Cocktails! C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

_{Salvador Cordova

July 6, 2013

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[the “Cocktail” designation in the title refers to ideas that are possibly true, but are speculative in nature and which are not offered with the same level of conviction as other arguments at UD.]

cocktail

In a rather terse report here: http://justpaste.it/2q1a we learn the C14 dates indicate dinosaur remains are only 22-40K years old, not tens of millions of years old!

1.On this page you can see where 20 samples of acrocanthosaurus, allosaurus, hadrosaur, triceratops, and apatosaur were C14 dated at the University of Arizona using both the AMS and beta-decay methods to be between 22-40k years old. Authors Jean De Pontcharra and Marie Claire van Oosterwych have Ph.D’s in physics and physical chemistry, respectively. It was originally presented as a talk at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore. Their paper was removed with the only explanation being “there is obviously an error in this data”. You can see the rejection letter here. Here are before and after versions of the lists of papers at the conference. Note that #5 is missing in the after version.
2.Jack Horner was offered a $23k grant to C14 date his soft tissue bones, but declined. He agreed the money was more than enough but wouldn’t because it would give evidence to creationists.

One might think contamination is an issue with C14, but then we have other problems. Certain soft tissues shouldn’t be around for more than 125,000 years. In the same link we have this terse report:

1.According to table 1 in Biomolecules in fossil remains, (The Biochemist, 2002): At 0C the maximum survival time for DNA, collagen [a connective tissue protein] and osteolcin [a bone protein] are 125k, 2.7m, and 110m years, respectively. At 10C, the numbers drop to 17.5k, 180k, and 7.5m years.

I provided other considerations (quite apart from YEC), that the mainstream geological timescales are suspect in : Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column.

Bottom line: If the above report is true, we can accept the mainstream geological time scales for the sake of argument, but maybe not for the sake of truth.

HT: Joe Coder

[posted by scordova to assist the News desk until 7/7/13]

Comments

julianbre,
Querius, if your thinking about buying Darwin’s Doubt, do it! I’m re-reading it now. I enjoyed it even more than SITC. Dr. Meyer has really grown as a writer. The book will move you plus you will learn something new. Highly recommended!
Well, I took your suggestion and I wanted to thank you. What an interesting read so far! :-)Querius_{July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Hi UD! Just finished Darwin's Doubt and reviewed it on Amazon.com as just great! I had the honor of chatting with Dr. Meyer about the book for an hour, 40 minutes of which we recorded as an interview to air in Denver and at http://rsr.org on Fri., Aug. 2. On Aug. 9th, we'll interview a PhD in nuclear chemistry to evaluate a single sentence in Meyer's "Questionable Assumptions" section on p. 109 :) Should be fun! -Bob Enyart Real Science Radio p.s. As we concluded Dr. Meyer agreed to keep an eye out in future research for the the millions of nautiloid fossils in the bottom layer of the Redwall Limestone throughout the Grand Canyon. (I especially enjoy the thousands fossilized standing on their heads. :) "Remember the Nautiloids" may turn out to be as substantive significant a challenge to Darwinism as is Remember the Cambrian.Bob Enyart_{July 13, 2013
July
07
Jul
13
13
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Thanks, julianbre. Great recommendation! OK, you convinced me. I'll go buy a copy!Querius_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

WD400 @ 76 See comments 30, 31 and 58. It's not a matter of making a complete case, but moreso highlighting the obvious contradictions to the popular geologic paradigm and circular reasoning on dating methods. Most people were conditioned to think some bad ideas (e.g. strata require millions of years to form). And this contradicts the fact that arguably all strata, especially those that have fossils, were needed to be laid down quickly. Example point: We find strata with the theme being parallel on massive scales. Where do we see such strata forming on regional, continental & intercontinental scales just as they are observed to exist? Again. Visit the comments above, and if you dare respond to comment 30/31. ...JGuy_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Querius, if your thinking about buying Darwin's Doubt, do it! I'm re-reading it now. I enjoyed it even more than SITC. Dr. Meyer has really grown as a writer. The book will move you plus you will learn something new. Highly recommended!julianbre_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

