If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   Scientists study rare dinosaur skin fossil to determine for the first time actual skin color after Joan Rivers and Burt Reynolds shoo them away   (phys.org) divider line 42
    More: Cool, dinosaurs, Scientist Studies, hadrosaurid, dinosaur skin, skin fossil, synchrotron, chemical bonds, organelles  
•       •       •

2306 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Apr 2013 at 12:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-29 11:35:32 AM
We have no real idea what the skin looks like. Is it green, blue, orange


www.nealromanek.com
 
2013-04-29 11:54:09 AM
This article is fascinating but as I was reading I started thinking these guys might be nerds.  Just a heads up, yo.
 
2013-04-29 12:05:42 PM
I thought that they were going to tell us what that color was, but NOOOOOO.
 
2013-04-29 12:09:46 PM

Sybarite: We have no real idea what the skin looks like. Is it green, blue, orange


[www.nealromanek.com image 850x478]


Gwangi!   AWESOME!!  I had that coloring book waaaay back once upon
 
2013-04-29 12:13:32 PM
I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.
 
2013-04-29 12:16:41 PM
aw, fark... now the next time I'm talking to a young Earth moron they're going to come at me with, "If dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, how come they just found one with skin intact? How do you explain that?"  And for those people, the reply, "I don't know" seems to invalidate any other hypothesis or theory that has come before and automatically means their belief in "MAGIC!" is the right one.
 
2013-04-29 12:24:57 PM
What difference does it make what color their skin is underneath all the feathers.

I don't even know what color my own dog's skin is.
 
2013-04-29 12:30:29 PM

dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.


It's probably like the discoveries of feathers on Chinese dinosaurs.  Dino collection in North America was earlier and focused so exclusively on the bones that any soft tissue preservation was probably ignored.  The more recent Chinese discoveries occurred after paleontologists began to realize that the context of the bones can be almost as important.  Well, that and the fact that the Liaoning fossils are just plain extraordinary.
 
2013-04-29 12:43:10 PM

Parallax: What difference does it make what color their skin is underneath all the feathers.

I don't even know what color my own dog's skin is.


Hadrosaurs may have had feathers, but probably very different ones than birds and theropods.  Plus, they apparently didn't cover their entire bodies, or hadrosaur skin impression fossils wouldn't be so common.
 
2013-04-29 12:43:34 PM

Parallax: What difference does it make what color their skin is underneath all the feathers.

I don't even know what color my own dog's skin is.


You dog never rolls over on his/her back?

/pinkish-white, normally.
 
2013-04-29 12:44:14 PM

timujin: Parallax: What difference does it make what color their skin is underneath all the feathers.

I don't even know what color my own dog's skin is.

You dog never rolls over on his/her back?

/pinkish-white, normally.


Your, dammit.
 
2013-04-29 12:50:46 PM
www.bookitinc.com
 
2013-04-29 12:56:23 PM
According to Wikipedia there have already been several hadrosaur skin samples collected, including a mummified one found back in 1908 or something.  So, either old news is great or something is unique about this find, either way the article didn't really clarify that.

I hope it turns out to be something like Avatar.
 
2013-04-29 12:58:57 PM
Why dont they just watch that documentary "Jurassic Park" and look at theose dinosaurs?
 
2013-04-29 01:04:33 PM

theurge14: According to Wikipedia there have already been several hadrosaur skin samples collected, including a mummified one found back in 1908 or something.  So, either old news is great or something is unique about this find, either way the article didn't really clarify that.

I hope it turns out to be something like Avatar.


You want to plug into a flying dinosaur?
 
2013-04-29 01:21:19 PM

theurge14: According to Wikipedia there have already been several hadrosaur skin samples collected, including a mummified one found back in 1908 or something.  So, either old news is great or something is unique about this find, either way the article didn't really clarify that.

I hope it turns out to be something like Avatar.


