Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | June 8th 2007 09:48 PM | 19 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
The peculiar pose of many fossilized dinosaurs, with wide-open mouth, head thrown back and recurved tail, likely results from the agonized death throes typical of brain damage and asphyxiation, according to two paleontologists.

A classic example of the posture, which has puzzled paleontologists for ages, is the 150 million-year-old Archaeopteryx, the first-known example of a feathered dinosaur and the proposed link between dinosaurs and present-day birds.



"Virtually all articulated specimens of Archaeopteryx are in this posture, exhibiting a classic pose of head thrown back, jaws open, back and tail reflexed backward and limbs contracted," said Kevin Padian, professor of integrative biology and curator in the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley. He and Cynthia Marshall Faux of the Museum of the Rockies published their findings in the journal Paleobiology.

Dinosaurs and their relatives, ranging from the flying pterosaurs to Tyrannosaurus rex, as well as many early mammals, have been found exhibiting this posture. The explanation usually given by paleontologists is that the dinosaurs died in water and the currents drifted the bones into that position, or that rigor mortis or drying muscles, tendons and ligaments contorted the limbs.

"I'm reading this in the literature and thinking, "This doesn't make any sense to me as a veterinarian,'" said lead author Faux (pronounced fox), a veterinarian-turned-paleontologist who also is a curatorial affiliate with Yale University's Peabody Museum. "Paleontologists aren't around sick and dying animals the way a veterinarian is, where you see this posture all the time in disease processes, in strychnine cases, in animals hit by a car or in some sort of extremis."

Faux and Padian argue in Paleobiology that the dinosaurs died in this posture as a result of damage to the central nervous system. In fact, the posture is well known to neurologists as opisthotonus and is due to damage to the brain's cerebellum. In humans and animals, cerebellar damage can result from suffocation, meningitis, tetanus or poisoning, and typically accompanies a long, slow death.

Some animals found in this posture may have suffocated in an ash fall during a volcanic eruption, consistent with the fact that many fossils are found in ash deposits, Faux and Padian said. But many other possibilities exist, including disease, brain trauma, severe bleeding, thiamine deficiency or poisoning.

"This puts a whole new light on the mode of death of these animals, and interpretation of the places they died in," Padian said. "This explanation gives us clues to interpreting a great many fossil horizons we didn't understand before and tells us something dinosaurs experienced while dying, not after dying."

Also, because the posture has been seen only in dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals, which are known or suspected to have had high metabolic rates, it appears to be a good indicator that the animal was warm blooded. Animals with lower metabolic rates, such as crocodiles and lizards, use less oxygen and so might have been less traumatically affected by hypoxia during death throes, Padian said.

Padian acknowledged that many dinosaur fossils show signs that the animal died in water and the current tugged the body into an arched position, but currents cannot explain all the characteristics of an opisthotonic pose. By studying a large number of fully articulated fossil skeletons, he and Faux were able to distinguish animals that underwent post-mortem water transport, a non-biological or abiotic process, from those with the classic "dead-bird" posture, which they interpret to be the result of biological processes.

Faux, who also works as a disaster veterinarian from her home in Lewiston, Idaho, set out to test other post-mortem processes - rigor mortis, which is the temporary stiffening of muscles after death; and the drying of muscles, tendons and ligaments - that some paleontologists credit with creating the opisthotonic posture. She obtained badly injured birds -owls, falcons and red-tailed hawks - that had been euthanized at a raptor recovery center and watched them for 8-10 hours, checking periodically to see if they moved during the process.

"In horses and smaller animals, rigor mortis sets in within a couple of hours, so I just looked to see if they were moving or not," Faux said. "And they weren't moving. They were staying in whatever position I'd left them in. I thought, 'If birds aren't doing it, and I'd never observed a horse doing it, then why would dinosaurs be doing it"'"

The idea that drying causes muscles or tendons to contract asymmetrically also didn't make sense, she said, based on her veterinary experience and an experiment she conducted with two euthanized red-tailed hawks, which she dried for two months set them in Styrofoam peanuts to dr. Most joints have counterbalancing muscles that dry the same way, she said, so there was no reason to expect that the muscles would turn a joint during drying. She found no post-mortem movement. She also pinned beef tendons as they dried, and though they shrank a bit, they did not shrink enough even to dislodge the pins. Given these observations, it is hard to imagine how shrinking tendons or muscles could drag a heavy creature into a different position, the researchers noted.