The thread is now at 71 posts, and no has put forward a good empirical and theoretical case as to why the mainstream narrative is as good as the theory of gravity. I'm sure no account could satisfy youa at this point. But read this thread. It's just a series of clueless (and sometimes baseless) lurches from a tiny piece of data (sometimes burial is fast, you can get dates when you run c14 dating on fossils) to grant statements about how wrong geology is. If you have a real case about how bad mainstream geology is, then by all means make it. If all you've are these hald-understood factoids then there's really nothing to engage with.wd400_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Sal,
One does not have to be a YEC to see the evidence does not support mainstream story telling of the past. Like evolutionary biology, its a cute story, but its only a story, and a story not consistent with hard nosed empiricism and basic logic.
Exactly! I would be delighted by reasonable, naturalistic explanations, but C-14 dating that comes up with the "wrong" answer uses so many "coulda" and "musta" excuses that it's reminiscent of Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit.
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
And yes, most of what I've learned about evolutionary biology is a scientific-sounding myth with beautiful plumage that consists of loosely assembled observations and self-referential conjecture, which often seems to be embarrassed by the latest discovery, and that is cemented together with liberal amounts of "Darwin of the Gaps" faith. Bah.Querius_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Bob,
I guess I was naive for hoping that here, less mockery would accompany disagreements. To some this might sound surprising coming from me, but I wish there were more kindness in these discussions.
I so agree with you!
Related: I’ve heard it said that Meyer’s new book might be a tough read. So far, through chap. 16, I think Dr. Meyer targeted it well for an engaged layman readership.
The more I hear about it, the more I'm *really* tempted to buy a copy based on the quality of Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which I thought was well-researched, well-written, and fascinating.Querius_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Hi guys, I guess I was naive for hoping that here, less mockery would accompany disagreements. To some this might sound surprising coming from me, but I wish there were more kindness in these discussions. Related: I've heard it said that Meyer's new book might be a tough read. So far, through chap. 16, I think Dr. Meyer targeted it well for an engaged layman readership. And as expected, it's a tour de force against neo-whatevertheyusedtocallit. :) -Bob EnyartBob Enyart_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

More to smoke with your C14 pipes: http://crev.info/2013/07/underwater-forest-discovered-how-old/ http://www.livescience.com/37977-underwater-cypress-forest-discovered.html ...JGuy_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

They never “insisted” that the forest layers represented millions of years of history; they said that those layers were millions of years old, which is completely different.
I didn't say forest layers, go back to the original essay, and you'll see the "layers" refer to the entire geological column. You're misreading what I wrote again. From the original essay:
the fact remains that large sections of the geological column that contain fossils, could not, even in principle be assembled over millions of years. At best we have one catastrophe that creates a bed of fossils followed by a long era of stasis (no activity) and then followed another catastrophe, etc.
It stands to reason, however, if one important layer takes a few weeks to construct, why not all the other layers of the geological "column"? It's an open question whether the "column" really exists intact anywhere on the Earth or is merely a construct of the imagination. Why? Some places one only finds 1 or so layers. Where there are multiple layers, sometimes the layers are out of order. For that matter, if one only finds one layer, it's dubious there is a column representing history at all! Because by definition, one is missing entire sections, hence its all a fabricated construct. If sediments construct the layers, where did the sediments come from. So let me add yet one more item to your list of points to address: 5. why are there so many missing or out of place layers, even if we found one place where the entire Phanerzoic (from about 500 million years back to the present) was in place, how does that square with 99.9% of the rest of the world where its out of sequence? Glen Morton claims such a place where the entire column exists, but that is contested. His claims are worth a look. The points you have yet to engage then:
1. C14 in the fossils which indicate they are young (under 100,000 years) 2. DNA and other biological material that indicate they are young (under 1 million years if not less) 3. the perminieralization process implies burial must take place quickly, and not over millions of years, hence the supposed need of millions of years to create such sedimentary layers with permineralized fossils is falsified 4. estimated erosion rates would have wiped out the geological layers with fossils anyway in about 10 million years 5. why are there so many missing or out of place layers, even if we found one place where the entire Phanerzoic (from about 500 million years back to the present) was in place, how does that square with 99.9% of the rest of the world where its out of sequence? Glen Morton claims such a place exists, but that is contested. It's worth a look.
For these reasons and others, people like Richard Milton and Michael Cremo who are not creationists are skeptical. I don't blame them. The paleontological narrative looks like it has been falsified, but the institutional imperative is too powerful. The thread is now at 71 posts, and no has put forward a good empirical and theoretical case as to why the mainstream narrative is as good as the theory of gravity. In fact, the mainstream narrative of geological ages is looking as bad as evolutionary biology, to which Jerry Coyne said:
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.
One does not have to be a YEC to see the evidence does not support mainstream story telling of the past. Like evolutionary biology, its a cute story, but its only a story, and a story not consistent with hard nosed empiricism and basic logic.scordova_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Sal, There is absolutely nothing new about rapid burial. It's nothing for a YEC to get excited about. You were excited because you thought that the paleontologists were contradicting themselves, and that the fossilization took place rapidly:
So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!
If the fossilization took place rapidly, and the fossils were young, then that would get the YECs excited. Of course, the paleontologists aren't contradicting themselves at all. They think that the forest was buried rapidly, and that this happened 307 million years ago. They never "insisted" that the forest layers represented millions of years of history; they said that those layers were millions of years old, which is completely different.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

