Something interesting I just heard… Scientists have apparently just found DNA in a dinosaur bone. Unfortunately for them, this may work against their own presuppositions, as from what I hear (and this is completely unproven on my side) DNA cannot survive 10,000 years. Sooo…. if they found DNA in the bone, then the bone cannot be millions of years old. Interesting.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ramblings, Rumblings, and Ruminations 
Yes, interesting of course.. .but it is an estimate to know that it would last 10,000 years- no one has done that experiment yet… again theory.
but how would 10,000 years turn into millions?
On a somewhat related note, Simcha Jacobovici stated in James Cameron’s Discovery Channel program, concerning the alledged “lost tomb of Jesus”, that “DNA evidence has been collected from the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene” and “DNA analysis has proven that Jesus son of Joseph and Mariamene were not siblings and therefore could have been husband and wife.”
When the average man hears “DNA” they think “100% truthful accuracy”, don’t they?
As a result all discernment skills are abandoned.
The actual TRUTH was that they DID NOT take DNA samples from any bones, because they were not allowed to. They were reburied according to Orthodox law. And, secondly, it is NOT possible to obtain a DNA sample from an ossuary! The statement by Jacobovici that this was done was an out and out LIE! Why aren’t people held accountable for “bad science” and outright lying?
Here I am, living up to my namesake.
It’s unlikely that scientists could find DNA in a dinosaur bone due to the process of fossilization. Fossilization means that whats left of the dinosaur become rock and the organic material rots away. In other words, when palentologists dig up bones, they aren’t digging up literal bones. They’re digging up rock shaped bones, while the bone itself has vanished. DNA could thus not reside in a fossil because rocks don’t have DNA because they are non-organic. I think you might have read the report where they found red bloods cells in a fossil. Its possible that what happened was they found bones and upon further inspection, found fossilized red bloods cells. Organic matter can be fossilized but it has occur very quickly before it rots away. Even if they found DNA, it wouldn’t be terribly useful. Most likely it would only a partial fragment and would be useless. Even if it were complete, it would be almost impossible to use for cloning, as there is no viable subject to lay its egg. Though birds are related, even an ostrich can not lay an egg the size of football (the blood found was that of T-rex.) As for reptiles, the only repitle closely enough related to dinosaurs is the tuatara, which is very rare and is more of a “cousin of cousin” species to dinosaurs and anyway, it still can’t lay an egg that big! So while it is an interesting story, I’m not very worried.
Of course it would be possible, our genes came from a long line of predecessors. We get out gene’s from the previous generation, which implies that our gene’s come from one of the successful lines over millions and millions of years. It isn’t that when the dinosaurs because extinct there was absolutely no life whatsoever, not even bacteria. That’s preposterous, there must have been some survivors and they went on to reproduce.
I suggest you watch Richard Dawkins’ documentary called ‘the genius of darwin’, a 3 part series where he spends some time talking about dna and genetics, with one of the lead researchers on the Human Genome project (the scientific effort that decoded the human DNA)
Every living thing had some form of dna, ours is much more evolved that previous life forms, because of evolution.
You, sir, are factually wrong.
Sean
I think you might have misunderstood him. What he saying was that a single dinosaur bone could not survive intact, free from fossilization and decay for thousands of years because it would deteriorate and decay. He isn’t arguing about DNA as a whole existing for millions of years. It is the diference between saying “Indian garb could not have lasted thousands of years”, (wrong, they still wear them today, and are taught how to make them as part of the culture), than if one were to say, “A specific piece of Indian clothing could not have lasted thousands of years ” (true, because it will decay and rot.)