Skip to comments.DNA has a 521-year half-life
Posted on 10/10/2012 8:32:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
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 °C, 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," says Simon Ho, a computational evolutionary biologist at the University of Sydney in Australia. However, although 6.8 million years is nowhere near the age of a dinosaur bone -- which would be at least 65 million years old -- "We might be able to break the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence, which currently stands at about half a million years," says Ho...
"I am very interested to see if these findings can be reproduced in very different environments such as permafrost and caves," says Michael Knapp, a palaeogeneticist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand.
Moreover, the researchers found that age differences accounted for only 38.6% of the variation in DNA degradation between moa-bone samples. "Other factors that impact on DNA preservation are clearly at work," says Bunce. "Storage following excavation, soil chemistry and even the time of year when the animal died are all likely contributing factors that will need looking into."
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Things to make you go hhhmmm...
DNA has a half-life less than 1/10 of carbon dating [5,000 years], yet carbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years, but DNA can range from 1/2 million to 6.8 million years.
All righty then!?!?!
Science is too deeply in bed with long ages, evolution and global warming errr cooling errr I mean climate change - yeah that’s the ticket.
Gonna have to upgrade that to a 120mm mortar or an M2, I think.
It’s impossible for soft tissue to ssurvice 90 million years room temp.
The dating is wrong (occam’s razor = simplest explanation)
Or there's some other explanation you and I aren't clever enough to imagine.
The race doesn't always go to the swift, and the simplest explanation isn't always correct, but that is the way to bet...
If you want to retrieve this thread, the keyword is paleogenetics.
obviously you have not followed the press....it has been confirmed there is no contamination, and multiple site have been found, with a controlled (documented) process, including imaging and chemical analysis and DNA testing.
No doubt on the source of the material, just the age.
the whole house of cards that is built on circular dating is caving inward.
We are getting to the point we were in the 1800s where the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation died a slow, agonizing death, and a new theory gained hold.
As any scientific theory, at this point, the skeptics are punished/persecuted until the dissent becomes prevailing thought. The poor scientist who reported the findings (and has passed multiple peer reviews) has been attacked personally numerous times for upsetting the apple cart......
I suggest you google T-Rex blood fossil and read the very interesting history of events....
It’s a pretty robust “house of cards”.
Continuous tree ring counts go back much further than Bishop Ussher’s maximum age of 6016 years and 7 days.
There are scores of scientific dating techniques that cross check, reenforce, and mutually support and refine each other.
They all conflict with Bishop Ussher’s interpretation of Biblical dating.
The Bible gives a sequence of creation events that maps one-for-one with the sequences science have with astrophysics and evolution.
The only difference is the time scale
Please do feel free to cleave to Bishop Ussher’s interpretation of Biblical chronology.
Back in the day we used to say “It’s a free country”.
Of course Bishop Ussher would argue that we only said that during one literal 24 hour day, even before light was divided from darkness.
Me, I’m going with the decay/preservation process is different than we thought.
To do otherwise would require me to live in a world where the fundamental rules can be changed at the will of a capricious god (small g deliberate) to suit any whim or fit of pique.
So far I live in a world that appears to be ruled by a just and consistent God who allows us to glimpse a consistent rulebook that lets us know where we can expect to find minerals, build a bridge that will stand up to expected forces (or not and have them predictably fall), crossbreed for a tastier fruit, etc.
I’ll let you know if that changes, assuming He doesn’t arbitrarily decide that electrons flowing down a wire doesn’t meet His approval...
You are doing what is a “straw man” argument. That is, you put words in my mouth. Specifically “bishop Ussher’s” timeline.
Did I mention WHAT I thought the timeline should be? No. What I mentioned is that the circular method of dating was about to fall due to it’s own weight.
The idea of dating by layer, then fossils by the layer they are found in, then the layer by the age of the fossil, has about gone as far as it can, given fossil finds that call into question the very long ages.
How you got to me touting what I believe to be an erroneous dating by a bishop who lived hundreds of years ago is beyond me.
Evidently you have religious believes about the age of fossils that are NOT based on objective science.
Now that the question is in the open, how old do you think the universe is?
What I mentioned is that the circular method of dating was about to fall due to its own weight.
Yes, that is where we disagree, what you see as circular reasoning, I see as cross checking by different methods of dating. Using stratigraphy to set relative ages, older stuff being buried by younger stuff. Using known rates of radioactive decay to estimate dates. Using fossils of known types to date other stuff near them.
Without knowing the date of a magazine, you could observe that there are pictures of women with a certain hairstyle that was popular in the mid 50's and that they were photographed in front of cars with fins and make a pretty good guess that the magazine dates to the mid to late 50's.
If you then find a page with a 1957 date on it, that isn't circular reasoning.
An article announcing sputnik on a later page isn't a circular dating of the space age.
Evidently you have religious believes about the age of fossils that are NOT based on objective science.
Evidently we don't understand what the other is saying anywhere near as well as we'd like to think we do...
Anyway, always a pleasure talking with you. Although we usually disagree, I can depend on you to be intellectually honest, and to make sure I am as well!
I would have brought that up, but figured it would unleash accusations of Neogenetics. ;’)
There are many [more numerous than old Earth/Universe signs in the billions of years] natural clocks that point to a young age and there are currently no credible explanations of their readily apparent younger ages [link in one of my prior posts].
For starters please explain the origins and recession of the moon. By the way, without the moon doing it’s thing for the ocean tides all life on Earth would cease to exist.
I try to make up my own mind, not assume the prevailing wisdom (or the conspiracy guys) are right.
My basic instinct is “prove it”. I am at heart a contrarian. It has served me well in investing, and other areas.
It’s important to know when a belief is based on personal opinion, facts, or just taking for granted what others say as truth.
The only thing a 10 year old science text book is good for is a doorstop.....My Geology professor told me that one, and it’s true. Yes there are some things that never change like aerodynamic lift characteristics, but the problem is text books are not simply filled with known facts, they are also filled with supposition, and deduction that is constantly being corrected - The Scientific process at work!
However, when we cease to look critically at prevailing theories, we are not doing science anymore, we are doing religion.
Unfortunately, way too many science types are on the “gravy train” of government grants....it’s polluted many disciplines. I know - I worked supporting their tools (supercomputers) for years....I have seen the inside of the sausage factory that is computer modeling......
The world will be a much duller place when we know as much about paleontology as we do about aerodynamics.
Can I have a hint?
Was it on FR?
#98 of this thread - appeared in many previous threads on FR too.
If you and I disagree, then God will set us straight when /> we met Him.
This applies to the saved who are still learning, and I/> believe that's most of us.
Interesting. Rather than wade through all the posts one-by-one looking for yours I searched the pages with your screen name. It didn’t show.
Yes. There are things that don’t seem to fit or make sense.
No, I don’t know why.
My money is on us not understanding one item, the mechanisms of decay/preservation that allows apparent gooey bits of dinosaurs to still exist, rather than us having gotten every single one of scores of mutually cross-checkable independent mechanismed dating techniques wrong in the same direction and by the same amount.
No. You can use Bing every bit as well as I can.
By the way, without the moon doing its thing for the ocean tides all life on Earth would cease to exist.
No. And No.
We'd still have (much smaller) Solar tides.
"Life will find a way." </Dr. Ian Malcolm>
If you ever get a chance to read Isaac Asimov's "Mooning Around", do so.
Jesus is God.
Yes - they were the one’s who didn’t believe what Jesus said.
First, that’s just a stupid argument. God commanded Adam to till the ground. There is no evidence He intended things to be left to grow wild and unpruned.
Second, Death is a punishment. We will all die one day. Some once, some twice. Those who die once will only die a physical death. Those who die twice will die both a physical and spiritual death. Death is described in Scripture as something that had a sting and was defeated by Christ. It is so detestable that in Revelation 20 it states it will be thrown into the lake of fire along with Hell. It is NOT a cool thing.
Horse hockey. Sci Fi is science fiction
-the same as long ages evolution IMO.
NO credible explanation exists for the origins of the moon,
AND applying the evolutionary uniform reverse [where the continents move at a couple of inches/year rather than what science observed with the Japanese and Sumatra earthquakes] on the recession of the moon results in tides that swamp the highest mountain ranges in considerably less than 1 million years,
THEN go back even further and the moon has to be part of the Earth! IOW something catastrophic surely must have caused the moon to begin recessing as well as for the poles to shift and the Earth to wobble. But mainstream science is more obsessed with all their godless scientific naturalism, long ages, and amoeba-to-me evolution.
Problems with the evolution and long ages are laughable and the paradigm will either have to shift drastically,
OR the end times may come first. I pray that God gives mankind another series of wake-up calls before the sheeple enmasse and run off the cliff together. Hint: Never take a mark or chip in your hand or forehead that ‘secures’ all your worldly possessions by controlling all buying and selling NEVER!
BTW maybe you’ve not heard, but it isn’t Christians that as a majority percentage reject the cherished long ages evolution - it’s mathmeticians! The odds make it simply impossible.
[Also No, I did not get up in the middle of the night to check for your response. Rather I got up to check for trouble-making racoons, got online to check the VP debate results b/c I can’t hardly stand to listen to more than 30 minutes of neither Biden nor Obama lie repeatedly and then saw your reply.]
Is he now? Who was he talking to in Gethsemane?
Into whose hands did he commend his spirit on the cross?
That would be a good thing. Our species' track record militates against any series of wake-up calls actually working though. *sigh*
Hint: Never take a mark or chip in your hand or forehead that secures all your worldly possessions by controlling all buying and selling NEVER!
BTW maybe youve not heard, but it isnt Christians that as a majority percentage reject the cherished long ages evolution - its mathmeticians! The odds make it simply impossible.
Mathematics when not anchored in observation can lead to some of the most ungodly results...
[Also No, I did not get up in the middle of the night to check for your response. Rather I got up to check for trouble-making racoons, got online to check the VP debate results b/c I cant hardly stand to listen to more than 30 minutes of neither Biden nor Obama lie repeatedly and then saw your reply.]
Awww, I'm crushed that you didn't do all this just for me. *sniff*
Without death all of your fingers and toes would be webbed together. The cells that form the scaffolding necessary for them to develop property die and slough away when their job is done.
The first death is not a punishment. It is simply a condition of existence.
You uniformitarians are all alike. Assumptions assumptions.
Name-calling doesn't become you.
And this is not an assumption.
Tell me how a sane person would interpret the “findings” in this story?
If God thought we should rely on the impulses of our brains he would not have sent his Son to guide us. Jesus came to ratify the OT, and he did, with Glory. Did he tell us how to post on FR? No. Did he tell us how to post, speak, write, witness, anywhere and everywhere? Yes, He did! Marantha!! I pray for you, brother.
Then why would you assume that Adam and Eve’s bodies behaved the same way as ours today?
How did you manage to drag Adam and Eve into this?
Unless you think you are Adam or Eve, you means you.
As part of your argument, you postulate that death is good because if we didn’t have death we’d have webbed limbs or something like that. You make the uniformitarian assumption that things were always this way. God created mankind without death. Death was a punishment. If man had not sinned, there would have been no death - no dead skin cells either and no webbing. You are a uniformitarian if you buy into the nonsense of Evolution.
Next you'll tell me that God you worship changed all the rules the moment he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden.
Very nicely played.
You can claim anything for the time before that moment. A day lasted millions of years. Death didn't exist. All animals were vegan. Plants didn't die when they were eaten. No wait, eating hadn't been invented yet. Umm, I mean Adam and Eve couldn't eat the Malus, errrr they did. But that was after God both forbid them from doing so and created eating so they could. Tricky guy...
Anything and everything can be explained by God done did it. Any attempt to understand anything is heretical, because it implies God is bound by rules.
Must be interesting living in a world where you can't be certain that a rock will fall if you drop it.
He can always change the rules to suit his whim.
Back to the world the rest of us live in:
How deep would the flies be if none of them ever died?
Don’t know what your background is, but you are all over the map with that last post. First, God is way more than any box man attempts to confine him too. He spoke time and matter into existence - even physics agrees that reversing time brings one back to a singularity - for me that has to be God simply b/c of the order not just in all DNA but throughout the Universe. Simply put explosions, i.e the big bang, do not create order they increase disorder.
Second, yes, death and destruction entered His creation with the eating of the forbidden fruit. When He declares it is all good on the 6th day the implication is all is perfect - not a spot nor blemish. With the fall He had to basically rewire all living things - and even this was for the benefit of mankind [getting ahead of myself, but it will all make complete sense when we get to Heaven].
Adam named the animals, indicating He endowed us with language [something that still confounds evolution for any reasonable explanation], but He also said He gave us every seed-bearing plant for us to enjoy. So yes, the fruits and vegetables they produced did ‘die’ so to speak [even that is debatable since the entire plant was not killed nor consumed]. Regardless, God does indicate all the plants were food for man and the animal kingdom at the end of Genesis 1:28-31.
Fourth God is not bound by rules we are and He did intend for us to subdue creation and master it - meaning, yes, investigate what works and what does not.
Attempting to understand it is not heretical but He does warn later on that when we increase knowledge we also increase suffering. IOW most of our new discoveries get used for evil, usually first, but I challenge you to find one new scientific discovery that has not been used at sometime for evil. I’m still trying to find what it is some folks think is good and useful regarding macro-evolution. Wasn’t natural adaptation first discovered by Mendel btw not Darwin?!
BTW every discipline of study ending with ‘logy’ is b/c we have discovered the logic embodied within it. Apparently everything you have learned about God came from deists, agnostics, and atheists - sheesh. Try studying what Lee Strobel found out - that which converted him from atheism to christianity.
Yes, I am. Trying to splict the inexplicable does that to me.
God is way more than any box man attempts to confine him to.
Yet we all try to fit Him into our minds and hearts. Even an agnostic such as myself.
He spoke time and matter into existence - even physics agrees that reversing time brings one back to a singularity - for me that has to be God simply b/c of the order not just in all DNA but throughout the Universe.
One aches for an Ordering Principle in a random universe.
Second, yes, death and destruction entered His creation with the eating of the forbidden fruit.
We have a disagreement in degree, not in kind here. PHYSICAL death is implicit in life. I cannot accept it as a "Punishment".
He also said He gave us every seed-bearing plant for us to enjoy. So yes, the fruits and vegetables they produced did die so to speak [even that is debatable since the entire plant was not killed nor consumed].
Yes, the cells in those fruits died. Yes, the plant lived.
With the fall He had to basically rewire all living things
I can accept the rule change being Man's fault.
- and even this was for the benefit of mankind [getting ahead of myself, but it will all make complete sense when we get to Heaven]
I hope so, to both halves.
Adam named the animals, indicating He endowed us with language [something that still confounds evolution for any reasonable explanation]
*gentle cough* Having different chirps for different predators improves survival, the finer the meaning the chirps can convey, the better the odds of passing on an improved linguistic skill, that and the same brain regions used for tool manipulation work the tongue and lips. Watch a kid thread a needle. He can scarce do it without sticking out his tongue!
Fourth God is not bound by rules
we are and He did intend for us to subdue creation and master it - meaning, yes, investigate what works and what does not.
A task made impossible if he arbitrarily changes the rules.
Attempting to understand it is not heretical but He does warn later on that when we increase knowledge we also increase suffering.
Yep. With enough foreknowledge we can suffer things that haven't happened yet!
IOW most of our new discoveries get used for evil, usually first, but I challenge you to find one new scientific discovery that has not been used at sometime for evil.
Not eeeeven gonna try!
Im still trying to find what it is some folks think is good and useful regarding macro-evolution.
It's a bit early in the process for humans to create a useful and novel species. A clawless, hornless fangless friendly, cold blooded (ectothermic, doesn't need to constantly eat like a mammal just to stay warm) critter that makes milk, lays eggs and provides juicy steaks might be handy.
Wasnt natural adaptation first discovered by Mendel btw not Darwin?!
No. Mendel figured out genetics. People were breeding better cattle sheep, wheat and whatnot for thousands of years. Mendel gave us the first glimpse of how to do it predictably. A remarkable leap of genius before DNA and chromosomes.
Old Erasmus Darwin beat him by 70 years or so in Zoonomia:
Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!Where his more famous grandson and Mendel really out shown Old Erasmus was the vast amounts of carefully evaluated and organized data they brought to bear on the subject.
What took Charles thousands of miles, scores of stops on multiple continents and isles, tens of thousands specimens, living, dead, fossilized and bare rock, plus decades of meticulous study and theorizing, Mendel did in a monastery garden.
Apparently everything you have learned about God came from deists, agnostics, and atheists - sheesh.
Not even close.
I am laboring under a handicap though. I simply seem to lack the capacity to feel faith. I liken it to the phenomena called "blind sight". There are people who have no conscious perception of anything in their visual field. They can comfortably navigate a crowded room and avoid every obstacle, yet the see none of them.
I feel like a blind man trying to understand optics and appreciate the colors of a sunset.
Try studying what Lee Strobel found out - that which converted him from atheism to Christianity.
I'll check it out.
Please bear with me if that was all a bit rambling, a few hours ago, I found out one of my dearest and longest term friends was found dead this morning. I just talked to her a couple days ago. It's all still unreal to me. Talking about death, God and the universe is a bit more surreal than I can do coherently right now, but it does seem to help.
So sorry to hear the news of losing a long time dear friend. My sympathies and prayers up for you.
Re: Lee Strobel I recommend any of his books on tape in his own voice and carries far deeper understanding of the breadth and depth of his research and sincerity. Please don’t be put off by the titles though.
The Case for Faith
The Case for Christ
The Case for Creation
Wow, this might be some kind of record for drawing disruptors. :-))
Hey, we could top it if we tried harder. ;’)
Then what the heck are you doing on FR reading about DNA?
Apparently you are not supposed to know about DNA or molecular degradation because it isn’t in the Bible!
Sorry, for all those so narrow-minded that they may see anyone willing to discuss and mix science WITH faith as somehow disrupting.
I see it as a natural extension. The more we learn about His creation the more we learn about His Awesomeness. The care He takes in fine-tuning the Earth and Universe as well as the measly half billion lines of living DNA code enabling even the smallest of lifeforms.
Apparently I just see and take His Words much more literally than some of you!!! :)
Way to have you cake and eat it too.
So how do you determine which are the parts that are true and which are not?
What criteria do you use to pass judgment on the word of God?
What is your absolute standard of truth on which you base your judgments and what qualifies you to be in such a position to pass those judgments?
Define "literal truth".
Science doesn’t even tell truth.
What criteria do you use to pass judgment on the word of God?
Obviously, any criteria you use to judge the Word is being put above the Word in authority, and therefore must have more knowledge than the Word. I don't think I want to have to try to defend that.
While Ussher’s chronology is certainly up for grabs in its interpretation, that does not mean that by default any other dating method offered up in its place is correct.
The dating method used by scientists has no more basis for accuracy and does not necessarily have to be accepted as true or accurate because it’s basciallly the only other one out there. It is just as liable to be wrong as Ussher’s.
I do not accept Ussher’s chronolgy for a number of reasons, mostly because of assumptions made on which it is based. For the same reason, I do not accept the scientific assessment of the age of the universe; too many assumptions made which can not be verified.
So perhaps some evo would like to try answering these questions....
On the day that God created man, as an adult human beng, how old was man? Was he one day old as anyone who accepts the truth of Scripture would say? Or was he some decades old, as a mature, adult male would be if evaluated “scientifically”?
No doubt from a scientific viewpoint, Adam would be some 20-30 years old, all based on the physical appearance of age. But is that accurate and is God a liar or trickster for creating Adam as a mature adult human being with the appearance of age? Or did it ever occur to those who choose to accuse God of deceit that He simply created man as an adult for purely practical reasons, like He could not have simple laid a sperm and egg on the ground and expected anything to happen?
Is the Bible believing creationist correct for stating that man is one day old in contradiction to the “evidence” of age? Or is the scientist correct in dating the man at decades old when in reality the man was one day old?.
Science works on the presumption that the physical evidence we are confronted with is an accurate representation of the facts. Is that a safe assumption to make and why?
When Adan and Eve sinned, corruption entered the world; entropy, if you will.
What with all the talk of alternate dimensions and universes by scientists, why is it such a stumbling block to them that the physical laws of the unverse could have changed whe sin entered the world?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.