dinosaur blood from rocks. I, being myself, instantly dismissed this, under the impression that so far no organic fossilised remains have been found? I have read theories, and seen numerous website which say it is possible to clone dinosaurs, and the molecular DNA, and soft tissue have been preserved. Is this the case? We have all seen Jurassic Park, and have all seen the press stories claiming it would be possible to do, but of course these have been extrapolated and the truth bent. My question is, have we enough evidence to be able extract tissue, and even blood from dinosaurs? I know this question/debate has been going on with professional palaeontologists for a while, has a unanimous conclusion been reached?

Here is the article Ben presented me with (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-from-stone); I’m sceptic of the truth behind this. Has the truth been adapted to make an interesting news story, or is this true? I have done research in the following sector, and wasn’t sure whether it is possible, and whether tissue has been preserved? I have seen numerous articles for and against this debate. If it was true that DNA, soft tissue, has been preserved in fossilised remains, it beckons my second question. Why hasn’t anyone tried to clone a dinosaur yet? I know there are ethical and practical issues with cloning, but surely it would have been attempted? Unless, only limited cases of soft remains have been preserved? But, yet again wouldn’t this have been huge news, and cause the debate to stop. Are paleontologists agreed regarding this debate?

Any insight or resources you could point me to would be greatly received.

Kind Regards,

Joe

[piranha]

Hi Joe,

Here are three very good links with background on the actual research referenced from your link. The DNA that survives is too scattershot to be replicated. Coincidentally, Jack Horner who works with Mary Higby Schweitzer, is advancing the notion of reverse engineering of avian DNA into living dinosaurs.

These will get the ball rolling for you:

LINK - ABSTRACT

LINK - NOVA VIDEO

LINK - HORNER BOOK

[Ammojoe]

Hi Scott,

Thank you for the information, much appreciated. I did think it had to be genuine after conducting sufficient research, admittedly I did doubt it to begin with, my apologies Ben. Is this the only known case of actual red blood cells being preserved? I suppose that, because organic material has been preserved, it may be possible in the future to recreate at least part of a dinosaur. Providing a better quality fossil was found, containing all the vital DNA necessary to replicate. A fascinating subject, thank you for enlightening me, Scott. It is very interesting to see the actual research done on the talked about specimen, reading the abstract, it’s just alluring! I certainly will purchase the aforementioned book by J. Hormer. Unfortunately, being UK based I can’t view the video, shame as it looked useful, not to worry though.

Once again, thanks for clarifying in my uncertainty Scott.

Regards,

Joe

[piranha]

Joe, here it is from 60 Minutes:

[BlazeXploder]

I think they cant get any DNA from it because of the manner in which the blood cells where preserved; the method would simply not work with another cell due to its composition. However, It could be possible for a cell to become entrapped with a blood cell, and be partially preserved.

Also, they extraced DNA from a nicely preserved Dino-mummy, but it was smashed up; there was no way to reconstruct it. I suppose old enough amber (does it survive that long?) could host some usable DNA, but would almost certainly be devoid of whole chromosomes/ whole genomes. I think the decomposition process would occur and the DNA would break itself down after time.