Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it also dies by radiometric dating. Either DNA trapped in 200 million-year-old Jurassic insect amber is young or it has some unexplained source. I argue it is young. Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young. As I’ve said many times, the radiometric date of 65 million-year-old rocks is irrelevant to the radiometric date of the actual physical tissue of a fossil. I could bury a living dog in 65 million-year-old rocks, and the age of rocks will have nothing to say of the age of the dog. The best inferences for time of death of a fossil: half-life of C-14, half life of DNA, half-life of amino acids, etc., NOT the age of the rocks they are buried in…

From Nature News

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation. Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate.

Determining that rate has been difficult because it is rare to find large sets of DNA-containing fossils with which to make meaningful comparisons. To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process.

But palaeogeneticists led by Morten Allentoft at the University of Copenhagen and Michael Bunce at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, examined 158 DNA-containing leg bones belonging to three species of extinct giant birds called moa. The bones, which were between 600 and 8,000 years old, had been recovered from three sites within 5 kilometres of each other, with nearly identical preservation conditions including a temperature of 13.1 ºC. The findings are published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B1.

Diminishing returns

By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.

“This confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect,”

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

😯

Mark Armitage was fired because his data dared to question the mainstream. And now we find dino blood with dino DNA that can’t be more than a few million years old, maybe even on the order of thousands of years with a DNA half-life of 521 years! And what about DNA insect amber? Armitage was fired, but his claims continue to be vindicated by mainstream science. His career martyrdom was not in vain.

We can assume for the sake of argument the universe is old, the Earth is old, that even many fossils are old, but if some fossils are proven young (like the dinos and insects) paleontology will go into anarchy and evolutionism won’t even have a coherent chronology to go on. One does not have to be a YEC to realize the latest discoveries are good news for ID because it casts doubt on the claims of Darwinist interpretation of the fossil record.