From what I'm gathering it sounds like this is actual preserved skin, as opposed to just an impression or tissue that's been replaced by minerals.  Most of the original organic compounds are probably hopelessly degraded, but much of the original 3D structure could still be there.  That mummified hadrosaur they found a while back was somewhat misleading, since I think it was only a mummified dinosaur that was later mineralized.  (Still an incredible find)
 
2013-04-29 01:38:42 PM

theurge14: According to Wikipedia there have already been several hadrosaur skin samples collected, including a mummified one found back in 1908 or something.  So, either old news is great or something is unique about this find, either way the article didn't really clarify that.

I hope it turns out to be something like Avatar.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com

It was whatever color Jesus wanted.
 
2013-04-29 02:04:55 PM

timujin: aw, fark... now the next time I'm talking to a young Earth moron they're going to come at me with, "If dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, how come they just found one with skin intact? How do you explain that?"  And for those people, the reply, "I don't know" seems to invalidate any other hypothesis or theory that has come before and automatically means their belief in "MAGIC!" is the right one.


You missed that "soft tissue found in fossilized T-Rex femur" event in 2006?

The creationists are still crowing over that, because them godless scientists still don't how know it was preserved fer all them thousands of years.
 
2013-04-29 02:35:48 PM
FTFA: "We have no real idea what the skin looks like. Is it green, blue, orange...

Dinosaurs sound delicious.
 
2013-04-29 02:45:06 PM

Erix: dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.

It's probably like the discoveries of feathers on Chinese dinosaurs.  Dino collection in North America was earlier and focused so exclusively on the bones that any soft tissue preservation was probably ignored.  The more recent Chinese discoveries occurred after paleontologists began to realize that the context of the bones can be almost as important.  Well, that and the fact that the Liaoning fossils are just plain extraordinary.


Not, it has nothing to do with when the fossils are dug up. Mummies preserving skin impressions are fairly common, I have 2 in my office. They have been known for over a century, with the Sternbergs recovering many in Canada for museums worldwide. More recent discoveries from Wyoming, Montana (ours were from there) and Utah show that mummified dinos aren't all that rare.

The fact that they've got actual scales instead of impressions is remarkable. Mass spectrometry will give us some exciting information. I can't wait for the paper.
 
2013-04-29 03:21:43 PM

Dinodork: Erix: dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.

It's probably like the discoveries of feathers on Chinese dinosaurs.  Dino collection in North America was earlier and focused so exclusively on the bones that any soft tissue preservation was probably ignored.  The more recent Chinese discoveries occurred after paleontologists began to realize that the context of the bones can be almost as important.  Well, that and the fact that the Liaoning fossils are just plain extraordinary.

Not, it has nothing to do with when the fossils are dug up. Mummies preserving skin impressions are fairly common, I have 2 in my office. They have been known for over a century, with the Sternbergs recovering many in Canada for museums worldwide. More recent discoveries from Wyoming, Montana (ours were from there) and Utah show that mummified dinos aren't all that rare.

The fact that they've got actual scales instead of impressions is remarkable. Mass spectrometry will give us some exciting information. I can't wait for the paper.


Yeah, like, what are you some kind of expert?

(clicks bio)

Oh.
 
2013-04-29 03:22:52 PM

Dinodork: Erix: dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.

It's probably like the discoveries of feathers on Chinese dinosaurs.  Dino collection in North America was earlier and focused so exclusively on the bones that any soft tissue preservation was probably ignored.  The more recent Chinese discoveries occurred after paleontologists began to realize that the context of the bones can be almost as important.  Well, that and the fact that the Liaoning fossils are just plain extraordinary.

Not, it has nothing to do with when the fossils are dug up. Mummies preserving skin impressions are fairly common, I have 2 in my office. They have been known for over a century, with the Sternbergs recovering many in Canada for museums worldwide. More recent discoveries from Wyoming, Montana (ours were from there) and Utah show that mummified dinos aren't all that rare.

The fact that they've got actual scales instead of impressions is remarkable. Mass spectrometry will give us some exciting information. I can't wait for the paper.


Well, what I was thinking was more along the lines of "How much potential material was lost because it wasn't recognized for what it was previously?", because it was all about the bones, and perhaps something like actual scales were previously thought to just be negatives of the impression left by the scales, or at most fossilized scales with no biological material remaining.
 
