Uncovering A Dinosaur, From Skin To Bones

Thrilled Scientists Await The Emergence Of Completely Fossilized Edmontosaurus

(AP)  Using tiny brushes and chisels, workers picking at a big greenish-black rock in the basement of North Dakota's state museum are meticulously uncovering something amazing: a nearly complete dinosaur, skin and all.

Unlike almost every other dinosaur fossil ever found, the Edmontosaurus named Dakota, a duckbilled dinosaur unearthed in southwestern North Dakota in 2004, is covered by fossilized skin that is hard as iron. It's among just a few mummified dinosaurs in the world, say the researchers who are slowly freeing it from a 65-million-year-old rock tomb.

"This is the closest many people will ever get to seeing what large parts of a dinosaur actually looked like, in the flesh," said Phillip Manning, a paleontologist at Manchester University in England, a member of the international team researching Dakota.

"This is not the usual disjointed sentence or fragment of a word that the fossil records offer up as evidence of past life. This is a full chapter."

Animal tissue typically decomposes quickly after death. Researchers say Dakota must have been buried rapidly and in just the right environment for the skin to be preserved.

"The process of decay was overtaken by that of fossilization, preserving many of the soft-tissue structures," Manning said.

Tyler Lyson, a 25-year-old doctoral paleontology student at Yale University, discovered the dinosaur on his uncle's ranch in the Badlands in 1999. Weeks after he started to unearth the fossil in 2004, he knew he had found something special.

"Usually all we have is bones," Lyson said in a telephone interview. "In this special case, we're not just after the bones; we're after the whole carcass."

Researchers have used the world's largest CT scanner, operated by the Boeing Co. in California and used to examine space shuttle parts, to get a better look at what is encased in the rumpled mass of sandstone.

"This is the fourth dinosaur mummy that's ever been found in the world of any significance," said Stephen Begin, a Michigan consultant on the project. "It may turn out to be one of the best mummies, because of the quality of the skin that we're finding and the extent of the skin that's on the specimen."

Dakota was moved to the museum early last month and is currently surrounded by precariously perched desk lamps and a machine to suck up dust. State paleontologist John Hoganson, of the North Dakota Geological Survey, said it will take a year, maybe more, to uncover it.

Amy Sakariassen, part of the team working on the project, was toiling away with a brush whose bristles had been ground down to nubs.

"It really is wonderful to work on it," she said, as Begin used a sharp instrument to pick away tiny bits of rock and unveil a scale. "Nobody's seen that particular scale in 67 million years. It's quite thrilling."

Manning said his involvement has meant 18-hour days, seven-day weeks and "more work than I could have ever imagined. But I would not change a single second of the past few years."

Hoganson said the main part of the fossil is in two parts, weighing a total of nearly 5 tons.

"The skeleton itself is kind of curled up," he said. "The actual length would be about 30 feet, from about the tip of its tail to the tip of its nose."

The fossil has spawned both a children's book and an adult book, as well as National Geographic television programs. The National Geographic Society is funding much of the research.

"We are looking forward to seeing what emerges from the huge dinosaur body block now housed in North Dakota," said John Francis, a society vice president.

Many prehistoric fossils have been found in the western North Dakota Badlands where terrain has been heavily eroded over time by weather. Hoganson said other treasures likely are waiting to be unearthed.

"It's one of the few places in the world where you can actually see the boundary line where the dinosaurs became extinct, the time boundary," he said. "In the Badlands, this layer is exposed in certain places."

Lyson, who found the fossil, eventually hopes to send it on a worldwide tour and then bring it back to his hometown of Marmarth, where he is creating a museum. For now, workers at the North Dakota Heritage Center on the state Capitol grounds are getting part of it ready for display this summer.

[klingon69]

Honestly, I always believed that the earth is around 4 billion years old. However, I have heard the 6-8 thousand year thing also. I can''t understand where they got those figures. I read and found no reference to the time Adam and Eve spent in the garden. I found some temporal references to the apparent ages of many early biblical figures. And, of course, the 6 days and seventh resting. Is a day to GOD 24 hrs? Is it a million years? What is the reference? I believe in GOD, and have read the bible. I believe in Jesus and his mission on this rock. I CANNOT believe the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old.

[newsterl]

Yeah an 8,000 year old earth LOL, *recorded* human history goes back thousands of years in one form or another, as well as the pyramids, the various dynasty in China etc too. We all know the Grand Canyon was created by water dissolving the soft stone- you can see hundreds if not thousands of LAYERS of sedimentary and other rocks- like the rings in a tree laid down one by one- that simply doesn''t happen at that scale in 8000 years!
Neither does a dinosaur get totally embedded in rock and turned to stone that quick.

What apparently killed them was the LARGE meterorite which has been shown to have impacted on the SW part of the Gulf of Mexico around that time, crater now totally buried;

It is a huge buried impact crater that is called Chicxulub, The asteroid or comet that produced the Chicxulub crater was roughly 10 km in dia
www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/Chicxulub/Discovering_crater.html


The Chicxulub Crater is an ancient impact crater buried underneath the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater

Evidence for the impact origin of the crater includes shocked quartz, a gravity anomaly, and tektites in surrounding areas.
Imagine the carnage from a red-hot rock 6 miles across hitting the ground at miles-per-second speed, the mind cant fathom the explosion, speed or forces as theres nothing to compare it to- instant vaporization of rock, dirt, water, trees.

[newsterl]

Yeah an 8,000 year old earth LOL, *recorded* human history goes back thousands of years in one form or another, as well as the pyramids, the various dynasty in China etc too. We all know the Grand Canyon was created by water dissolving the soft stone- you can see hundreds if not thousands of LAYERS of sedimentary and other rocks- like the rings in a tree laid down one by one- that simply doesn''t happen at that scale in 8000 years!
Neither does a dinosaur get totally embedded in rock and turned to stone that quick.

What apparently killed them was the LARGE meterorite which has been shown to have impacted on the SW part of the Gulf of Mexico around that time, crater now totally buried;

It is a huge buried impact crater that is called Chicxulub, The asteroid or comet that produced the Chicxulub crater was roughly 10 km in dia
www.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/impact_cratering/Chicxulub/Discovering_crater.html


The Chicxulub Crater is an ancient impact crater buried underneath the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater

Evidence for the impact origin of the crater includes shocked quartz, a gravity anomaly, and tektites in surrounding areas.
Imagine the carnage from a red-hot rock 6 miles across hitting the ground at miles-per-second speed, the mind cant fathom the explosion, speed or forces as theres nothing to compare it to- instant vaporization of rock, dirt, water, trees.

[newsterl]

Way too cool!

[Syndicate]

They really cool thing about this if the fossil is dissolved in acid the soft tissues may be freed from their rocky matrix. Imagine being able to handle pliable dinosaur skin. There may also be preserved DNA. Even if it is fragmented we could put it back together.

rational_1: String Theory and Super Gravity touch on variable constants. But there is no proof.

[kansas1946]

What a cool discovery. I don''t know why there is all this argument about the discovery. Any rational person knows the aproximate age of the earth so it is counter-productive to argue with anyone who thinks the earth is 8,000 years old. That is just silly. Not worth arguing over.
It is so exciting to really see a mummified dinosaur, not just fossilized bones.

[downsteamjim]

Sorry, I thought this was about Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al.

[fibonacci_]

I thought singinrick would be here too. Maybe he got offended by the guys with names singindick and singingrick.

[godseyesore-2009]

Why try to argue rationally with idiots who can''t accept that reality doesn''t conform to their particular ancient book of directives?

[rational_1]

I''ve been wondering where our friend singinrick was hiding and even thought he and Dolphanseven might be one and the same, and then I realized we haven''t yet been deluged (get it? Ark reference) with Biblical quotes. So rick isn''t here yet.

Dolphanseven, in order for the Biblical literalists to be correct we would pretty well have to throw away everything we believe to be true of astrophysics (age of the universe), geology (age of rocks, continental drift), molecular biology (species differences in DNA sequences) as well as biology in general. Thus far the creationists have failed miserably at overturning anything believed in by mainstream science. Often they end up looking like ignorant fools (eg. the laughable attempt to show that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics).