NOTES
1. HT: Darwin then and now

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

2. Hope Ken Ham bashes Bill Nye with this in debate. 🙂

Comments
Why bother looking for dinosaur DNA? Everyone knows it cannot last for that long. If creationists are serious about their claims, they should find Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. Some carbon 14 should still be in them if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Where is it? YECs look for Carbon14 for the same reason they look for dinosaur DNA for the same reason they look for soft tissues.sixthbook
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
Why would anybody want to C-14 date dinosaur bones? That's ridiculous. Everybody knows that C-14 does not work that far back. If the creationists are serious about their claims, they should find the dinosaur DNA. Some recoverable dinosaur DNA should exist if the earth is only 6000 years old. Where is it?Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
@Lincoln Phipps: Creationists have offered Jack Horner a $23,000 grant to C-14 date dinosaur bones. https://uncommondescent.com/news/icc-2013-creationist-bob-eynart-attempts-to-bribe-darwinist-jack-horner/ (The link says 10k but if you google its between 20-23k) It's not for lack of trying. It's funny how the evolutionists are the ones scared of investigating science, not the creationists!sixthbook
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
I wrote:
The Bible does not specify when the original creation of the first humans occurred.
I should add, as far as I know. It is very possible that it is revealed in other metaphorical texts, or even in ancient texts that may have already been or will be discovered by archaeologists.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Querius @93:
Here’s an interesting view of time and the age of the universe from Gerald Schroeder: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx He suggests that the universe is both 14-15 billion years old and a few thousand years old depending on your frame of reference.
Wow! That's a first. Here's the first line from the link you provided.
One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data?
I have never seen any Biblical data that suggests that the universe or the earth is a few thousands of years old. And I have read the Genesis account many dozens of times using different translations and interlinear Hebrew/English translations. The Biblical text clearly indicates that we are dealing with two different "Adams", a historical one (who fathered Cain and Abel) and a metaphorical one in the garden of Eden. The Bible does not specify when the original creation of the first humans occurred. So after reading the first line of the article, I stopped there because I think Mr. Schroeder is sorely mistaken right off the bat.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
drc466, you claim that you know of scientists who refuse to look at dinosaur bones and look for DNA. Citation needed ! On the other hand the stance of the pro-YEC scientists is just that. If dino DNA is such a game changer then the well funded creationist groups should be able to buy dino bones on the open market, chop them open, sequence the DNA and then laugh all the way to the bank. Probably not going to happen as the current science shows. Where chemicals have been found the DNA is excessively degraded. Remember that DNA consists of elements that have been in existence since before the formation of the Earth and we don't know how long certain compounds can exist for but we do know that DNA does breakdown on a certain timescale (which is far longer than YEC timescales). Current science says it is degraded. YEC creationists have vast wealth. They could easily afford to pay for this and publish the dino DNA sequences. Will they ? Unlikely as that would mean going from whiny critics to actually doing science that would be trivial to compare with modern gene database tools.Lincoln Phipps
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Here's an interesting view of time and the age of the universe from Gerald Schroeder: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx He suggests that the universe is both 14-15 billion years old and a few thousand years old depending on your frame of reference. -QQuerius
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Doesn’t an “old universe with a young earth” solve the starlight issue?
Yes indeed.scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Doesn't an "old universe with a young earth" solve the starlight issue?Joe
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
drgrossi, Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check it out.
Neglect of Geologic Data by Daniel Wonderly
George E., According to the inflationary model there is no starlight problem. For most of its existence, the "fabric of space" in the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light, giving the light being emitted a free ride over enormous distances in a relatively short time. -QQuerius
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Jguy:
You said doubt the opinions of men more. Then why do you accept the opinions of men for an old earth given you have more data going the opposite direction?
I disagree with your interpretation of the geological data. I think you are either willingly mistaken or you are dishonest in your assessment. The analysis of ocean floor sedimentation and layering over 10s of millions of years may not be super accurate but it's good enough to conclude that the earth is billions of years old. That's my opinion. I may change it but I doubt it. I will tell you something, JGuy. I tell it like I see it and, as you know, I don't mince my words. I have as much trust in YECs as I have in Darwinists. You people are on a mission to prove yourselves right in the eyes of men and that scares the hell out of me.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
George E Agree on both parts. Old earth advocates forget that their theory for the cosmos has a light speed difficulty problem of it's own. Of course, the claim will be that it's not a problem [now] with the inflationary band-aid. Lesson learned... we are ignorant of what happened or is happening per the data.JGuy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
