Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Young earth DNA
06-28-2010, 09:15 AM
Post: #1
Young earth DNA
DNA supposedly can be preserved only for about 10,000 years.

Dinosaurs supposedly died out millions of years ago.

So how have scientists discovered DNA in dinosaur fossils?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2010, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2010 09:24 AM by kevlar.)
Post: #2
RE: Young earth DNA
Where in the Holy Scriptures is DNA mentioned. Surely DNA must be the work of the Devil or it would have been mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. I don't trust DNA!! Tongue

????????????????
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2010, 09:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2010 10:25 AM by Raphael.)
Post: #3
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 09:15 AM)jfla Wrote:  DNA supposedly can be preserved only for about 10,000 years.

where did you get that 10,000 year figure?

dna has been around for millions if not billions of years dude.
what is the archetypal importance of DNA?
is DNA the Holy Grail?
Angelic
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/2009/08...o-message/

namaste

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2010, 11:54 AM
Post: #4
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 09:15 AM)jfla Wrote:  DNA supposedly can be preserved only for about 10,000 years.

Dinosaurs supposedly died out millions of years ago.

So how have scientists discovered DNA in dinosaur fossils?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
They haven't found DNA, I don't know where you read that.

Otherwise, this find is controversial. Some people believe it to be contaminated with a bacterial biofilm (a mix of living and dead bacteria, as well as their organic excretions) which give the impression of living tissue.
The scientist who discovered it has a theory that the soft tissue was preserved in only a partially mineralised state by heavy metals leeching into the bone and stimulating the production of oxygen free radicals, which in turn would have altered the chemistry of the organic tissue causing much of it to polymerise in unusual ways creating a sort of durable plastic, which preserved the soft tissue structures while the rest of the bone mineralised as per normal.

The greatest strength is in resisting provocation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Post: #5
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 09:15 AM)jfla Wrote:  DNA supposedly can be preserved only for about 10,000 years.

Dinosaurs supposedly died out millions of years ago.

So how have scientists discovered DNA in dinosaur fossils?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

My rudimentary understanding is that DNA is nothing more than different types of polymers that are strung together to form a DNA sequence. It seems to me you could find "fossilized" DNA, but that DNA would not be viable in the sense that you could introduce it into a cell such that it could be "copied" (cloned). The record of the DNA sequence might be present, but the DNA itself is no longer there.

The article you reference also states that the scientist is not sure that the soft tissue DNA can even be separated from the material in which it was found.

Of course this pre-supposes that you believe that fossils are a record of prehistoric creatures that existed millions of years ago.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2010, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2010 03:42 PM by jfla.)
Post: #6
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 09:25 AM)Raphael Wrote:  where did you get that 10,000 year figure?

The NC professor mentioned in the link I gave made the claim in a Scientific American article.

Quote:dna has been around for millions if not billions of years dude.

I didn't say that DNA has only been around for 10,000. I said that DNA cannot be preserved for more than 10,000 years. The molecule degrades too much to be recovered from fossils any older than 10,000 years or so.

Quote:what is the archetypal importance of DNA?
is DNA the Holy Grail?

Nonsensical questions undeserving of serious consideration.
(06-28-2010 11:54 AM)KC Carter Wrote:  They haven't found DNA, I don't know where you read that.

Some people say that dinosaur DNA has been found.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/18/us/a-s...r-dna.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1..._15951710/

I just remembered what I had read previously. Sweitzer did not make the 10,000 year claim about DNA but rather soft tissue. Soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000 years or so.

But either way the issue of age remains. How can 10,000 year old material be found in the bones of a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil? Either we don’t really know what we think we know about how fossils are made- or dinosaurs only went extinct in the recent past- and the earth may not be as old as Darwinists believe it is.

Quote:Otherwise, this find is controversial.

Why should the claim be controversial- apart from the fact that it calls into question the Darwinian bias of mainstream scientists and historians?

Quote:Some people believe it to be contaminated with a bacterial biofilm (a mix of living and dead bacteria, as well as their organic excretions) which give the impression of living tissue.

I've seen the same claim made about the carbon-14 test on the Shroud of Turin. But the Shroud has spent hundreds of years being handled and displayed in public. Legitimate scientists go to great pains to not contaminate fossils.
(06-28-2010 11:59 AM)digipixel Wrote:  
(06-28-2010 09:15 AM)jfla Wrote:  DNA supposedly can be preserved only for about 10,000 years.

Dinosaurs supposedly died out millions of years ago.

So how have scientists discovered DNA in dinosaur fossils?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

My rudimentary understanding is that DNA is nothing more than different types of polymers that are strung together to form a DNA sequence. It seems to me you could find "fossilized" DNA, but that DNA would not be viable in the sense that you could introduce it into a cell such that it could be "copied" (cloned). The record of the DNA sequence might be present, but the DNA itself is no longer there.

The article you reference also states that the scientist is not sure that the soft tissue DNA can even be separated from the material in which it was found.

Of course this pre-supposes that you believe that fossils are a record of prehistoric creatures that existed millions of years ago.

You are thinking about trace fossils- things like footprints that are preserved when the organisms that made them were either still alive when they were made or were not fossilized themselves upon death.

I don’t know that DNA could be preserved in the way you are thinking- I don’t know that DNA can leave any trace fossils. But DNA can be preserved with its original chemical composition when its organism is preserved in an environment that prevents organic decay. Usually only part of an organism’s DNA is preserved so scientists can only make copies of the particular genes whose DNA code had been preserved. But I think entire DNA records have been found in insects preserved in amber- which would have encased the insects in a way that kept bacteria from causing them to rot so the DNA was not degraded.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2010, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 06-30-2010 10:06 AM by Raphael.)
Post: #7
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 03:03 PM)jfla Wrote:  
Quote:what is the archetypal importance of DNA?
is DNA the Holy Grail?

Nonsensical questions undeserving of serious consideration.

[Image: 4sacredsitesvatican2.jpg][Image: Arecibo_message_part_4.png]

you cannot see an analogy between an ARCHetypal Holy Grail and our DNA?
IGNORANT man.
regarding those images above taken from the link you OBVIOULSY did not go to?
representation of DNA encoded with binary message sent into space by Carl Sagan and Company is on your righteous RIGHT Praise
and the
representation of the HOLY GRAIL/DNA being transmitted by the Vatican to those with a bird's eye view, GOD?, is on your sinister LEFT.... Angel

EWE may NOT see it, but I SEE the TRUTH in those images.
(more found on the link below Angelic )
There is even a spot in St. Peter's Square for the HEAD in the Areicbo Message sent into space...by science gurus unlike IGNORANT EWE, YOU and U.

ever hear of the sinister dexter?
that would be LEFT/RIGHT to somebody who knows about Heraldry and Heroes and Knights on crusades, still today?

http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/2009/08...o-message/
go here and dispute what your inner EWE finds in regards to my claim the DNA = Holy Grail and other ARKetypal ARKS?
hARK can EWE hear the angels sing?
I can...

the frequencies are found in the low infra-red and high ultra-violet blue ranges...

Please either cut and paste what you want to discuss from that blog re: DNA = HOLY GRAIL, or I will just cut and paste /post the entire blog here and put it all up for discussion.
your choice IGNORANT science guru.

do EWE believe in the "jesus theory" too?
how about Space is a vacuum that the experts are now filling with dark matter, dark energy and Hans Alfven plasma?

well dude
I have more news worthy to help fill that IGNORANT space vacuum.

The sooner I fill the IGNORANT VACUUM with the TRUTH, maybe then we will have medium necessary to get the MESSAGE OUT?
Praise

...and in mi corner helping me out is...?
who do you have?

namaste/mesatan (matrix = aleph-beth zoup) Wink

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2010, 02:26 PM
Post: #8
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-28-2010 03:03 PM)jfla Wrote:  Some people say that dinosaur DNA has been found.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/18/us/a-s...r-dna.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1..._15951710/

I just remembered what I had read previously. Sweitzer did not make the 10,000 year claim about DNA but rather soft tissue. Soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000 years or so.
BYU, not a great source as they're LDS and so biased toward Creationism.
Soft tissue can be preserved indefinietly given the right conditions. There have been bacteria successfully resuscitated from Antarctic ice that are much older the 20,000 years,

(06-28-2010 03:03 PM)jfla Wrote:  But either way the issue of age remains. How can 10,000 year old material be found in the bones of a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil? Either we don’t really know what we think we know about how fossils are made- or dinosaurs only went extinct in the recent past- and the earth may not be as old as Darwinists believe it is.
She didn't say the organic compounds were 10,000 years old, she didn't give an age. Anyway, we don't date the Earth via fossils, we date the Earth via sediment deposition rates and radiometric analysis, then apply that known age to the fossil.

(06-28-2010 03:03 PM)jfla Wrote:  Why should the claim be controversial- apart from the fact that it calls into question the Darwinian bias of mainstream scientists and historians?
Darwin didn't make any comment about the age of the Earth, just pointed out evolution by natural selection. And it's controversial because she didn't carry out several tests she was meant to, and fudged some that she did carry out. It's right there in the article.

(06-28-2010 03:03 PM)jfla Wrote:  I've seen the same claim made about the carbon-14 test on the Shroud of Turin. But the Shroud has spent hundreds of years being handled and displayed in public. Legitimate scientists go to great pains to not contaminate fossils.
Scientists do not go to great pains not to contaminate fossils as conventional wisdom has it that there will be no surviving organic tissues in the fossil, just rock. The bone in question was deliberately snapped in half for transport, hardly avoiding contamination.

The shroud has been shown as a clever hoax, the head isn't in proportion to the body, the image isn't in the form it should be were a body wrapped in it, plus the C-14 test showed it to have originated in the Renaissance. Although I'll give you that the date is questionable.

The greatest strength is in resisting provocation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2010, 05:43 PM
Post: #9
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-30-2010 02:26 PM)KC Carter Wrote:  BYU, not a great source as they're LDS and so biased toward Creationism.

