The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils
this one I presume
No you didn’t. You didn’t post Mori’s reply to Fiorello at all, just a few quote-mined passages. I am the only one who posted Mori’s reply words in their entirety.
Amazing you would try to claim something so obviously false.
1 Like
I think he did actually
Well no, that was me who posted Mori’s whole published reply. I linked to it too.
He did quote a little bit of it on post 90
Yes but he just claimed he quoted everything Mori said which he obviously didn’t.
He’s claiming he didn’t quote mine Mori which he obviously did.
Ah ok. I’m getting a bit lost with all the posts now
Oh, now I get it. You are trying to argue (via this paper) that soft tissue is not soft tissue. Am I correct?
+I can conclude one more thing. You can’t explain what is unpermineralized in this fossil bed any more than you can explain the multitudinous varieties of other soft tissue finds.
“Even rough estimates such as this imply that sequenceable bone DNA fragments may still be present more than 1 Myr after deposition in deep frozen environments. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that future research may identify authentic DNA that is significantly older than the current record of approximately 450–800 kyr from Greenlandic ice cores”
Oh I love this kind of conclusion which is no conclusion at all. First the paper makes an appeal to a certain equation of DNA decay which no-one has duplicated and published. Second when they finally come up with a number it is a mere 1MYA figure. Third they end by hoping to push that back further …to what??? You guessed it…70 MILLION YEARS
This is innacurate. You are misrepresenting Fiorillo. Here he is from the paper @Timothy_Horton linked to:
“ It is puzzling that Mori et al. (2016) state the bones are “typically uncrushed and unpermineralized” because these bones are indeed permineralized. As stated by Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010: 300) there is common to abundant occurrence of minerals such as pyrite, calcite, and chalcedony (microcrystalline quartz) within the dinosaur bones collected. All of these minerals are commonly introduced during the permineralization process”
There is NO WAY IN HELL you have read that paper, checked all the sources, etc. Come back in a month.
1 Like
And here it is folks…drum roll
And the “non-conclusion” is…
“We argue that equation (3.3) represents the best available approximation of the rate of mtDNA decay in fossil bone. Empirical data from a range of different depositional environments, also extending back into the Pleistocene, are now needed to further test and refine this model.”
Circular reasoning at its best. Please submit further research on this far-fetched conclusion.
I’ve come to learn this is YEC/ID favorite fall back when they don’t understand what they are looking at.
Come back when you actually have something meaningful to say about it. You won’t because all you’re good for are one-liners.
I guess I hit a nerve because clearly I do understand what I am looking at. They gave you 1 million years. Now you just have 69 more million to go. Maybe you will get there…who knows.
Seriously though. This paper is not for the discussion at hand. You misapplied the science they are trying to investigate.
If that’s what you really think, then no you don’t.
Preservation of organics is not for the discussion at hand? Okay.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I’m fairly certain you don’t, either. Who exactly are you suggesting I quoted or quote-mined?
Don’t broad brush it. The discussion here is centered around a supposed 70 million year old fossil. Your paper’s data cannot even begin to touch a discussion like that.