Padian pointed out, too, that all opisthotonic dinosaurs are very well preserved, meaning they evidently did not sit out in the open for long, or scavengers would have quickly scattered the bones. So, he wondered, how could they have been exposed long enough to dry out"

The only explanation that makes sense, they concluded, is central nervous system damage. The cerebellum is responsible for fine muscle movement, controlling, for example, the body's antigravity muscles that keep the head upright. Once the cerebellum ceases to modulate the behavior of the antigravity muscles, Faux said, the muscles pull at full force, tipping the head and tail back, contracting the limbs and opening the mouth.

Padian and Faux urge reanalysis of many fossil finds, referring, for example, to a mass death uncovered in Nebraska in the early 20th century. They argue that cerebellar dysfunction explains the opisthotonic posture of the numerous camel-like fossils better than does the common explanation - that the animals died in a stream and were washed into an eddy or backwater.

The authors also point to a fossil of Allosaurus, a T rex-like animal, that displayed bone lesions suggestive of a bacterial infection that also can lead to meningitis, a disease that can produce opithotonus. The authors point out that their explanation of the opisthotonic posture in dinosaurs and other animals provides a way to assess the role played by microbes in evolution, whether through disease or through other processes such as algal blooms - so-called "red tides" - that can suffocate aquatic animals.

This example and others "suggest that reevaluation may be in order for an untold number of paleoenvironments whose story has been at least partly explained on the basis of the death positions of many of their fossil vertebrates," the authors write in their Paleobiology paper.

Source: Berkeley

Comments

Hey did you know evolution is a total fraud? Study it, and you will see. Get the real science, follow the rabbit hole, and if you humble your heart before the evidence, you might come to grips with reality.

While you are at it, GOOGLE:
Ron Wyatt Noah's Ark, Ron Wyatt Red Sea crossing, Ron Wyatt Mnt. Sinai, Ron Wyatt Ark of the Covenant, Ron Wyatt Sodom and Gomorrah

They've all been found... Study it and decide for yourself...

Please don't bring your creationist junk here. This is a site for real science, not fiction created 1500 years ago. Many of the things you list as "found" are still contested, as the findings are vague and could be something else non-biblical. For example, among biblical scholars, the flood is generally considered to have been based on a regional Mesopotamian flood, not a flood of the entire Earth, which would be impossible - there is simply not enough water here.

Meanwhile, evolution and science have mounds and mounds of evidence obtained with scientific rigor and objectivity. Darwin's theory of evolution has meshed perfectly with the field of genetics, and it is the best explanation for practicallly everything living. I do not have blind faith in science; I have faith in truth, and science is the pursuit of the truth, through experimentation, observation, hypotheses, and testing.

As a side note about science in general: the scientific process inherently includes debate. While some creationists use the non-unity in different theories in science as a wedge to say that scientists don't know what they are doing, this is because all of those different hypotheses are plausible and scientists don't know yet which one is right. Some scientists believe one theory is correct, while others will go with another one, until enough evidence is found against all but one supported theory that a consensus can be reached.

Oh, and by the way, you, johnny, posted this comment with the use of a computer, presumably. Modern computers make use of electrons, the existence of which was originally contested by scientists but now has become accepted as fact. Just because evolution is emotionally charged against some religious and personal beliefs (i.e. "OMG I was NOT descended froma monkkey!!" and "STFU the BIBle is always CORRECT!") doesn't make it fundamentally different from any other scientific theory. It has been supported time and again, and not one shred of real scientific evidence has been found against it yet through all the years. If something had been found, it would not be the accepted theory today.

**********End 'evo-atheist' rant**********

Science has been based, since the beginning of time 6,000 years ago, on facts and proven results. THAT is science, a theory called evolution is not. Charles Darwin only completed the first few steps to prove that his idea was a fact. He observed, formed a hypothesis, and thats it. Ever since he wrote a book about his hypothesis, people have taken it and tried to find data to match the theory. There has been so much incredible evidence against evolution and absolutely none for it! The so called "evidence" of Lucy as being a missing link was a fraud. The bones that were found, were located miles apart from each other. I could sit here all day and name more and will be glad to do so if anyone responds to this. Evolution is a religion, not science.

Gerhard Adam's picture
The mind boggles that someone can still remain this ignorant despite being in the "Information Age".  It's not as if you're advancing an argument.  You haven't even made the most cursory attempt to understand high school biology, let alone advance an argument against Darwin.

It is clear that not only have you failed to grasp Biology, but you've failed to understand virtually every other scientific discipline as well.  6,000 years .... indeed!


logicman's picture
since the beginning of time 6,000 years ago

You think that time began 6,000 years ago?

From what source did you get that bit of information?

Charles Darwin only completed the first few steps to prove that his idea was a fact.

But countless others, following in his footsteps, have made great strides.
In the absence of any plausible alternative to the theories of Darwin and his successors, I'll stick with the incremental modification of species by natural selection model.

Time DID begin 6000 years ago. Go back and add up all the dates before Jesus in the Bible- its about 4,000 years. Add that to 2009 A.D. and there you go.
I have made an attempt to understand Biology, AND the Theory of Evolution. None of it added up. There has been so much countless evidence disproving evolution and the so called scientists that made "great strides" refuse to look at it, because their evolution theory is a religion to them. In their eyes, anything that goes against it, is wrong.

jtwitten's picture
I have made an attempt to understand the Bible, AND the Theory of Creation. None of it added up. There has been so much countless
evidence disproving
Creationism and the so called scientists that made
"great strides" refuse to look at it, because their
Creation theory is
a religion to them. In their eyes, anything that goes against it, is
wrong.


Gerhard Adam's picture

I have no doubt that your opinion on this is preconceived, since I'm willing to bet that you didn't bother to actually add up any of the dates you're quoting.

In addition, you certainly didn't make much effort to understand Biology, but I also suspect you rely on those around to (i.e. doctors, veterinarians, etc.).  In short, everyone you depend on to keep you healthy, or create drugs, or diagnose you are all schooled in Biology (so you're deriving the benefit despite showing no respect for the hard-won knowledge that keeps you healthy).



logicman's picture
Ah yes!  The Ussher school of chronology.  But what is time?

Isabella:  I won't argue about your religion.  I respect your right to hold religeous views. Nor will I say anything about my own spirituality - it isn't science, so it isn't relevant here.

If there was an instant in which all things were created, including time, then I have a question.  In the absence of time, as currently understood, there can be no velocity.  At the very instant of the creation of mass, energy and time, all of the stars in the cosmos would have been attracted together into one spot. 

Kapow!  No us.  Did God nudge each star, each planet, each speck of dust instantly after creating time?  To say 'He must have done' is theological speculation.  The Bible makes no mention of it.  If we are to make theological speculations, why not speculate that God created a whole heap of mass and energy, and a few simple rules, and then said: 'just get on with it, cosmos!'

 Time is wierd - if it exists.   Many physicists are now beginning to wonder if time really exists.  I think that time is an entirely human linguistic abstraction, a useful fiction that helps us in our daily lives.  My blog on that is in hand, awaiting some polishing.

Patrick, I understand what you are saying with your question, and to be honest I don't know the answer. I am completely sure though that God did set the universe into motion perfectly so that we could live and survive. If we were any closer to the sun we would burn up; any farther away we would freeze. How did chance create that? We couldn't come into existance that way. Whay aren't we still evolving? How come some animals did not evolve? It just doesn't make sense. I have listened to both theories, creation and evolution, completely unbiased. And evolution just doesn't add up. There are too many unanswered questions.

(By the way, for the gentleman that left me the "you didn't add up the dates" comment, I actually have. Once I saw the diagram of the ages of the men in the Bible I went back and checked the ages- they were all correct with the chart. )

logicman's picture
Isabella:   I understand your puzzlement. Truly. 

As the saying goes:  "been there, done that, got the t-shirt."

Science suggests that we see what we see because nature designed us to be able to only see what we see.  Evolution matches us to our environment.  These few words introduce what is known as the anthropic principle.  It is a vast area of study in its own right, but the basic idea is, I  suggest - we are designed to fit the universe, rather than the universe being designed to suit us.

To even begin to understand the cosmos we must begin by understanding ourselves.  We must crawl before we can walk in the steps of the giant intellects of history.   We should not study  'our place in the cosmos.'  Just our inner selves.  How does the mind work? 

Before taking a telescope to the cosmos it is a good idea to take a microscope to ones own mind.  If you can focus in, and understand the least bit of what you see, then you can start to zoom out and see how the eyes fool the brain.  But you can refuse to be fooled.  You can zoom out and zoom out and see the entire cosmos from here to eternity in all of its breath-taking majesty.

It is only at such moments that a mere mortal is entitled to dare to ask if, behind all of this awe-inspiring spectacle, there may be a universal power at work.

Steve Davis's picture
My blog on that is in hand, awaiting some polishing.
Polish away Patrick, I look forward to it!

logicman's picture
My blog on that is in hand, awaiting some polishing.
Polish away Patrick, I look forward to it!

Wow!  Instantaneous proactive feedback!  :)
" ... none of the parts of time has an abiding existence, and that which does not abide can hardly have position.   It would be better to say that such parts had a relative order, in virtue of one being prior to another."