You're so very patient, Sal. Kudos!Querius_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

franklin, You wrote:
that is incorrect. Using proper statistics for small sample sizes you could toss the third result with 99% confidence. So you likely would have written that the third result was a outlier and suggestive of something like contamination in the analysis. Look up Q-test.
No, my statement is correct. Please notice that I wrote "If statistical analysis wouldn’t let me throw out the third result . . ." The "If" qualifier is pretty important. Yes, I've used the Q test and I know what it is, no I didn't see the need to perform it on my fictitious example, and yes, I did get some embarrassingly inconsistent results on occasion that were more likely due to my shaky lab technique than contamination.Querius_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Hi Scordova, This article in Fox News/ science should be of some interest to this discussion. It seems they just keep popping up :) http://www.foxnews.com/science.....in-mexico/
Thanks PeterJ!scordova_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

KeithS: You were excited because you thought the fossilization, not merely the burial, happened in a matter of weeks.
No, the fossilization (as in "death and entombment into conditions that will preserve biological material"), took place in a matter of weeks, hence the burial had to be rapid, and rapid burial is exciting because then it means millions of years aren't needed to explain the accumulation sedimentary deposits, in fact, it can't take millions of years for the deposits to happen because otherwise fossilization wouldn't happen! The speed of fossilization (fossilization here is meant to be death and entombment for preservation) doesn't immediately tell us how far back in time the organism died, but it does tell us the speed of the burial. The speed of the burial tells us whether we should or should not invoke millions of years to explain accumulation of sedimentary deposits. And clearly we should not. I wasn't arguing the speed of the fossilization (fossilization here is meant to be death and entombment for preservation) means the organism died recently. That's you falsely attributing an argument to me which I didn't make. You're attributing arguments to me I didn't make, and then refuting those arguments I didn't make. We call that knocking down a strawman. Further published erosion rate estimates of 6cm / 1000 years would imply the stratified fossil layers in the continental surface would have been wiped out into the sea in 10 million years given the average height of the continental surface is 620 meters above sea level. The points you did not address: 1. C14 in the fossils which indicate they are young (under 100,000 years) 2. DNA and other biological material that indicate they are young (under 1 million years if not less) 3. the perminieralization process implies burial must take place quickly, and not over millions of years, hence the supposed need of millions of years to create such sedimentary layers with permineralized fossils is falsified 4. estimated erosion rates would have wiped out the geological layers with fossils anyway in about 10 million years You've not discussed much less refuted even 1 of those points, instead you refuted arguments I didn't make, you go on and on trying to convince me and the readers I made arguments I didn't make or got excited about. You talk about anything except deal with the real arguments put forward. Instead you insist your misreading of what I wrote is the correct reading, and that's a howler because I'm the one who wrote what I wrote, so I know what the correct reading is of what I wrote is, not you! You're the one who should be embarrassed, not me. I'm just irritated you're wasting my time, the readers time on arguments I didn't make.scordova_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

'Feel free to explain to the reader the problem of biological tissue. Just telling me to go read, eh? Go read some physics and chemistry yourself, and maybe you’ll have more credible arguments.# Joe's begun coaching you, hasn't he, Sal? But don't believe him about the knuckle-dusters. They frown on them here. I believe the CIA is located at Langley. Langley, Virginia. I once worked in Ford's truck plant at Langley. Langley near Slough, in Berkshire. We were kind of proud to be working for them - a bit like General Woundwort's owsla in Watership Down. But you know what? They jibbed at people throwing anyone from a fifth-floor window. Quite prissy, really? Not like the other Langley lot.Axel_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Hello ba77, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Yes, that was a fun show with biologist Dr. Jerry Bergman on whale evolution! (I especially enjoyed the part about evolutionists claiming to have identified a marine whale ancestor, then finding that the rest of the skeleton showed it to be a land dwelling animal, and yet, without missing a beat they retain it's place in the alleged whale lineage even though they had initially completely misidentified what kind of a creature it was.) -Bob Enyart p.s. bornagain, now I'm up to chapter 10 of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. It's very well done, strong, and a really enjoyable read.Bob Enyart_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Sal, Your attempted rebuttal doesn't make any sense. If the burial was rapid, but the fossils are millions of years old, then there is nothing for a YEC to get excited about. You were excited because you thought the fossilization, not merely the burial, happened in a matter of weeks. It's obvious from what you wrote:
So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!
You actually thought the paleontologists were contradicting themselves when they claimed that the fossils were millions of years old! Of course there is no contradiction. The burial was rapid, the fossils are millions of years old, and none of this gives any support whatsoever to YEC. Your excitement was for naught. Look, Sal, I know you're embarrassed, and you should be. But I really can't see why this is more embarrassing to you than the other YEC ideas you take seriously. Those ideas also involve ridiculous claims about how quickly certain things happened, like the propagation of light from distant galaxies to earth. Why are you embarrassed by your mistake about fossilization if you are not embarrassed about those other ideas?keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Hi Scordova, This article in Fox News/ science should be of some interest to this discussion. It seems they just keep popping up :) http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/08/23-million-year-old-lizard-fossil-discovered-in-mexico/PeterJ_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Calling nwells!Alan Fox_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Sal, You must really think the onlookers are slow. If you didn’t think that forest had fossilized quickly, you wouldn’t even have mentioned it.
If by fossilization I meant death and inescapable entombment and conditions that lead to long term preservation, then my original statement stands, but if by fossilization you mean your equivocated misrepresentation of arguments that I didn't make, then your strawman falsehoods about what I meant are knocked down. And you utterly slaughter arguments I didn't make but falsely attribute to me. I mentioned the forest because of the rapid burial, and the entombment is what I meant by fossilization (not your equivocation of what I meant). I won't use that word in that way in the future to avoid your sophistry.
That’s why you got excited. You thought that this was evidence that the fossilization happened in a matter of weeks, rather than millions of years.
LOL! How do you know what got me excited! You don't even understand the point I was making. I was excited because rapid burial implies complications in the supposed speed of sedimentary deposition. You're so determined to attribute arguments to me which I didn't make because you're unwilling to deal with arguments I'm really making. Why is that? Many onlooker know what is exciting is the speed of burial and the formation of the strata itself, not your equivocation of the way I used fossilization. From the previous discussion which JoeCoder provided the material from the OP:
Suppose we have intact geological column which can be found in one location such that you get to dig and find fossils in the order prescribed by the diagram above (and there are some who argue there is no such place on Earth, only in the conceptual imaginations of paleontologists). Suppose we give a generous height to this column of 200 miles spanning a history of 500 million years, what would be the average rate of deposition (accumulation of sediments on top of each other). I calculated that it would be .667 millimeters a year. The geologist then fumed at my figure of a 200-mile deep geological column and argued it could be less than that. Of course, he didn’t realize he actually strengthened my argument. So I said, “fine, 14 miles, since that’s the farthest man has ever drilled into the Earth, that yields a deposition rate of .046 millimeters a year,” which is about half the thickness of a sheet of paper. That would mean a dinosaur that is lying 5 meters high will take about 100,000 years to bury, and thus it becomes very doubtful that it will fossilize because it is exposed to scavengers and decomposition and other environmental effects. From Darwin-loving pages of Wiki we read:
Fossilization processes proceed differently according to tissue type and external conditions. Permineralization is a process of fossilization that occurs when an organism is buried. The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater. Minerals precipitate from the groundwater, occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decay process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
What? The organism needs to buried with sediments and water quickly. Of note, many layers of the geological “column” indicated mass extinction events, such that it could also be interpreted to be rapid simultaneous burial over large geographical regions by water and sediments, if not rapid simultaneous burial over the entire globe! But whatever the details, the fact remains that large sections of the geological column that contain fossils, could not, even in principle be assembled over millions of years. At best we have one catastrophe that creates a bed of fossils followed by a long era of stasis (no activity) and then followed another catastrophe, etc.
Notice I went into the calculation of the speed of deposition, not the speed with which a dead organism approaches one state of preservation or another. Apparently you don't have anything of substance to offer except false accusations about what I actually thought, actually got excited about. You'd prefer to fabricate stuff than actually engage the problem of young biological material and the fact of rapid deposition over short periods of time versus millions of years. You prefer to define terms in ways that I wasn't using, attribute arguments to me which I didn't make, attribute excitement on my part to claims I didn't make, and all the while not engage the points I was actually making. Now, Keiths, how about it. How fast do you think the sedimentary depostion of a permineralized layer takes to form? A million years? In the case of the fossil forest, a few weeks. Right? :-) That was the point, the rapid burial, not the point you're falsely accusing me of making. Now that I pointed out your false accusations, how about actually engaging the problem of rapid burial rather than making up falsehoods about what I got excited about. But if you want to keep making up falsehoods, go right on ahead, because I'll call you on it and point out, you're unwilling to acknowledge the speed of sedimentary deposition in permineralized layers.scordova_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

