Fleshy T-rex found - Jurassic Park on the way?

Think of what we could learn by cloning it, though in truth, 50 years from now they'll probably be able to decode the DNA and build it in a computer. Still, there is something inspiring about an animal thats been gone for tens of millions of years walking the earth again. By the way, how does Jurassic Park end?

It would be much better if they cloned a brontosaurus. I'd love to have some of those ribs that tip over Fred Flintstone's car.

Ok, here's what we do. We clone all kinds of dinosaurs and put them on an island with electrical fences and all that. Then, instead of turning it into a amusement park, we hook up a gun to a camera, or maybe a missle launcher, I'm not sure. Anyway, long story short, you can hunt dinosaurs from the convenience of your living room. Plus, if you want, you can have the dinosaur meat shipped to your address. Somehow lets get a Navy SEAL team involved too.

Looks liek someone already took your idea. Hunting over the internet may be banned before they can clone your T-Rex.

I'm more interested in how closely related various modern-day animals are to dinosaurs. I find it fascinating how close the T-Rex was to an ostrich. I'm also curious to see if there was any "Defects" in the DNA that would explain the mass extinction.

Well, I guess the value of "defects" would depend on which mass extinction theory you believe, or will be eventually proven. Disease or being outcompeted by mammals, then yes, there may be answers. Asteroid collision with Earth, it won't show much. At least it doesn't seem like it would.

Why do you say this isn't the first fleshy dinosaur found? The article refers says there are "few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood" but doesn't say that the few examples are dinosaurs.
This news is really exciting, and is the first I've heard of such a thing (not that I've seen *all* the episodes of Paleoworld), and if it is the first, let's call it that.

I guess it depends on how you interpret these two paragraphs:

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70-million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.

Says to me that "other than leaves and petrified wood, soft tissue fossils are rare." This implies that, while rare, fossils with soft tissues have been found previously.

True enough, but your story says "It's also interesting to note that this isn't the first "fleshy" dinosaur found." (emphasis added)

I submit that you have no data to back that up, and that this discovery is the first fleshy dinosaur found.

Ok, I see your point. I should have stated "It's interesting to noe that they imply other fleshy dinosaurs have been found."

Dude, where does the article imply that other fleshy dinosaurs have been found? I think that's just you...
(FYI, as an editor, you can edit the original story to correct stuff or add updates. Not that I'm calling you out on it or anything, but you see that kind of thing on slash once in a while, and they often add corrections in a way that preserves the original reading of the story.)

Hang on a second, this article doesn't mention "Noe" anywhere, much less that he would find all this interesting. Try sticking to the facts 46.

The article does say:

"John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper."

Not that this justifies or supports 46's outrageous claims.

I really hope this comment gets a "troll" rating.

Ho ho, you are so amusing!

Doesn't anybody care that 46 misrepresented the nature of this discovery? We just entered new, unexpected territory, and these people led the way. We're talking about science breaking new ground here, and I actually care about it.

It doesn't count as "news" if we get it wrong, and pointing out an error or mispresentation is not trolling.

I admit I was poking a little fun at you, but also at 46 at the same time. As for the troll rating, I didn't mean to imply your comment deserved one. A couple of weeks back I got a troll rating for a comment I thought was funny, so I know associate "troll" with funny, even though I know better now, I refuse to admit it. I pretend it says "droll".

That's fair, and I admit my comment that got "trolled" by 46 was abrupt, and didn't quite convey my meaning. Such are the dangers of electronic communications.

That said, I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the article says or implies that this wasn't the first discovery of a fleshy dinosaur, and until then I think the story description is wrong, and as it stands it does a disservice to CR4's readers. I may be acting like a pinhead for precision, but I suspect that's a feature of our intended audience as well.

Ahh well, I'll get over it.

I edited the original entry in hopes of clarifying my original statement. Hopefully we can put this painful chapter behind us and move on.

Thanks!