@ 71 CS: I would call the 'starlight problem' a difficulty rather than a problem. I may not know how to resolve the difficulty, but there's no intrinsic irrationality involved in considering a resolution possible. Here's something to consider, though. We have absolutely no clue what light is doing before it reaches our own local neighborhood. We can only assume it's doing something similar to what we observe. I'm sure astro-physicists hate to admit this, but it's true.George E.
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Mapou @ 78
I’m sure you may be right in a few cases but the data certainly does not show that the world and all lifeforms on it are just a few thousands years old. That is preposterous and it is dishonest for anybody to argue on that basis, in my opinion.
It's not dishonest to disagree with making a conclusion being drawn for an old earth from that same dataset. The way I see it. It's easier to make a fault by leaning with an old earth bias than a young earth bias. Why? More clocks indicate a young earth than old earth. List all the clocks for an old earth and all the clocks for a young earth. And generalize the understanding of the science behind the clock. You should find that the clocks indicating old earth have not only have more room for doubt than young earth clocks, there are more clocks favoring a young earth. Also, the young earth clocks are more empirically understood and testable in labs. e.g. Try measuring the effects on light as it crosses regions of the entire universe in a lab versus measuring the diffusion rates of helium in a lab on a specific material. You said doubt the opinions of men more. Then why do you accept the opinions of men for an old earth given you have more data going the opposite direction?JGuy
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
RADIOCARBON DATING OF BONE - http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htmbuffalo
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
scordova:
Years later,my defense of YEC started out as me being an anti-establishment rebel when arguing at the old ARN forum (at the time I was only 50% convinced). It was merely a debate exercise rather than a statement of faith. It was an exercise in just giving Darwinists a hard time….
Being an anti-establishment rebel is a very good thing, in my opinion. I, too, am a rebel. But I go even further, I rebel against everything. I have another favorite motto: "I rebel, therefore I am". Why? Because almost everything I was taught turned out to be either cr*p or a mixture of good stuff and cr*p. Consider that fundamentalist Christianity is also very much a part of the establishment, just like the atheists. They've been there for centuries. The fact that YECs are anti-atheist does not make them anti-establishment. IMO, they love each other.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
centralscrutinizer @77:
Mapou: Personally, I believe that God first created a race of androgynous humans (the Adam) who were both masculine and feminine. Jesus himself said that male and female were not separate in the beginning and that, for this reason, a man would cling to his wife and the two would become one flesh.
Interesting. My views are similar but a bit more metaphorical. I’m curious how you came to that. This is probably not the proper venue of that conversation.
I just read the original texts very carefully; that's all. The Genesis account plainly says that Adam was the name given to a group of humans and they were both male and female. These are adjectives, not nouns. Besides, it's impossible to create a male being without also having the design for a female being at the same time. The Genesis account leaves no doubt that the Elohim only created females later when things did not work out too well with the Adam (i.e., the androgynous humans). In other words, I just put two and two together. It's not really rocket science. But, of course, when one reads ancient scriptures, especially metaphorical texts, one should put all preconceived ideas aside, including the things you were taught to believe by others. One should be ready to change one's interpretations if need be and retrace one's steps when things don't make sense. Doctrinairism is the enemy.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
If I’m wrong, it doesn’t strike me as the end of the world….
Or the beginning.Reciprocating Bill
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Lincoln Phipps:
Opinions are a dime a dozen. Someone who brings it all together like Dalrymple is a lot rarer.
Sorry, storytelling isn't science.Joe
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
That, my friend, is how I feel about it. I wish you would consider your YEC stance and realize that you are placing your faith in the opinions of men. Do your own research. “Search and you shall find”, that’s my motto. And keep searching, always.
FWIW, I was an Old Earth Darwinist raised in a Roman Catholic home. I then became a creationist after hearing about the OOL difficulties, not to mention it seemed intuitively correct. At the time I was an OEC. Years later,my defense of YEC started out as me being an anti-establishment rebel when arguing at the old ARN forum (at the time I was only 50% convinced). It was merely a debate exercise rather than a statement of faith. It was an exercise in just giving Darwinists a hard time.... But as I argued the position, I began to find parts of it more believable. There are still serious problems with the model, but I have a mustard seed of faith it is true. If I'm wrong, it doesn't strike me as the end of the world....scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Geologist Daniel Wonderly has a powerful essay on judging the age of the earth called Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young Earth Creationist Writings. He raises points that I do not see considered here in UD or other blogs. It is very compelling and worth a read.drgrossi
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
scordova @74:
I respect your opinion, and even though you think YECs are delusional, I still respect your opinion.
I always tell it like I see it and I do my own research because I don't trust the judgement of others.
