Genetics Intelligent Design

Flim flam? Flash in the pan? Paleontologists find “possible” dinosaur DNA from 125 million years ago

Spread the love

Almost Jurassic:

A team has extracted what could be DNA molecules from a 125-million-year-old fossil dinosaur, according to a study published last month (September 24) in Communications Biology. But other experts have voiced caution or outright skepticism about the findings…

In the new study, paleontologists from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Shandong Tianyu Museum of Nature extracted and decalcified femur cartilage from a 125-million-year-old Caudipteryx dinosaur, which lived in the Jehol Biota—in what is now the coastal province of Liaoning in northeast China—during the Early Cretaceous period.

Chloe Tenn, “ Paleontologists Find Possible Dinosaur DNA” at The Scientist (October 26, 2021)

The oldest extant DNA is from a 1 million-year-old woolly mammoth.

Paleogeneticist Love Dalén from the Centre for Palaeogenetics in Sweden was part of the team that extracted million-year-old mammoth DNA. He calls the notion of DNA enduring in dinosaur remains almost “impossible,” adding in an email to Gizmodo, “We know from both massive empirical studies and theoretical models that even under completely frozen conditions, DNA molecules will not survive more than ca 3 million years.”

Chloe Tenn, “ Paleontologists Find Possible Dinosaur DNA” at The Scientist (October 26, 2021)

Maybe file under: Wouldn’t THAT be fun?

6 Replies to “Flim flam? Flash in the pan? Paleontologists find “possible” dinosaur DNA from 125 million years ago

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    DNA molecules will not survive more than ca 3 million years.
    Hence the sample is less than 3 million years old.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    They don’t actually show they have DNA – after preparation and looking under a microscope, they see something that looks like chromatin. Let’s see what happens.

  3. 3
    zweston says:

    Is the earth a lot younger than the current paradigm? Is the paradigm guided by the need for lots of time for darwinistic macroevolution?

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    Aarceng @ 1

    DNA molecules will not survive more than ca 3 million years.
    Hence the sample is less than 3 million years old.

    if you consider, that every new Darwinian biology paper starts with a statement like

    “…current concepts are reviewed…”
    “…uprooting current thinking….”
    “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
    “… it challenges a long-held theory…”
    “… it upends a common view…”
    “… it needs a rethink … ”
    “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
    “… it shakes up the dogma … ”
    “… earlier than thought…”
    “… younger than thought….”
    “… smarter than thought ….”
    “… more complex than thought ….”

    i would not be very surprised, if Darwinian long-ages estimates would be fundamentally wrong …

  5. 5
    Pearlman says:

    in reality the tissue.. is under 5k years old, dino residue from 1656 Mabul impacts year and Mammoth from Mid The ice ages that spanned 1657 to about 1996 anno mundi. This being 5782 anno-mundi. Still relatively, a very long time ago. reference Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    Semi-OT:

    PNAS.org has a solid think piece on ancient art and carving, without the usual anti-neanderthal bias. A whole bunch of “earlier than thoughts”, Open access.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/118/44/e2117561118

Leave a Reply