I could lodge the same complaint against all the public (and most private) universities in the country due to their bias toward Darwinism.

Quote:Soft tissue can be preserved indefinietly given the right conditions.

Which don’t include being encased in rock(?).

Quote:There have been bacteria successfully resuscitated from Antarctic ice that are much older the 20,000 years,

Again, not encased in rock.

Quote:She didn't say the organic compounds were 10,000 years old, she didn't give an age.

Where did I say she did? She said that she wouldn’t expect soft tissue to be preserved for more than 10,000 years or so. And she didn’t have to give an age for the dinosaur fossil where the soft tissue was found. The age of the dinosaur fossil is assumed to be 65 million years old or older based on what Darwinists say they know about the history of dinosaurs.

Quote:Anyway, we don't date the Earth via fossils, we date the Earth via sediment deposition rates and radiometric analysis, then apply that known age to the fossil.

Can sediment be any older than the organic remains it contains? If organic material that cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000 years is found in a certain layer of sediment, how can that sediment be any older than 10-20,000 years?

Quote:Darwin didn't make any comment about the age of the Earth, just pointed out evolution by natural selection.

On the contrary. His minute biological changes need a certain amount of time to add up in order for one species to give rise to another. And Darwin did offer an estimate for the age of the earth: (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physi...un_1.html) He used the observed rate of erosion for a valley in England to estimate the earth’s age at 300,000,000 years.

Quote:And it's controversial because she didn't carry out several tests she was meant to, and fudged some that she did carry out. It's right there in the article.

What specifically are you referring to? The only thing I detect as controversial is her unwillingness to tow the Darwinist party line.

Quote:Scientists do not go to great pains not to contaminate fossils as conventional wisdom has it that there will be no surviving organic tissues in the fossil, just rock. The bone in question was deliberately snapped in half for transport, hardly avoiding contamination.

Documentation? No legitimate paleontologist would destroy a fossil just so it can be transported. A leg bone from a T. rex would not be that big compared to other fossils and would be fairly easily transported. I saw the T. rex Sue in a nearby museum along with a complete fossil of a mammoth. I was much more impressed by the mammoth than I was by Sue, which was tiny in comparison.

Quote:The shroud has been shown as a clever hoax,

Documentation?

Quote:plus the C-14 test showed it to have originated in the Renaissance.

The carbon-14 test was a total joke. It was done 3 times by 3 separate laboratories but the sample for each laboratory was taken from the same place on the Shroud and the laboratories shared their results with each other before they were published. Instead of 3 separate tests it was the same test done 3 times. I don’t remember exactly what book I read this information in, but I think it was Ian Wilson’s The blood and the shroud: new evidence that the world's most sacred relic is real. You can also consult:

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-...bon-14.htm

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science...index.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-30-2010, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 06-30-2010 08:26 PM by Raphael.)
Post: #10
RE: Young earth DNA
(06-30-2010 05:43 PM)jfla Wrote:  
Quote:The shroud has been shown as a clever hoax,

Documentation?


why is everything about the jesus theory contentious?
everything

even the sAIN'Ts who came marching in doing the goose-step?
all made up too most of those sAIN'Ts
most of those saints are AIN'Ts that is for sure...to go along with the scripted HIS-story that supports your contentious *NO PROOF* theory called "jesus loves ewe"

those 4 Evangelists...sketchy at best as sAIN'Ts
representations of the zodiac they are....

st. george is a fraud for sure....
killing dragons in the middle ages....geeshhhhhhhhh

here is your proof the Shroud is more a VEIL...
http://antipas.net/13faq.htm

and what about EASTER dude...it is really about the MOON?
PASSOVER is...
http://antipas.net/easter.htm

jfla I got you figured out already
YOU are yet another IGNORANT human who IGNORES evidence that proves jesus was advertising camPAIN designed to increase market share and taxes, but EWE will clutch at any kind of evidence, new age, pagan, science, whatever, that suggests EWE have not been duped into a CULTure.

Duh
YOU are part of a sicko judeao/christian CULTure dude.
Judeao/christians were still hiding behind NAZI costumes, committing crimes against humanity, killing jews and other non-believers only 12 years before I was born....

sadly you are OBLIVIOUS to it all!

namaste

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Young Earth Creationists v Science Scientist 56 3,490 06-03-2014 04:49 PM
Last Post: Aviara
  Dna & controlled energy, a deathblow to atheism & evolution kaleb 30 4,434 10-27-2011 10:50 AM
Last Post: theMIDDLEway
  Improved DNA testing proves new dates for Aboriginal dispersal Visqueen 5 972 10-02-2011 05:36 PM
Last Post: Arjuna
  dna from outer space debunks abiogenesis Lamarckism 12 3,181 08-16-2011 11:06 AM
Last Post: Raphael
Exclamation The Miraculous Molecule DNA ahmetsecer 1 898 07-08-2009 10:02 PM
Last Post: Raphael
  very quiet on dino dna smellycat 36 4,793 02-07-2009 10:22 AM
Last Post: Pilgrim



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)