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
Lincoln, I think we only met each other once before at UD. In any case let me extend a proper greeting. Welcome to UD and thanks for your comments. Salscordova
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Lest we forget: T-Rex Cells Found In Bone Confirmed To Be Actual Cells, Not Contamination, May Be Possible To Extract DNA Read more hereJoe
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
I think everyone would be ecstatic to have dino DNA. The Chinese certainly would given they are now the, or at least one of the, world's largest cloners of animals - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25576718 But it's a YEC/creationists wet dream. Sorry but the claims to have dino DNA are premature, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#Antediluvian_DNA_studiesLincoln Phipps
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
The age of the Earth depends on HOW it was formed. Just sayin'...Joe
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
In my opinion, the YEC doctrine is a big mistake.
Even granting for the sake of argument you are correct, I don't think that takes away from the problem of young DNA in fossils. It remains to be seen if the young DNA can be found in many fossils, it would be better than even a pre-Cambrian rabbit.
It is a weakness that is retarding our fight against Darwinism.
I agree, I won't even try to argue against the distant starlight, long term and intermediate term radio metric problems for YEC. One can believe in YEC at a personal level, but I don't think the physical evidence at this time is at all favorable in light of these difficulties. That said, I think young DNA young C-14 young amino acids in fossils is a legitimate problem for palenotology and Darwinism. The question is not the age of the Earth but the time of death of the fossilized creature. Like crime scene forensics, establishing the time of death is important, and we have three "clocks" that give a recent time of death: 1. C14 2. DNA 3. Amino acids That's hard science, not theology. I don't think the problem of recently dead tissues will go away. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Shelock Holmes ought to be saying, paleontology has got the time of death all wrong regarding the fossils.scordova
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
scordova:
IMHO, man was a product of a miraculous special creation only a few thousand years ago.
Sal, the Biblical chronology used by YECs to arrive at a few thousand years for the age of the earth and the universe is fundamentally flawed. The Adam of the garden of Eden is not the same Adam as the one who was married to Eve and had Cain and Abel. First off, the Hebrew expression that is translated Adam in the garden of Eden story should actually be "the Adam". Second, we are told that, after murdering Abel, Cain was afraid of being persecuted by all the people that lived on earth at the time. Where did those people come from if Adam and Eve were the first humans that were created in the Garden of Eden? There is something decidedly dishonest about YEC doctrine, in my opinion. In my opinion, the YEC doctrine is a big mistake. It is a weakness that is retarding our fight against Darwinism. Darwinists know this and this is the reason that most of their arguments are directed against YEC argument. They would rather debate YECs than debate people like Berlinski.Mapou
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Sal: Very interesting. We'll see if more of this "young" DNA is found in the future and whether it becomes a pervasive problem or is seen as a one-off anomaly.
. . . 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.
It never had a coherent chronology to begin with, but I agree this would make the problem more stark.Eric Anderson
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
C-14 dating is expensive, but as far as I can tell analysis of DNA via PCR is much cheaper and possibly more accurate. If creationists can extract DNA from "ancient" fossils (like insect amber) and demonstrate that young DNA cannot be the result of contamination, they are going to be able to build a devastating case because now we have an inexpensive means for dating fossils!scordova
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
My personal view is the Genealogy of Christ as laid out in Luke chapter 3 looks more and more credible. IMHO, man was a product of a miraculous special creation only a few thousand years ago. If young DNA is ubiquitious in the fossil record will suggest strengthen the case for a recent special creation of life. How we handle the age of the Earth, the non-biotic parts of the geological column, the age of the solar system, stars, galaxies and the universe is a separate question, but imho, it looks like life, or at least a lot of life that we have in the fossil record could be recent. The YECs are not out of the woods by any means because of long term and intermediate term radio metric dating (C-14 is short term dating) and the problem of distant starlight. But the above findings are huge vindication for ID and parts (not all) of various creationist (OEC and YEC) theories. Ken Ham will have a lot of ammo to go after Nye in debate:
Bill how do you account for DNA in 200 million year old insect amber? What if the DNA is of a mammal the insect bit, how could you claim contamination?
scordova
January 15, 2014
January
01
Jan
15
15
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply