"**WHEN** it was found in old bones, a reasonable scientific explanation had to be found."

Bill D: There is a fair amount of ongoing debate about what Schweitzer et al did actually find in their T. rex bone. For instance it was argued the presence of iron in the samples was what helped preserve them (iron is important in fossilisation), but iron is a very common metal and might have found it's way in to the bone spaces during fossilisation, rather than being present from the start. I personally attended a talk at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in North Carolina whose author had tested proteins in the bone and found biomarkers from native fauna, indicating the presence of proteins associated with birds could have been introduced from the outside environment (that's sort of how it went, I haven't looked up the abstract). Then there's the whole biofilm debate, which goes beyond soft tissues in dinosaurs to biomarkers in feathers and other integument. It's a very interesting area of research, although I'm not that up to date with it as you can tell.

Pete's not even keeping up with the current debate, as he's missed quoting a right old rumpus that has occurred in the past year or so involving this very subject, but with wider ramifications.


"I also pointed out that a key point in a thesis of my own has subsequently been kicked into touch after new research, and that rather than argue the toss, I was delighted."

This is the way of science, and if I ever finish my own PhD I fully expect the same might well happen to my own work; our hypotheses have to be tested. Our research is part of an ongoing process of discovery and correction. Brill it is!


"give anyone enough time to speak freely, and they will eventually hit a topic that shows you clearly their looney side."

Never ask me about whelks.