Independent of Genesis, the data casts a lot of doubt on the mainstream dating of SOME fossils. Even if I were not a YEC, but an agnostic like Richard Milton, I don’t think the data can decisively argue for the mainstream chronology. Even if life is billions of years old on Earth, my argument is that the ages of some of the fossils presumed to be hundreds of millions of years old is suspect. I think that is empirically and theoretically defensible in light of : [...]
I'm sure you may be right in a few cases but the data certainly does not show that the world and all lifeforms on it are just a few thousands years old. That is preposterous and it is dishonest for anybody to argue on that basis, in my opinion. That, my friend, is how I feel about it. I wish you would consider your YEC stance and realize that you are placing your faith in the opinions of men. Do your own research. "Search and you shall find", that's my motto. And keep searching, always.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Mapou: Personally, I believe that God first created a race of androgynous humans (the Adam) who were both masculine and feminine. Jesus himself said that male and female were not separate in the beginning and that, for this reason, a man would cling to his wife and the two would become one flesh.
Interesting. My views are similar but a bit more metaphorical. I'm curious how you came to that. This is probably not the proper venue of that conversation.CentralScrutinizer
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Sal: it is my ultimate goal to find evidence of Young chronology for life
Why? Why not have truth, whatever it is, be your ultimate goal?CentralScrutinizer
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Mapou: You have not read my comments then. My arguments are precisely aimed at showing that the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical.
My apologiesCentralScrutinizer
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Mapou, I respect your opinion, and even though you think YECs are delusional, I still respect your opinion. Independent of Genesis, the data casts a lot of doubt on the mainstream dating of SOME fossils. Even if I were not a YEC, but an agnostic like Richard Milton, I don't think the data can decisively argue for the mainstream chronology. Even if life is billions of years old on Earth, my argument is that the ages of some of the fossils presumed to be hundreds of millions of years old is suspect. I think that is empirically and theoretically defensible in light of : 1. DNA half life 2. amino acid homochiral half life 3. C14 half life 4. known erosion rates at variance with existence of geological column 5. salinization and mireral saturation rates etc. Surely it's premature to say mainstream accounts on the chronology of life is a done deal. If I can induce at least some reasonable doubt into some of the readers regarding the credibility of the Darwinist narrative regarding fossils, then I feel I've done my job. I'm trying to make my case independent of Genesis (although it is my ultimate goal to find evidence of Young chronology for life, it is not my starting premise). Perhaps I've become more jaded over the years. Anything coming out to the mouth of Darwinists, I've grown to distrust almost automatically....and that includes their claims about the chronology of life.scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
Careful. That cuts both ways. Maybe you’re delusional for believing the Eden story is literal in the first place.
You have not read my comments then. My arguments are precisely aimed at showing that the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical. Personally, I believe that God first created a race of androgynous humans (the Adam) who were both masculine and feminine. Jesus himself said that male and female were not separate in the beginning and that, for this reason, a man would cling to his wife and the two would become one flesh. That experiment with androgynous humans did not work out too well because the Adam were bored out of their skulls. So God took the feminine part out of them and split the humans into males and females. The males got really excited when they saw the females but while they were busy running around doing male stuff, the females were communicating with some evil alien creature and, soon afterwards, they got together and learned science, i.e., they ate of the tree of knowledge. The point I'm driving at is that all this stuff could not have happened in one afternoon. OK, it's a wild hypothesis out of left field but it's infinitely more sensible than believing in a literal garden of Eden story from which they extrapolated that the earth is 6000 years old. It's pathetic, in my opinion.Mapou
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Subject to another post, the DNA half-life problem is devastating to OOL. If a pre-biotic soup contained DNA, the DNA won't last long for the presumptive cellular precursor to seize upon it and use it! Millions of years do not help chemical evolution/OOL because half-lives of biotic materials preclude time from helping the process. Time is the enemy, not friend of OOL. 1. DNA decomposes 2. Amino acids racemize 3. there is de-amidation of amino acids 4. depurination of DNAs 5. hydrolysis of proteinoid polymers. Just like shaking fair coins that start out 100% heads, there is a certain expectation value that emerges over time, and with respect to biological materials like DNA, the expectation is non-life, not life. Even assuming long ages of the Earth, time is no friend to chemical evolution in light of the DNA half life and other similar considerations. But we already know this intuitively. A dead dog stays a dead dog...scordova
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
George E: the so-called ‘starlight problem’
It's not a "so-called" problem, it's an actual problem, aptly named. If you don't think so, then go ahead an tell me this: today when we view light from galaxies that are billions of light years away, when was that light emitted?CentralScrutinizer
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Mapou: You YECs are hopelessly delusional. Doctrine is all that is important to you.
Careful. That cuts both ways. Maybe you're delusional for believing the Eden story is literal in the first place.CentralScrutinizer
January 16, 2014
January
01
Jan
16
16
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply