It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Amagnon
reply to post by StallionDuck
Yes - there is a serious problem with radio carbon dating, and all dating systems that rely on nuclear decay. The problem is the assumption that decay rates are constants - there is a great deal of evidence that they are NOT constant. The evidence is usually swept under the rug because of the huge amount of inconvenience it would cause if they were not constant.
I am no creationist - I am simply looking at evidence - especially the variation in half lives as determined in different parts of the world and at different times. The explanation of experimental error is not a good enough explanation, nuclear decay rates are effected by something that we dont yet understand - and it seems that decay rates were much higher in the past.
I think the earth is far younger than we think, perhaps 1 billion years - perhaps even less.
CB328
we are never going to get anywhere if we just have blind faith in whatever the system tells us to believe
Like blindly believing in religious dogma that's not based on anything logical?
And if fossils with skin are young, then what about the thousands that don't have skin and feathers?
Seriously, anyone who believes in young earth theory has mental problems.
GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Phage
Well thats not correct. It could very well be true considering carbon dating has a limit. We could be talking a could dozen million years as opposed to a couple hundred million.
The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. The extraction of protein from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed. [14]
Also see: Pubmed
DNA codes for proteins; proteins are not DNA.
www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu...
Phage
reply to post by soficrow
DNA codes for proteins; proteins are not DNA.
Yes. I know.
That's why I said there is no DNA.
Feathers and soft tissues[edit]
Megalapteryx didinus head
Several remarkable examples of moa remains have been found which exhibit soft tissues (muscle, skin, feathers), that were preserved through desiccation when the bird died in a naturally dry site (for example, a cave with a constant dry breeze blowing through it). Most of these specimens have been found in the semi-arid Central Otago region, the driest part of New Zealand. These include:
Dried muscle on bones of a female Dinornis robustus found at Tiger Hill in the Manuherikia River Valley by gold miners in 1864[44] (currently held by Yorkshire Museum)
Several bones of Emeus crassus with muscle attached, and a row of neck vertebrae with muscle, skin and feathers collected from Earnscleugh Cave near the town of Alexandra in 1870[45] (currently held by Otago Museum)
An articulated foot of a male Dinornis giganteus with skin and foot pads preserved, found in a crevice on the Knobby Range in 1874[46] (currently held by Otago Museum)
The type specimen of Megalapteryx didinus found near Queenstown in 1878[44] (currently held by Natural History Museum, London; see photograph of foot on this page)
The lower leg of Pachyornis elephantopus, with skin and muscle, from the Hector Range in 1884;[35][46] (currently held by the Zoology Department, Cambridge University)
The complete feathered leg of a Megalapteryx didinus from Old Man Range in 1894[47] (currently held by Otago Museum)
The head of a Megalapteryx didinus found near Cromwell sometime prior to 1949[48] (currently held by the Museum of New Zealand).
Two specimens are known from outside the Central Otago region:
A complete foot of Megalapteryx didinus found in a cave on Mount Owen near Nelson in 1980s[49] (currently held by the Museum of New Zealand)
A skeleton of Anomalopteryx didiformis with muscle, skin and feather bases collected from a cave near Te Anau in 1980.[50]
Preserved Megalapteryx foot, Natural History Museum
In addition to these specimens, loose moa feathers have been collected from caves and rockshelters in the southern South Island, and based on these remains, some idea of the moa plumage has been achieved. The preserved leg of Megalapteryx didinus from the Old Man Range reveals that this species was feathered right down to the foot. This is likely to have been an adaptation to living in high altitude, snowy environments, and is also seen in the Darwin’s Rhea, which lives in a similar seasonally snowy habitat.[6] Moa feathers are up to 23 centimetres (9 in) long, and a range of colours have been reported, including reddish-brown, white, yellowish and purplish.[6] Dark feathers with white or creamy tips have also been found, and indicate that some moa species may have had plumage with a speckled appearance.[51]
In 2008, a Japanese team found usable DNA in the brains of mice that had been frozen for 16 years. They hope to use similar methods to find usable mammoth DNA.[107] In 2011, Japanese scientists announced plans to clone mammoths within six years.[108] In 2009, the Pyrenean Ibex (a subspecies of the Spanish ibex) was the first extinct animal to be cloned back to life; the clone lived for only seven minutes before dying of lung defects.[109] As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future.