Aristotle, in Categories.

edit:  I'm starting a discussion blog on this.  Link soon.

Steve Davis's picture
Aristotle, in Categories.
This is just like having Stephen Jay Gould as a blogger!

logicman's picture
Aristotle, in Categories.
This is just like having Stephen Jay Gould as a blogger!

I am deeply flattered and rather touched, thank you!

The name didn't ring a bell at first so I went to Wiki and cheated. :)
Punctuated evolution.  I remember now.  Arthur Koestler had somewhat similar ideas with his "reculer pour mieux sauter" model.

I've opened an opportunity for a dialogue on the nature of time here, so as not to hog the blog.

Steve Davis's picture
His scholarship went far beyond his field of expertise.

* Another thought.

How do scientists KNOW that we lived millions or billions of years ago and how come so many different textbooks have different dates?
If anyone has the answer to my questions; I would be glad to hear them.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Most dating of rocks occurs with radiometric dating, which depends on the fact that elements exist in isotopes (the same element with different numbers of neutrons).  These exist in well-known ratios and when taken with the concept of the half-life (at which half the sample degenerates to a different element - like uranium to lead) can provide accurate indications of a sample's age.

For example, half of a sample Uranium 235 will degenerate to Lead 207 in about 700 million years.  In other words, if we have a certain amount of Uranium 235, about half of it will become Lead 207 in that time period.  In another 700 million years, the next half will become Lead, etc.  Using this as a criteria it can then be used to analyze rocks to determine what the ratio of Uranium to Lead is to determine how much of it has changed which gives an indication of the time necessary for this to occur. 

Techniques are perpetually being refined to reduce the range of errors in this kind of analysis and presently Uranium-Lead radiometric dating has less than a 2-million year error in a 2.5 Billion year analysis (about .08% error). 

This technique should not be confused with Carbon-14 dating which is operative only over ranges of thousands of years.  In that case, Carbon-14 represents an isotope which can also be measured and will only apply to living things.  Since all living organisms contain Carbon, they will cease to exchange Carbon with their environment when they die.  This fixes the amount available and can be used to date any organic substance within several thousand years.

Whatever values you may have read about will change as science becomes more precise and as we gain more knowledge about how these elements work and interact.  However, it is important to remember that these measurements don't occur in isolation, but each sample becomes a check against other samples and it is ultimately the consistency of measurements that provides the confidence that the approach is correct.  

One thing is absolutely certain.  The young earth view of only 6,000 years would suggest not only an error in measurement but that virtually ALL of science is incorrect.  Bear in mind that theories in different disciplines influence results in others, so it isn't possible to simply have one group make something up and not have it challenged by others if it isn't accurate or correct. 

logicman's picture
Over the years science itself develops.  We invent better tools. With these tools we can correct some errors in our data, make our findings more accurate.  But measurement itself can never be perfect - science itself teaches us that.

It is no surprise that we find different numbers in different textbooks.  If you check dates of publication, you may find a series of improving results over the years.  The numbers may go up or down over the years, and different scientists, using different methods get different answers.  But the answers are never wildly different.  For example, when we say that water freezes at 0 deg C, we take it for granted that we are all talking about fresh water and not sea water.  In fact, the value 0.01 is of much greater scientific and engineering interest.  I'll not bore you with the details, but if a particular person starts talking about steam, water and ice at 0.01 deg C - trust me, they know what they are saying.

So don't worry about whether the numbers seem to add up or not.  Look at the thinking that went behind those numbers. 

(This next bit is greatly oversimplified so as to leave out all of the math.)  You take a few bits of rock.  You put them under great pressure and heat in the lab and make a new kind of rock.  You then find that this new rock is an exact match by every test you can make with an existing rock that is on the surface, not deeply buried.  You figure that the rock must have formed first as the rock you started with, then it somehow got buried deep enough to get cooked that much, at that pressure.  It takes a whole lot of time to bury a continent, cook it, and then force it to the surface again. You do the numbers and realise just how really old our planet must be.

Anyone having made an experiment like that simply has to believe that the rock is positively ancient - millions of years old.  Exactly how many millions isn't the point.  It's the idea behind the numbers.  From that viewpoint, Bishop Ussher's numbers just don't add up.  The established churches accepted that long ago.  Ussher's chronolgy is not  a part of any mainstream church ideology.  For once, church and science are in agreement.

Armed with that knowledge we can date whole layers of rocks of different kinds.  So when we find human fossils, bones, tools etc.  in specific rock layers we begin to know how old mankind is.

Trust me.  You are a lot older than you think.  :)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.