The half-life of DNA in bone:... [YEC takes a hit, DNA half-life only 521 years]

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745 ^

[truthfinder9]

[If dinos walked with man, there should be dino DNA, however, there is not.]

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. Although best described by an exponential model (R2 = 0.39), considerable sample-to-sample variance in DNA preservation could not be accounted for by geologic age. This variation likely derives from differences in taphonomy and bone diagenesis, which have confounded previous, less spatially constrained attempts to study DNA decay kinetics. Lastly, by calculating DNA fragmentation rates on Illumina HiSeq data, we show that nuclear DNA has degraded at least twice as fast as mtDNA. These results provide a baseline for predicting long-term DNA survival in bone.

[allmendream]

If scientific evidence mattered to YE creationists they wouldn’t be YE creationists.

[Sacajaweau]

Oh no....Don't tell me they're back to "let's rethink this"...and MORE GRANT MONEY.

These folks like to be wrong....it's more fruitful than being absolutely right.

[encm(ss)]

Would you explain what this means.

[Hostage]

I think it is a policy here at FR that we quote verbatim the Titles.

That said, how do you get from exponential decay of fossilized bone DNA to ‘Young Eartherism taking a hit’?

Nothing in the Bible says the Earth is young and for all we know Adam and Eve lived as Spiritual Beings in the Garden of Eden for billions of years overseeing all lifeforms before they were tempted and chose to follow evil (Satan, the spiritual demon of death).

Are you going to use BCE in your reply?

[allmendream]

There is no amount of evidence from history, geology, physics, astronomy or biology that will convince a YE creationist. If a billion data points didn’t do it it is ridiculous to assume a billion and one will do the trick. Follow?

[Theo]

Why are you so emotionally invested in what varieties of creationists believe? Do you believe that God created “all this”? If so, what method do you think he used to create “all this”

Or are you simply an atheist antagonist, bent on being a jerk toward those who believe in the Creator?

[Theo]

Ah, I see by your comments on other discussions that you believe God is either dead or impotent or aloof.

Note to self: Ignore “allmendream” when he comments on creation/evolution discussions.

[allmendream]

Why are you so emotionally invested in me? This isn’t about me.

I am a Christian and believe that God created through the laws of the universe. Right now stars are being created through gravity and nuclear fusion. Do you suppose God didn’t create those stars?

[allmendream]

You saw that in three minutes? Do you suppose the Pope thinks God is dead, impotent, or aloof? My beliefs on the intersection of science and faith are nearly identical to his.

[Phinneous]

First I’ll post a snippet of a larger article. Anyone interested can see the author and link at the bottom:

We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:

(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.

(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!

(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.

(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.

(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.

In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.

It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.

From: The Lubavitcher Rabbi, Menachem Schneerson, ZT’L.

Link: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112083/jewish/Theories-of-Evolution.htm

[Hostage]

There’s a bunch of pseudo-scientific knuckleheads who think they can take advantage of scientifically deficient Christians (those without training; and no, having a science PhD does not make one an Atheist, to the contrary it can fortify one’s faith).

So they take advantage of ignorant Christians and pronounce the Bible a fraud because starting with Adam’s age at death and tracing the lineage to the present yields about 6000 years or such.

The flaw in their web of nonsense is that Adam’s countdown of years started ***at the time he was cast out*** from the Garden and ***not from the time of his spiritual creation***.

Adam was an immortal spiritual being who was deceived to follow Satan into an existence that resulted in the death of his physical body but not his soul (spiritual force).

The flawed Adam was extremely sorrowful and begged God to let him back into the Garden. God seeing his sincerity felt pity and promised a savior of his soul, not his body.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise.

Jesus Christ is the new Adam who came to conquer death (Satan’s work). He is the Savior of all those who believe in God and all those that believe Jesus is God come in the flesh.

You can’t prove God’s existence using the Scientific Method because all Scientific inference starts with a precedent as premise and there is nothing before God.

You can’t fake praying for a miracle expecting as in science to replicate results because God chooses who will perform His miracles.

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega in all of existence.

Faith is faith and science is science. God gave us talent for scientific reasoning to better understand how to fight disease, how to clothe and feed ourselves better, to increase in knowledge and to explore His creation.

In short the poster of this thread is laying an attack on the Church, pure and simple.

[El Cid]

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 ...

Figure 1 (page 4729) of the linked article shows the '242 bp mtDNA sequence' survival rate going to zero at 4000 years, and Table 1 (also page 4729) shows temperature effects on half-life: A 6X drop in half life if the 'storage' temperature is increased from 15C to 25C...
The unknowns involved (e.g., storage at higher assumed temperatures for a good portion of time; exposure to moisture; effects of pressure; etc) don't lend themselves to profound conclusions.... Other than the one stated in the Tagline.

[OHelix]

It seems to me, if true that DNA has a roughly 500 year half life, then the discovery of Dino DNA would absolutely disprove that dinos have been extinct for millions of years. The absence of such discovery doesn’t conclusively tell you anything.

[driftdiver]

Apples and oranges

[driftdiver]

So you’re a heretic?

[allmendream]

Do you consider the Pope a heretic for believing the same as I do about evolution?

[driftdiver]

Well since I don’t know what he believes and I don’t care what you do its really a moot point.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks truthfinder9. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks truthfinder9. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.