2013-04-29 03:39:21 PM
timujin
aw, fark... now the next time I'm talking to a young Earth

6 whole posts without derp. That may just be a record
 
2013-04-29 04:55:43 PM

OnlyM3: timujin
aw, fark... now the next time I'm talking to a young Earth

6 whole posts without derp. That may just be a record


Where's the "derp"?  Do you disagree with what I wrote?  Do you believe that young-Earth creationists won't grab onto this as some sort of affirmation of their worldview?
 
2013-04-29 06:47:08 PM

timujin: Where's the "derp"? Do you disagree with what I wrote? Do you believe that young-Earth creationists won't grab onto this as some sort of affirmation of their worldview?


So? Do we make a fuss that the 'pepsi-coke challenge' gives fuel to the delusions of crazy homeless people?

Or do you spend your life horrified at the thought that somewhere out there an idiot is believing something retarded?
 
2013-04-29 06:52:15 PM

dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.


Note from the article that it is NOT skin but fossilized skin. There is a bit of a difference (unless you're Joan Rivers or Burt Reynolds).
 
2013-04-29 06:54:59 PM

timujin: OnlyM3: timujin
aw, fark... now the next time I'm talking to a young Earth

6 whole posts without derp. That may just be a record

Where's the "derp"?  Do you disagree with what I wrote?  Do you believe that young-Earth creationists won't grab onto this as some sort of affirmation of their worldview?


Don't worry. We'll hear from Ham or Hovind or Juby or one of those crapsters quoting the "real skin" meme without checking to see that it is fossilized skin or even caring to differentiate between the two -- as we have already seen in this thread.
 
2013-04-29 07:22:24 PM

mikefinch: timujin: Where's the "derp"? Do you disagree with what I wrote? Do you believe that young-Earth creationists won't grab onto this as some sort of affirmation of their worldview?

So? Do we make a fuss that the 'pepsi-coke challenge' gives fuel to the delusions of crazy homeless people?

Or do you spend your life horrified at the thought that somewhere out there an idiot is believing something retarded?


Nope, but that has nothing to do with my original statement, nor my question to OnlyM3.
 
2013-04-29 08:24:57 PM

dittybopper: Dinodork: Erix: dittybopper: I just wonder how often biological material is preserved and it actually isn't recognized as such, or hasn't been recognized as such, because the prevailing wisdom was that no material could survive that length of time.

It's probably like the discoveries of feathers on Chinese dinosaurs.  Dino collection in North America was earlier and focused so exclusively on the bones that any soft tissue preservation was probably ignored.  The more recent Chinese discoveries occurred after paleontologists began to realize that the context of the bones can be almost as important.  Well, that and the fact that the Liaoning fossils are just plain extraordinary.

Not, it has nothing to do with when the fossils are dug up. Mummies preserving skin impressions are fairly common, I have 2 in my office. They have been known for over a century, with the Sternbergs recovering many in Canada for museums worldwide. More recent discoveries from Wyoming, Montana (ours were from there) and Utah show that mummified dinos aren't all that rare.

The fact that they've got actual scales instead of impressions is remarkable. Mass spectrometry will give us some exciting information. I can't wait for the paper.

Well, what I was thinking was more along the lines of "How much potential material was lost because it wasn't recognized for what it was previously?", because it was all about the bones, and perhaps something like actual scales were previously thought to just be negatives of the impression left by the scales, or at most fossilized scales with no biological material remaining.


It really all depends on the fossilization quality. Most skin is easily recognized in the field, when it's encountered. Now, most often it's just an impression, and less often carbonized material.But sometimes you get lucky.

I work a lot with Mosasaurs. They're my babies. I'm always exceptionally careful to look for possible skin or other soft tissue impressions while preparing the skeletons. This is the way we've been able to find delicate cartilages on over 50% of our recent finds (though I did have to come up with some new preparation techniques... presented on that at the fossil prep conference in Kemmerer) but more importantly is I'm the first person to find scales on the skull of Tylosaurus, which is cool because they're exactly the same as the ones on other parts of the body, they don't get bigger or more elaborate.

Just for the photos (if nothing else), check out these two papers on mosasaurs that some friends of mine put out recently focusing on skin (and even possible color patterns)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0 01 1998

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0 02 7343
 
2013-04-29 08:27:04 PM
theurge14:

Yeah, like, what are you some kind of expert?

(clicks bio)

Oh.


And just to think, I was humming along to "get on your knees and bark like a dog" not too long ago.
 
2013-04-29 08:40:16 PM

Dinodork: theurge14:

Yeah, like, what are you some kind of expert?

(clicks bio)

Oh.

And just to think, I was humming along to "get on your knees and bark like a dog" not too long ago.


BROMANCE ALERT
 
2013-04-29 08:44:42 PM

timujin: Nope, but that has nothing to do with my original statement, nor my question to OnlyM3.


I saw your original statement and yes it does.

Every time a blur comes back in a pic from curiosity the ufo nuts jump on it and say stuff like 'oh look at the thingy how do you deny aliens are controlling the government now?'

Those people aren't affected by your logical arguments now why do you think a logical argument might sway them in the future? And then if you are aware that they dont argue from a point of logic than isnt your pointing out that they will use this as the basis for some irrational argument more than just a bit pedantic?

dittybopper: Well, what I was thinking was more along the lines of "How much potential material was lost because it wasn't recognized for what it was previously?", because it was all about the bones, and perhaps something like actual scales were previously thought to just be negatives of the impression left by the scales, or at most fossilized scales with no biological material remaining.


Yeah -- i heard a story about a cave in china filled with ancient dino bones. But very little is left because the locals didn't have a clue what they were and just called them 'dragon bones' and dug them all out and ground them into penis medicine. I just assume it was penis medicine. The article said they just use it for medicine but c'mon -- its china amiright?
 
2013-04-29 08:52:14 PM

mikefinch: Yeah -- i heard a story about a cave in china filled with ancient dino bones. But very little is left because the locals didn't have a clue what they were and just called them 'dragon bones' and dug them all out and ground them into penis medicine. I just assume it was penis medicine. The article said they just use it for medicine but c'mon -- its china amiright?


I've never heard of dino bones ever being discovered in a cave. Sounds like the story is just a story.
 
2013-04-29 09:25:11 PM

Dinodork: mikefinch: Yeah -- i heard a story about a cave in china filled with ancient dino bones. But very little is left because the locals didn't have a clue what they were and just called them 'dragon bones' and dug them all out and ground them into penis medicine. I just assume it was penis medicine. The article said they just use it for medicine but c'mon -- its china amiright?

I've never heard of dino bones ever being discovered in a cave. Sounds like the story is just a story.


Ahh -- i had it a bit wrong but mostly right. Dragon Bones.
 
2013-04-29 09:43:28 PM

mikefinch: timujin: Nope, but that has nothing to do with my original statement, nor my question to OnlyM3.

I saw your original statement and yes it does.

Every time a blur comes back in a pic from curiosity the ufo nuts jump on it and say stuff like 'oh look at the thingy how do you deny aliens are controlling the government now?'

Those people aren't affected by your logical arguments now why do you think a logical argument might sway them in the future? And then if you are aware that they dont argue from a point of logic than isnt your pointing out that they will use this as the basis for some irrational argument more than just a bit pedantic?


What I meant is that my original statement didn't point towards my being "horrified", merely mildly annoyed.  You're hyperbole was greatly overstating my original point.

In addition to ratcheting up my initial statement to "horrified", you then attempt to diminish its target by comparing it to one held by "crazy homeless people" who might be convinced that the Cola Wars are indicative of some greater menace.  Those people don't, as far as I know, sit on Congressional committees, but people that would use the argument I originally posited do.

By both making my original statement stronger than intended and the imaginary person countering it much weaker, you have made your point significantly different enough from what I said as to make it unrelated.
 
2013-04-29 09:53:55 PM
One question is whether the hadrosaur skin was green or grey, like most dinosaurs are portrayed, or was it a completely different colour. Barbi said he can use the CLS to look at unique structures called melanosomes, cellular organelles the contain pigments that control the color of an animal's skin.