[fibonacci_]

Dolphanseven, there is no reason to think that laws of the universe are not constant - no scientific evidence like you religious people would like. Science has proven beyond any doubt in thousands if not millions of experiements that the laws of physics are universal and unchanging. And as radical of a change as you creationists talk about - no chance. You guys fail to realize that it is not really a "small margin of error" that you guys have - scientists believe that the earth is literally tens of thousands of times older than would fit your beliefs. You guys love to find things that fit your beliefs - but cant stand it to see things like this that so clearly refute them.

[dolphanseven]

Guys you have so many questions and so little room here to answer. If anyone is interested in a respectfull and spirited debate and is honestly looking for truth, email me.

[e-mail]

[taddles-2009]

"And if you believe that scientists think universal constants are really not constants do you have any references?

Posted by rational_1 at 02:21 PM : Mar 18, 2008"

No, he posits that scientists DO believe in universal constants and that that is why all the assumptions and theories based on a constant light speed are flawed. He notes that "dr." Humphrey''s has a theory that light speed is not constant which conveniently justifies an Earth age of 6,000 years....conveniently.

The problem here is that dang scientific method thing again; observe a phenomena, gather empirical data, develop a theory, test the theory. Things are soo much easier when you create the phenomena you are looking for, create a theory that justifies your assumption then disregard any empirical evidence to the contrary. By this methodology I can develop a theory that I am in fact a stunningly handsome 23 year old self made millionaire....oops forgot to carry the 2.

[taddles-2009]

"Will it eventually stop all together? What happens then?

Posted by rf35 at 02:06 PM : Mar 18, 2008"


We all just stand around looking at each other...or not, since light isn''t moving anymore...yea, I''m just gonna go nail my head to a board.

[rational_1]

Read "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphries. The universe is expanding since the bang, but is slowing down gradually since then, meaning it was much faster in the beginning, meaning light would travel faster back then. Scientists are stuck on everything they see today is a constant that doesn''''t change, and it is a false assumption to make. Things were different back then. This is why dating techniques are flawed.
Posted by Dolphanseven at 01:35 PM : Mar 18, 2008

No, actually the rate of expansion of the universe is INCREASING not decreasing. Why this is occurring is unknown at present. See

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3137

And if you believe that scientists think universal constants are really not constants do you have any references? I''m really quite curious about this as I think you''re wrong.

[nic1234567-2009]

Read "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphries. The universe is expanding since the bang, but is slowing down gradually since then, meaning it was much faster in the beginning, meaning light would travel faster back then.

Dolphanseven at 01:35 PM : Mar 18, 2008

--------------------------------

You%u2019re kidding us right. Dr. Humphreys theory (hypothesis) is demonstrably flawed. I suggest you read the following.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unraveling.shtml

[rf35]

Dolphanseven,
Are you trying to tell me the speed of light is not a constant, but used to be faster? Do you actually believe this? Wait, I thought you people didn''t even believe in the big bang theory. I''m not having much success wrapping my head around the concept of light speed slowing down. Is it still getting slower? Will it eventually stop all together? What happens then? Is this book you reference available electronically and if so, is there cost involved? Does it explain these ideas in logical ways or just refer to the Bible for anything that becomes problematic? Does the author have a history of heavy crack use?

[taddles-2009]

"Any religious fundamentalist out there want to attempt to explain this one away?

Posted by leftyintexas at 11:58 AM : Mar 18, 2008"


They always do though they have nothing to back it up.

[rational_1]

Those of you who cannot agree with the age of this dinosaur need to come forward and defend yourselves. Don''''t let these folks scare you off. If you can''''t defend it here, give the resources available. I seriously want to hear your side.
Posted by wb4qiz1 at 11:59 AM : Mar 18, 2008

Even though I think these creationists are totally offbase and have no understanding of how science works, I will point you to a couple of websites to get you started on what they believe. Check out

http://www.creationism.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Now if you''re really interested make sure you also check out scientists debunking creationism.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

Happy reading!

[Latrocinor]

The thing I still have never had explained in any logical way is how the light from stars more than 10,000 light-years away can be seen if the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Posted by rf35 at 01:20 PM : Mar 18, 2008
---------------------------------------
----
--
If you believe the universe is less than 10,000 years then you have disagreement from others who don''t.

There are still people who believe in Satan as a rebellious angel too.