Contrary to the well-known phrase, 'As rare as hens' teeth,' the researchers say they have found a naturally occurring mutant chicken called Talpid that has a complete set of ivories.
The team, based at the Universities of Manchester and Wisconsin, have also managed to induce teeth growth in normal chickens -- activating genes that have lain dormant for 80 million years.
But we're talking about dinosaurs. Not thousands of years. Hundreds of millions.
eh if i had to guess i wuld say that snippets of DNA were present just not large segments of intact code. with modern DNA handling technology and techniques what dna remained could be spliced back together directly or indirectly.
HomeBrew
StallionDuck
Is it possible that the dino lived more recently than believed? Is it possible that the earth isn't as old as it's said to be?
I'm not ignorant enough to say flat out 'NO' as if I were blinded with an agenda to stomp and kill any out of the box thinking, however to answer both of the questions above, it dose seem unlikely. Over time they may discover new methods of dating or some otherwise previously unknown factors that may change the date of the earth, but I find it extremely unlikely it would do so drastically. Same with the Dinosaurs, but just because they have not found any beyond a certain archeological dating point does not mean it is impossibly so.
Either way, the presented info in the OP is quite interesting!edit on 7-3-2014 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)
even if this is so or even if it remains so we still have probably about 95 percent of therapod DNA already available through living proxies. actually possibly more. many of the missing genes may well be present in the junk portions of living relatives chromosomes.
Phage
reply to post by stormbringer1701
But we're talking about dinosaurs. Not thousands of years. Hundreds of millions.
eh if i had to guess i wuld say that snippets of DNA were present just not large segments of intact code. with modern DNA handling technology and techniques what dna remained could be spliced back together directly or indirectly.
No cells have been recovered, just proteins. Collagen. No DNA.
peter vlar
What evidence is there that decay rates were much higher in the past? I just looked through an abstract from Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins of Purdue University who postulated in 2008 that certain decay “constants” are influenced by the Sun and that there was a correlation with the distance from the Sun to the Earth. They think that in January, when the Earth is closest, the decay rate was faster; in July, when the Earth is farthest, it was slower. However they are unable to describe or show any evidence of a mechanism that could cause this.
Amagnon
Yes - there is a serious problem with radio carbon dating, and all dating systems that rely on nuclear decay. The problem is the assumption that decay rates are constants - there is a great deal of evidence that they are NOT constant. The evidence is usually swept under the rug because of the huge amount of inconvenience it would cause if they were not constant.
I am no creationist - I am simply looking at evidence - especially the variation in half lives as determined in different parts of the world and at different times. The explanation of experimental error is not a good enough explanation, nuclear decay rates are effected by something that we dont yet understand - and it seems that decay rates were much higher in the past.
I think the earth is far younger than we think, perhaps 1 billion years - perhaps even less.
WeAre0ne
Where they unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime? Or, time dilation? Supposedly, time itself will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity.
Radioactive decay is affected by time dilation...
Maybe when the Earth is closer to the Sun, there is a stronger gravitational field causing decay rates to increase. When the Earth is further from the Sun, the gravitational field is weaker, causing decay rates to decrease.
Now here is a funny thought...
What if Earth was a lot younger than we all imagine. Many years ago, Earth was moving at a slower velocity, or had a stronger field of gravity, or was in a stronger field of gravity, and that caused all decay rates to be extremely high. Then over time Earth started to increase velocity, or move into a lower field of gravity, or lost gravity, and that gave us our current decay rates.
That would mean our dating techniques would show the Earth was billions of years old, when really it was less, because time was moving faster than it is now causing time dilation.
That would mean all our dating techniques that revolve around radioactive decay rates are useless. Unless we can prove the Earth has always been traveling the same velocity, or exited in the same strength of gravitational field, or had itself a lesser or stronger gravity field.
edit on 9-3-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)