Dinosaur Blood Revisited

By Greg Moore (updated April 21, 2005)

On March 25, 2005, Science magazine reported the discovery of soft tissue in the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex.1 The study was conducted by a team of paleontologists led by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who found blood cell remnants in a T. rex bone in 1997. According to the research paper, the soft tissue contains morphological objects that appear to be blood vessels, blood cells and bone cells.

This study has generated much excitement in the young-earth community. Young-earth creationists claim the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue is a stunning rebuttal to the old earth paradigm. For example, in an article titled "Still Soft and Stretchy,"2 Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis states:

It is inconceivable such things could be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years"… This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.

They also claim this discovery vindicates their long standing contention that Schweitzer found actual dinosaur blood in 1997.3 In the same article, Wieland states:

Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any skepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely "history."

Unfortunately, these young-earth claims are based on several distortions about this latest discovery.

MISCONCEPTION 1

Young-earth creationists maintain the T. rex bone contained fresh, pliable tissue. That is, when the bone was cracked open, the researchers found soft tissue. This is certainly the impression one gets from Wieland's article. Under one photo of the bone tissue he states:

The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic [emphasis added]. It beggars belief [sic] that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.

Under a second photo he states:

Another instance of "fresh appearance" which similarly makes it hard to believe in the "millions of years."

And elsewhere in the article he states:

One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is "flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape.

The paper states when the researchers cracked open the bone, they noticed the hollow interior had not been filled with minerals so they took samples from the core of the bone. Schweitzer then soaked the samples in a solution of dilute acid for seven days to dissolve away the mineral component of the bone. Thus, the tissue was not originally soft but it was after the soaking process that the tissue exhibited "great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation."4

Wieland does briefly mention the fact that the bone material was processed, although later in his article. He states:

Dr. Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still [emphasis added] present.

However, the clear implication of Wieland's statement is the material from the T. rex bone contained soft tissue but the researchers did not see it until the bony matrix was removed. This is not true. The soft tissue was a result of the demineralization and hydration process.

It is also useful to add that Wieland's descriptions of the two photos (which are from the actual study) are strikingly different from Schweitzer's. She refers to the material in one photo as a "demineralized fragment" and the material in the other photo as "demineralized bone."5 Thus, unlike Wieland, Schweitzer is careful to point out that the tissue in the photos had been processed and was not the original bone material.

MISCONCEPTION 2

Young earth creationists maintain the researchers discovered actual blood vessels and cells in the T. rex tissue. Again, this is the impression one gets from Wieland's article. He states:

Not only have more blood cells been found, but also … complete blood vessels.

In fairness, the researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells. However, a careful reading of the paper reveals that this is hopeful speculation, not a statement of fact.

The paper states complete demineralization of the T. rex material released vessels from some regions of the bone matrix that floated to the surface of the flask. Many of these vessels contained round microstructures that resembled blood cells and inside these they observed smaller objects that resembled nuclei. The researchers then subjected ostrich bones to the same process and, when viewed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the resulting vessels and contents were virtually identical to the T. rex specimen.6

However, since no molecular studies have yet been done with the tissue, it is uncertain if it contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by mineralization or some other chemical process.7 Therefore, it is very possible that the objects are not intact blood vessels and cells but blood vessel and cell remnants-the degradation products of blood vessels and cells that have undergone chemical transformation.8 In fact, Schweitzer admits as much in the closing paragraph of the paper:

Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain.9

In an accompanying article in the same issue of Science, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects,"10 Erik Stokstad makes this very point:

Experts, and the team itself, say they won't be convinced that the original material has survived unaltered until further test results come in.

Stokstad also notes there are known instances where reworked material can have the appearance and resilience of the T. rex "tissues." Therefore, until more research is conducted, it is premature and misleading to claim the structures in the tissue are blood vessels and cells. They may be and they do resemble ostrich vessels and cells, but it is an open question at this time.

MISCONCEPTION 3

Young-earth creationists claim the discovery of unfossilized bone with soft tissue and biomolecules proves dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. For example, Wieland states in his article:

It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years."

And,

This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.

This message is echoed by other young-earth creationists. For example, in another Answers in Genesis article, David Menton states:

It certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissues and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years…11

There are really two parts to this claim. One is dinosaur bone should be completely fossilized if it is millions of years old. The other is that soft tissue and biomolecules are fragile and can't possibly survive for millions of years. It is important to address both of these issues.

