Isn t carbon dating used dinosaur bones

Rated 4.25/5 based on 987 customer reviews

These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals.” (Link) The minimum requirement for antibody binding to DNA is about 35-45 bp (Link).And, this isn’t really the first time that DNA fragments have been detected in dinosaur bones.In fact, according to Jack Horner back in 1995 (some ten years before Schweitzer’s discoveries) DNA fragments from dinosaur bones wasn’t exactly uncommon: “Getting DNA out of [dinosaur] bones is easy.We have the same thing Woodward has [Link]–we have DNA [to include fragments up to 174bp, ironically, which were sequenced by Woodward in 1994 who still believes these fragments to be dinosaur DNA despite all the controversy], but we can’t prove that it’s from a dinosaur…

isn t carbon dating used dinosaur bones-3

However, in order for Schweitzer’s proposed mechanism to work, water must deliver the iron and other key ingredients to the dinosaur tissues after death. Their conclusion is also quite interesting as well: “We lastly note perhaps the most disappointing absence in Dr. Assuming that the protein substances discussed are indeed dinosaurian soft tissue, it is also true that the C, H, N, O elemental makeup of the proteins are endogenous [they come from the dinosaur itself].If we find these proteins [which have been found and sequenced since this 1995 interview with Horner] it will be much more convincing that we have dinosaur DNA” (Link).So, now there is clear evidence of not only intact dinosaur soft tissues and cellular structures, but subcellular structures, sequenceable proteins and even sizable fragments of DNA (see image below).Reactivity of antibodies to ostrich cells is enhanced, consistent with the presence of a greater quantity of immunoreactive material in these extant cells. canadensis; and H, ostrich osteocytes showing positive response to propidium iodide (PI), a DNA intercalating dye, to a similar small region of material internal to cell. canadensis; and I, ostrich cellular response to 4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI), another DNA-specific stain.(Link) So, all kinds of alternative explanations were forwarded in literature as a possible explanation for Schweitzer’s findings.

Leave a Reply