DNA in ancient fossils: Evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old

[Xavier]

Before about 25 years ago, when DNA (whose half-life Nature calculates at about 521 years) was demonstrably and repeatedly found in several of planet Earth's most ancient fossils, it was almost universally agreed (and still is largely agreed) that DNA could not survive for more than about 10,000 years. Like soft tissues in ancient fossils, C14 in rocks, minerals, living organisms and all the places it shouldn't be, Helium still being in radioactive rocks (all of which would have diffused out long ago, Helium being the second lightest element in the periodic table), this aDNA (antediluvian or ancient DNA) as it is now called, presents a serious challenge for long-agers and for evolutionists. See Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA "1990s
The post-PCR era heralded a wave of publications as numerous research groups tried their hands at aDNA. Soon a series of incredible findings had been published, claiming authentic DNA could be extracted from specimens that were millions of years old, into the realms of what Lindahl (1993b) has labelled Antediluvian DNA.[9] The majority of such claims were based on the retrieval of DNA from organisms preserved in amber. Insects such as stingless bees,[10] termites,[11] and wood gnats,[12] as well as plant[13] and bacterial[14] sequences were extracted from Dominican amber dating to the Oligocene epoch. Still older sources of Lebanese amber-encased weevils, dating to within the Cretaceous epoch, reportedly also yielded authentic DNA.[15] DNA retrieval was not limited to amber.

Several sediment-preserved plant remains dating to the Miocene were successfully investigated.[16] Then, in 1994 and to international acclaim, Woodward et al. reported the most exciting results to date[17] — mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences that had apparently been extracted from dinosaur bones dating to more than 80 million years ago. When in 1995 two further studies reported dinosaur DNA sequences extracted from a Cretaceous egg,[18] it seemed that the field would revolutionize knowledge of the Earth's evolutionary past. Even these extraordinary ages were topped by the claimed retrieval of 250-million-year-old halobacterial sequences from halite.[19][20]

Whole genome sequencing started to yield results in 1995."

How do evolutionists explain these empirical scientific results, and seek to evade the most logical and direct inference of a young earth that would be eminently reasonable to deduce from it? An article from the Institute of Creation Research,

https://www.icr.org/article/squid-fossils-ancient-dna-young-earth

"The field of biology has provided much support for a recent creation, and physical evidence of very young-looking biological materials from supposedly ancient fossils continues to accrue from around the world, and from various depths under the earth.

In August of this year, paleontologists in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England, made a discovery that astounded the evolutionary community. A "150 million-year-old" squid was discovered with an intact ink sac. "It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac...inside a rock that is 150 million years old," said Dr. Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey.1 Creationists agree and see this as physical evidence that clearly points to its recent burial and preservation.

"Living fossils" present another kind of dilemma for deep time. Sharks, horseshoe crabs, crinoids, Wollemi pine trees, tuataras, crocodiles, vampire squids, chambered nautiloids, brachiopods, clams, dragonflies, lungfish, and hundreds of other animals and plants have stayed the same over "millions of years," despite significant shifts in their environments and supposed eons of nature-selecting mutations. But living fossils make better sense when viewed from a young-earth creation perspective, wherein natural selection does not generate new forms, and living creatures ought to look similar to their fossilized relatives.

In the past few decades, Darwin-unfriendly discoveries have been made of genetic material (DNA) that is supposedly from very old sources but is found in relatively pristine condition. For example, evolutionist Sangtae Kim discovered DNA sequences from Miocene fossils (supposedly over 5 million years old) and said, "This paper confirms that DNA sequences can be obtained from Miocene-age plant remains."2 And "plants, bacteria, mammals, Neanderthals, and other archaic humans have had short aDNA [ancient DNA] sequences identified."3 How can DNA be so intact after so long, with what is known about DNA decay rates?4, 5

Other samples of viable DNA have been extracted from frozen tissue dated thousands of years old by evolutionists. The energy powerhouse of the cell is called the mitochondria and it contains DNA termed mtDNA. In 2008, samples of mtDNA were extracted from a frozen human discovered in the Alps in 1991. Called the Tyrolean Iceman, he was dated at over 5,000 years old. The DNA was completely and successfully sequenced.6

Speaking of cold temperatures, deep ice cores have been taken from southern Greenland permafrost. Insect and plant materials recovered from them have revealed clean DNA sequences.7 Antarctic ice cores may reveal more DNA samples.

Not only is DNA found where it should not be if evolutionary ages are true, but still-living microbes have been extracted from ancient earth materials. A leader in this fascinating field is evolutionist Raul Cano of the California Polytechnic State University. His work frustrates evolutionary biologists, who maintain that the earth is very old, and therefore consider that his otherwise astonishing results are actually contaminated with recent bacteria. However, other evolutionists have been making similar discoveries.8

It would seem that many scientists are putting the cart before the horse--embracing long ages before they consider the physical evidence that shows otherwise.9 Pristine DNA from these supposedly ancient materials is predicted by the creation model, which numbers the earth's years in the thousands rather than millions.

[Sempronius]

Looked up on Raul Cano.

Here's an article from 1995

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/19/us/30-million-year-sleep-germ-is-declared-alive.html


The field of microbiology is "full of surprises".

[Maximilian]

Dinosaur footprints preserved.

Somehow these impressions in the mud have lasted for 95 million years.
Yet paleontologists are concerned that next rainfall could wash them away, even though all the rainfalls for the past 95 million years haven't damaged them at all.

[Skip first 2:30 -- self-obsessed female reporter.]

[Xavier]

Yes, there are so many and such clear evidences the evolutionists are drastically mistaken. Creation has 101 evidences https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Here's more on the DNA issue from Dr. Walt Brown's Book, In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood.

68.     Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age, such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain,c 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,d and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.e Dozens of plants and animals have left DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.f DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a "200-million-year-old" fossilized fishg and possibly in "80-million-year-old" dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed.h Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120-million years old.i

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.j They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.k

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber.l The same bacteria, Bacillus, have been found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650-million years old.m Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5-billion years old.n Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these "old" bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins,o soft tissue,p blood compoundsq and other complex organic matterr preserved in dinosaur bones.s Researchers were shocked to find soft tissue in eight pieces of a dinosaur's toe, rib, hip, leg, and claw.t Even dinosaur skin (from a hadrosaur) has been recovered and tested.u As with DNA, it is ridiculous to believe these remains have lasted 65–150-million years.v http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html

[Xavier]

The documentation and evidence in the footnotes with admissions from mainstream evolutionist scientists is even more amazing.

68.     Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?
a .   This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less-energetic compounds, such as water and carbon dioxide.

b .   Bryan Sykes, "The Past Comes Alive," Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

u "Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10,000 years] far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. 'When we started, we were told that we were crazy,' he says." Kathryn Hoppe, "Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA," Science News, Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c .   Ewen Callaway, "Hominin DNA Baffles Experts," Nature, Vol. 504, 5 December 2013. pp. 16–17.

d .   Edward M. Golenberg et al., "Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species," Nature, Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

u DNA disintegrates faster when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked, "The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long." Also see Svante Pääbo, "Ancient DNA," Scientific American, Vol. 269, November 1993, p. 92. [Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17-million years old.]

u "That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable." Jeremy Cherfas, "Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death," Science, Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

e .   "Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years)." Steven A. Fish et al., "Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite," Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

f .   Eske Willerslev et al., "Diverse Plant and Animal Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments," Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

g .   Hoppe, p. 281.

u Virginia Morell, "30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field," Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

h .   "Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old." Scott R. Woodward et al., "DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments," Science, Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human or mammal DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in "Detecting Dinosaur DNA," Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

i .   Hendrick N. Poinar et al., "DNA from an Extinct Plant," Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

u Rob DeSalle et al., "DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications," Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

u Raúl J. Cano et al., "Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil," Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

j .   Tomas Lindahl, a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration, claimed that contamination and poor measurement techniques account for the "old" DNA. He wrote, "The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA." [See Tomas Lindahl, "Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA," Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

v George O. Poinar Jr., in "Recovery of Antediluvian DNA," Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park.)

v Edward M. Golenberg, "Antediluvian DNA Research," Nature, Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

k .   "We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn't be any DNA left at all." Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

l .   Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, "Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber," Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were performed to rule out contamination. [See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, "Age of Bacteria from Amber," Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

u "When you look at them they don't look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40-million years ancient] and they're alive!" Joshua Fischman, "Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?" Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

m .   "There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period." R. John Parkes, "A Case of Bacterial Immortality?" Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

u Russell H. Vreeland et al., "Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal," Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

u Other tests have confirmed Vreeland's discovery described above. [See Cindy L. Satterfield et al., "New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal," Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]

n .   See Endnote 104 on page 379.

o .   Richard Monastersky, "Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils," Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

u Gerard Muyzer et al., "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs," Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

p .   "'I got goose bumps,' recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. 'It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype," Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

u Blood vessels in bone appear to have been found in supposed 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones. [See "New Signs of Dinosaur Proteins," Science, Vol. 350, 4 December 2015, p. 1137.]

u "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ..." Mary H. Schweitzer et al., "Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

u " 'I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are,' said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. 'I was pretty shocked.' " Evelyn Boswell, "Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology," Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

u Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor's degree under John "Jack" R. Horner, one of the world's leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, "Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you." Schweitzer replied, "Jack, it's your dinosaur." [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

u See the interview with Mary Schweitzer on "60 Minutes" at www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI&feature =player_embedded

u "Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details ... ." Johan Lindgren et al., "Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur," PloS ONE, 5( 8 ) e11998, 2010.

q .   Mary H. Schweitzer et al., "Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

r .   "This discovery also provides the oldest evidence of in situ preservation of complex organic remains in a terrestrial vertebrate." Robert R. Reisz et al., "Embryology of Early Jurassic Dinosaur from China with Evidence of Preserved Organic Remains," Nature, Vol. 496, 11 April 2013, p. 210.

s .   "We present multiple lines of evidence [from multiple independent institutions] that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis. ... Transparent, flexible vessels were observed; some contained spherical microstructures, whereas others contained an amorphous red substance that is superficially similar to degraded blood products in vessels recovered from extant bone." Mary H. Schweitzer et al., "Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequence of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis," Science, Vol. 324, 1 May 2009, p. 626.

t . "What they found shocked them." Robert F. Service, "Signs of Ancient Proteins Seen Inside Dinosaur Bones." Science, Vol. 348, 12 June 2015, p. 1184.

u .   "University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (65–100 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grand Prairie, Alberta. ... 'As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin.' ... this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. ... But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years." Mark Ferguson, "Scientists Study Rare Dinosaur Skin Fossil at CLS," Press Release, Canadian Light Source, 26 April 2013.

v .   "There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?" Mary H. Schweitzer, "Blood from Stone," Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors cannot account for the supposed 67-million-year age of the soft tissue and blood Schweitzer found. The answer is simple; its age is only 1/10,000th of that age. She and the editors don't understand the flood and the origin of Earth's radioactivity. [See pages 110–441.]

[Heinrich]

And somewhere Quaerem
m and his sidekick are out there furiously patching and proofing a response/ rebuttal.

[Sempronius]

And somewhere Quaerem
m and his sidekick are out there furiously patching and proofing a response/ rebuttal.

We are like mices that play in the kitchen until the cat comes back

[Stanley]

It is only since the 1980s that techniques (PCR in particular) facilitate analysis of the fragments of old DNA. It's a relatively new field enabled by technology.

"Old Earth" views shouldn't have a problem with aDNA science. Genuine science is open to discoveries. "Young Earth" views, however, would appear to need to fight aDNA.

Since the OP references Raul Cano, here's something from Toranzos, Santiago-Rodriguez, Cano and Fornaciari, "Proper authentication of ancient DNA is essential, yes; but so are undogmatic approaches", FEMS Microbiology Ecology 93(5) · April 2017. DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fix043.

It may also be surprising to the dogmatic, but it is entirely possible that complete intracellular genomes may remain undegraded over millenia, if these ancient microorganisms were rapidly dehydrated, as is the case of the process of natural mummification.

[Maximilian]

"Proper authentication of ancient DNA is essential, yes; but so are undogmatic approaches",

It may also be surprising to the dogmatic, but it is entirely possible that complete intracellular genomes may remain undegraded over millenia, if these ancient microorganisms were rapidly dehydrated, as is the case of the process of natural mummification.

"Millenia"?? What are millenia? Millenia are not even a rounding error in the time scales we're discussing. Even young-earth creationists admit that there have been millenia.

Take a few millenia and then multiply that by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or even by millions. Then we can start talking.