Sounds like a lot of work, wouldn't it be easier to check what Bible says.
 
2013-04-29 10:54:50 PM

timujin: You're hyperbole was greatly overstating my original point.


Thats the definition of hyperbole.

timujin: By both making my original statement stronger than intended and the imaginary person countering it much weaker, you have made your point significantly different enough from what I said as to make it unrelated.


? I was just sayin that if you are annoyed they reject the current science, their rejection of future proofs shouldn't be surprising or any more annoying than it already was. If the column outright then its a bit silly to get annoyed that they wont listen to the bullet points underneath. Your voicing of your annoyance was just whiny. It amounted to 'creationists are douche bag idiots'. While i might have to agree with you on the point i wanted to whine myself about having to hear pedantic theological arguments every time i opened a thread about science.

And i get that they are crazy asshole creationists in power. Them united states is crazy.
 
2013-04-30 01:10:53 AM

Erix: Parallax: What difference does it make what color their skin is underneath all the feathers.

I don't even know what color my own dog's skin is.

Hadrosaurs may have had feathers, but probably very different ones than birds and theropods.  Plus, they apparently didn't cover their entire bodies, or hadrosaur skin impression fossils wouldn't be so common.


Well, maybe the ancient humans plucked them first. Feather headdresses were all the rage.
 
2013-04-30 02:39:17 AM

mikefinch: timujin: You're hyperbole was greatly overstating my original point.

Thats the definition of hyperbole.


Your hyperbole was hyperbolic... now I am repeatedly redundant.

timujin: By both making my original statement stronger than intended and the imaginary person countering it much weaker, you have made your point significantly different enough from what I said as to make it unrelated.

? I was just sayin that if you are annoyed they reject the current science, their rejection of future proofs shouldn't be surprising or any more annoying than it already was. If the column outright then its a bit silly to get annoyed that they wont listen to the bullet points underneath. Your voicing of your annoyance was just whiny. It amounted to 'creationists are douche bag idiots'. While i might have to agree with you on the point i wanted to whine myself about having to hear pedantic theological arguments every time i opened a thread about science.

And i get that they are crazy asshole creationists in power. Them united states is crazy.


Each and every new "gotcha!" they think they have is annoying.  But "just whiny"? Well, why else would I be on Fark if not to whine?

/and I had nothing substantive to add.  For now this is just "cool".
//Come to think of it, I also goad, backbite, annoy, grouse, and abuse (though rarely troll)  If you're looking for a decent argument, that's 12a, next door.
 
2013-04-30 05:37:08 AM

timujin: now I am repeatedly redundant.


Goes without being said. (OH SNAP!)

no -- not here for an argument. Just biatching and moaning myself.

\I feel like one of two old men in a nursing home who are trying to out curmudgeon each other.
 
2013-04-30 07:47:44 AM

Dinodork: I work a lot with Mosasaurs. They're my babies. I'm always exceptionally careful to look for possible skin or other soft tissue impressions while preparing the skeletons. This is the way we've been able to find delicate cartilages on over 50% of our recent finds (though I did have to come up with some new preparation techniques... presented on that at the fossil prep conference in Kemmerer) but more importantly is I'm the first person to find scales on the skull of Tylosaurus, which is cool because they're exactly the same as the ones on other parts of the body, they don't get bigger or more elaborate.

Just for the photos (if nothing else), check out these two papers on mosasaurs that some friends of mine put out recently focusing on skin (and even possible color patterns)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0 01 1998

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0 02 7343


Very cool.

One of my earliest memories of being excited about fossils was seeing a large mosasaur at a museum in Trenton, NJ, when I was a wee lad back in the very early 1970's.
 
2013-04-30 12:20:24 PM

mikefinch: timujin: now I am repeatedly redundant.

Goes without being said. (OH SNAP!)

no -- not here for an argument. Just biatching and moaning myself.

\I feel like one of two old men in a nursing home who are trying to out curmudgeon each other.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report