As Schweitzer states in the paper:

The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation, including feathers, hair, color or color patterns, embryonic soft tissues, muscle tissue and/or internal organs, and cellular structure.12

Normally, during fossilization, hard materials are replaced with minerals and soft tissue is destroyed by bacteria that enter the bone. However, under certain circumstances, the inner part of the bone can be preserved. This can occur in instances where the remains are rapidly buried and entombed in protective sediments. It can occur where the outer bone is somehow sealed, preventing penetration and decomposition. It can also occur where the remains are located in an environment that fosters preservation-places that are dry, cold and oxygen free, or where the sediment contains certain chemicals.13,14

In the case of the T. rex tissue, Schweitzer explains the preservation is the likely result of several of these factors:

The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix with extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels.15

In speaking with Schweitzer, Rich Deem reports that she indicated the bones have a distinct odor that is characteristic of embalming fluids. Therefore, it possible the bones landed in some type of chemical "stew" that preserved the soft tissue inside the bone from decomposition.16

Regarding the issue of whether biomolecules can survive for millions of years, it is very difficult to predict molecular stability because it is very dependent upon the conditions. In this case, it was an incomplete fossilization process-water did not gain access to the interior of the bone and water promotes the breakdown of biomolecules. The bone was extremely dense in terms of its mineral matrix, which would also protect the molecules and structures in the very interior of the bone.17 And, as stated previously, it seems to have been located in a rich chemical environment.

It is also important to note the molecules in question are very long, chain-like molecules called polymers. As a polymer is adsorbed to a surface, like the mineral material inside the T. rex bone, it increases the long-term stability of the molecules because, when a bond is broken, it can reform since the ends of the chain can't diffuse away from one another. Under the proper conditions, this can provide remarkable long-term stability.18

Blood vessels are also extremely durable. They are made up of endothelial cells that form a channel. This is surrounded by an elastin matrix, then basement membrane, then muscle fibers and finally a collagen matrix. These materials are very resistant to breakdown and have to undergo extensive degradation to totally breakdown. This can explain how some these vessels may have survived. They are probably not the original blood vessels but remnants of some of the blood vessel materials that retain some elasticity and resiliency.19

In explaining the discovery, Dr. Matthews Collins, who studies ancient biomolecules at York University in the United Kingdom states:

This may not be fossilization as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilization at a molecular level. My suspicion is this process has led to … a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material-a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterize, but which has preserved the structure.20

CONCLUSION

This is a very exciting and surprising discovery but not an inexplicable one. Under the right conditions, biomolecules can survive for millions of years. Therefore, in no way does this discovery demand a young-earth interpretation or prove dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago. Wieland suggests the reason that this sort of thing has not been found before is that the long-age paradigm has blinded researchers to that possibility. However, the truth of the matter is only now do we have the technology to do this type of research.

The Bible exhorts us to "test everything" (1 Thess 5:21). It does not say that we should only test the things that we disagree with, but everything. It is in this spirit that young-earth creationists need to examine their view of reality. Even if the structures in this T. rex tissue are determined to be actual blood vessels and cells, how does one find, or a handful of such finds, overturn thousands of old-earth evidences? The answer is they don't. Science has many good reasons to believe the earth is ancient. Thus, young-earth creationists need to examine all the evidence, not just selective evidences that can be construed to support their view.

REFERENCES

  1. Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, Jan K. Toporski, "Soft Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex," Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5717, March 25, 2005, pp. 1952-1955.
  2. Carl Wieland, "Still Soft and Stretchy," Answers in Genesis, March 25, 2005, www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp  (March 29, 2005).
  3. Carl Wieland, "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report," Creation 19(4), September-November 1997, pp. 42-43, www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp (April 26, 2004)
  4. Schweitzer, et al., p. 1954.
  5. Ibid., p. 1953.
  6. Ibid., p. 1954.
  7. Rich Deem, "Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones," www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html (March 29, 2005).
  8. Fuz Rana, Creation Update, Reasons To Believe, March 29, 2005.
  9. Schweitzer, et al., p. 1955.
  10. Erik Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects," Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5717, March 25, 2005, p. 1852.
  11. David N. Menton, "Ostrich-osaurus Discovery?" Answers in Genesis, March 28, 2005, www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp (March 30, 2005).
  12. Schweitzer, et al., p. 1955.
  13. Deem, "Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones."
  14. Rana, Creation Update.
  15. Schweitzer, et al., p. 1955.
  16. Deem, "Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones."
  17. Rana, Creation Update.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Matthew Collins, quoted in BBC News, "T. rex Fossil has Soft Tissues," March 24, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm (April 22, 2005).