wd400 #56 But even if fossils where only ever burried in, say, flash floods. So what? I honestly cant see a path from rapid burial to young formations Multiple fossil graveyards are consistent with flood geology scordova @49 The fact your grabbing for a triviality of what I meant by fossilized tells me you know you don’t have good cards in this exchange. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.bevets_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

WD400
But the fact that all other non-avian Dinosaur bones are found sediments that are >65 Ma isn’t a presuppositions, it’s, well, a fact. If these supposed C14 dates where real, we’d have to change pretty much everything we know about pre-history. So, yes, I am skeptical of dates that don’t fit with literally everything else we know about the history of life.
Translation: When dealing with radio-isotope dating, old ages are fact and young ages are not.JGuy_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

What’s amazing is the degree to which UD readers will buy all this YEC stuff.
When you're starving for good news, you'll pounce on anything and eat it. You can always throw it up later if it turns out to be inedible.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Would you say permineralized fossil layers were buried in a matter of weeks, months, or a few years, or decades at the most — especially animal remains? I would say I don't know what "permineralized fossil layers" means. Animals that go o to make permineralized fossils probably got buried quickly. But a given sedimentary layer might be continuously laid down over a very long time, and only compressed into stone over millions upon millions of years. Permineralization itself is usually a slow process. But even if fossils where only ever burried in, say, flash floods. So what? I honestly cant see a path from rapid burial to young formations. What's amazing is the degree to which UD readers will buy all this YEC stuff.wd400_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Sal, You must really think the onlookers are slow. If you didn't think that forest had fossilized quickly, you wouldn't even have mentioned it. Rapid burial doesn't support YEC. Rapid fossilization would have. That's why you got excited. You thought that this was evidence that the fossilization happened in a matter of weeks, rather than millions of years. Look at what you wrote:
So paleontologists say the fossilization took only weeks, and yet these same paleontologists insist the layers represent millions of years of history. Something doesn’t feel wholesome!
Oops.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Dino DNA is obviously different from plant DNA, but just to give an order of magnitude: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920366
The results allowed us to establish that the DNA half-life in papyri is about 19-24 years. This means that the last DNA fragments will vanish within no more than 532-672 years from the sheets being manufactured.
But I emphasize, that's just to get a rough order of magnitude of the timescales we should be dealing with. Then I found this embarrassing unexplained morsel of supposed DNA decay rates based on mainstream fossil dates versus the rates predicted by chemistry:
Claims of extreme survival of DNA have emphasized the need for reliable models of DNA degradation through time. By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship. The average DNA half-life within this geographically constrained fossil assemblage was estimated to be 521 years for a 242 bp mtDNA sequence, corresponding to a per nucleotide fragmentation rate (k) of 5.50 × 10(-6) per year. With an effective burial temperature of 13.1°C, the rate is almost 400 times slower than predicted from published kinetic data of in vitro DNA depurination at pH 5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23055061
They only offer speculation as to why the DNA decay rates are off by a factor of 400. There isn't any hard nosed chemistry being done except speculation put forward to preserve the mainstream narrative. Chemical kinetics via Dariwnism, that's rich. :-)scordova_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Comments are insightful. No matter what fossil data is discovered that implies a young age, the evolutionist will dismiss all on the claim that the fossil was still found in (what he believes is) 65+ MYA rock layer. Even though this point has been shown to be a simple logical fallacy and nothing more than fact-free speculation, the evolutionist sticks to his guns, in what I'm guessing is simply a last ditch attempt to feign argument.lifepsy_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

you would also assert the permineralized fossil layers formed in a matter of weeks, right? No.
Would you say permineralized fossil layers were buried in a matter of weeks, months, or a few years, or decades at the most -- especially animal remains? Or will you argue an animal or other organism is going to lie above ground for a few thousand years without decomposing?scordova_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply