Well documented "millions of years old" DNA, Bacteria, Proteins and Soft tissue.

Started by Xavier, September 26, 2018, 08:22:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xavier

To old earthers and evolutionists: (1) how long can DNA last after the organism dies?

(1a) If you agree it is just about 10,000 years, as evolutionists were admitting not even three decades ago, will you agree once and for all that a single well documented discovery of fossilized dna in creatures alleged to be "millions of years old" falsifies evolution and that timescale? (1b) If now you change your story and allege that dna, protein, collagen, soft tissue etc - even living bacteria! - can supposedly survive tens or supposed 100s of millions of years, then it's clearly evolutionists who are on the retreat as science advances.

If 1b, why do you keep changing your story every few decades? This is beginning to feel awfully similar to the Piltdown man hoax.

Creation scientists were proven right once, and will be once more.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html#wp6203802

"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"

Footnotes:

Quotea .   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 381.

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 112–443.]
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Xavier on September 26, 2018, 08:22:57 AM
To old earthers and evolutionists: (1) how long can DNA last after the organism dies?

(1a) If you agree it is just about 10,000 years, as evolutionists were admitting not even three decades ago, will you agree once and for all that a single well documented discovery of fossilized dna in creatures alleged to be "millions of years old" falsifies evolution and that timescale? (1b) If now you change your story and allege that dna, protein, collagen, soft tissue etc - even living bacteria! - can supposedly survive tens or supposed 100s of millions of years, then it's clearly evolutionists who are on the retreat as science advances.

I see.  You had zero answers for anything I asked you on the other thread.  Yet that doesn't bother you at all.  You just return with yet another YEC argument we've all seen a thousand times.

What you need to understand is that you need to show that creationism explains the data better, if you want to make a scientific case for creationism, not just make "gotcha"-type arguments against "evolutionists" tinged with triumphalistic rhetoric.  You can't just show problems with "evolutionism" when the exact same problems exist for creationism (as, for instance, is the case with the argument about rotation of galaxies.)

Of course fossils can't be older than DNA in them.  But what is the creationist answer for how long DNA can last?  If it is 10,000 years, how come DNA isn't found in every single fossil, since there isn't sufficient time for it to decay?  Will you admit once and for all that this lack falsifies creationism?  Of course not.  If it is 2,000 years, we shouldn't find any DNA at all anywhere, at least certainly not in animals buried in the flood, yet we do.  Will you admit once and for all that this lack falsifies creationism?  Of course not.  (This problem is exacerbated by the fact that if accelerated nuclear decay is used as an explanation for mother-daughter isotope ratios, as it is for many creationists, DNA decay rates should have been much, much faster than we see today; we should simply see no DNA whatsoever at all, anywhere.)  No matter how you slice it, creationists must appeal to some as-yet-unknown very special conditions which protect DNA from degradation via radiation in certain circumstances - just like evolutionists.  And so you are in the same boat.

Now, if you could actually come up with a coherent creationist explanation for the DNA and lack of DNA in fossils which doesn't involve recourse to such hand-waving, then you'd have a powerful argument.  But what irritates me is, not only that no such argument is made, creationists don't even seem to realize the need of making such an argument.

Maximilian

That's a lot of sources.

I notice one thing, however, in the sources: the movie "Jurassic Park." It's actually mentioned in footnote u, but I was already thinking about the movie when I saw so many dates from the nineties.

What this tells me is that evolution is not only a pseudo-science, it is a Hollywood pseudo-science. The science is driven by the popular culture of the day. What is acceptable to report and what is not acceptable to report is controlled by what's being shown on the silver screen.

Finding dinosaur DNA in amber was the topic of the day because of the movie. And so in the nineties you saw reports of finding dinosaur DNA.

But if finding dinosaur DNA was perceived as supporting creationism, as the 2 scientists joke about in the footnote, then any reporting of such information is completely verboten.