A limb bone from the theropod dinosaur Aratasaurus preserved red blood cells containing haem and haem breakdown products.
Victor O. Leshyk
Discovering traces of dinosaur blood in a 115-million-year-old fossil is remarkable enough without pretending that someone has found fresh blood in a recently deceased dinosaur. Yet that distinction — between ancient biological material preserved through exceptional chemistry and ordinary tissue awaiting decay — is precisely what creationist propaganda has repeatedly obscured. A new discovery provides an opportunity both to explore the extraordinary information fossils can retain and to revisit the misrepresentations surrounding Mary Schweitzer’s earlier research.
The new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by an international team led by Curtin University’s Professor Kliti Grice, reports haem-derived molecules and microscopic structures interpreted as mineralised red blood cells in limb bones of Aratasaurus museunacionali, a theropod dinosaur from Brazil. Haem is the iron-containing component of haemoglobin involved in oxygen transport. Finding its chemical signatures associated with cell-like structures inside the bone’s vascular canals offers a potentially revealing glimpse of ancient biology. It does not establish that fresh blood, functioning blood cells or dinosaur DNA have survived.
There is a familiar creationist sleight of hand here. When Schweitzer and her colleagues reported exceptionally preserved soft tissues in Tyrannosaurus rex bones in 2005, young-Earth creationists seized upon the discovery as supposed evidence that dinosaurs had lived only a few thousand years ago. The argument depended on treating “soft tissue” as though it necessarily meant fresh, chemically unaltered tissue, then assuming that its survival invalidated the geological evidence for the fossil’s age. Neither conclusion followed from the research.










































