I wasn’t talking about that. We weren’t talking about that at the time I posted it. When I mentioned it to you it wasnt in response to that particular fossil. So idk what the fork you are talking about.
Why not? It’s a “large carnivorous reptile”, possibly from the Americas, and few if any Englishmen would have actually seen an alligator, so how would they know it wasn’t one?
They may have called it a dragon even though it has no wings and the wrong sort of limbs, but so what? They’d just as readily have called a Nile crocodile “dragon” too. Or “behemoth”. Or “alligator”. Or “leviathan”.
I note you’re willing to reply to this, but not to repeated requests regarding which hadrosaur specimen you claim isn’t contaminated.
It doesn’t matter anyway. This is hopelessly failed research based on these kinds of calibrations
" (a) Estimating the half-life of mtDNA in bone
The calibrated radiocarbon ages of the 158 fossils documented a Mid- to Late Holocene accumulation, ranging from 602 to 7839 BP, calibrated calendar years before present (‘present’ defined as CE 1950; figure 2; electronic supplementary material, table S1)."
As long as your instrumentation is calibrated thusly, you will have circular reasoning involved. So, never mind. For my part, I am not interested.
No, you’ll find I have not misrepresented anything here. Fiorillo may say “within”, but based upon Mori’s characterization as well as Davies’ in 1987, that rust-colored stain is mainly limited to the outside, and not the inside of the bones. It is insufficient to honestly call the bones “permineralized”, and that is why Mori has been unwilling to do so.
Thanks for confirming you misrepresented Fiorillo’s thoughts on the specimen. It doesn’t matter what Mori thinks in this context. You said Fiorillo thought it was permineralized because of the color on the outside of the bone. But he clearly thinks it’s permineralized because of what he thinks is within it.
To any scientist that does any lab work, this isn’t true even on the face of it. There is always analytic error and sources of methodological error.
Let’s look at this problem carefully. For there to be no C14 we have to first assume that no nitrogen atoms in the sample were converted to 14C by surrounding radiation. Afterall, this is the process that creates 14C in our upper atmosphere. Any nitrogen in the sample could also be converted through this process.
Second, we have to rule out the possibility that environmental carbon is introduced into the sample after collection and during carbonization. Obviously, there are many steps where this can occur, including chemical reactions that will covalently attach atmospheric carbon dioxide to the sample. The method of extracting carbon from the sample will also introduce trace amounts of modern carbon. There is also contamination of the fossil with carbon found in the ground itself, such as percolating water.
Third, we have the instrument itself. Carbon from past samples and environmental contamination can be present in the chamber being used for detection.
There is absolutely no expectation that a fossil billions of years old will have zero 14C. There is every reason to believe that a sample from a billions of years old fossil will have detectable amounts of 14C.
4 Likes
What amount would be predicted?
Yep. And he thinks just by saying Nelson decontaminated the specimen makes this all disappear. When it is known decontamination processes themselves can add carbon to the specimen…
2 Likes
Depends entirely on the fossil, the environment it is found in, the method used for extracting carbon, and the instrument.
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: How Science Works: One Anomaly Versus A Mountain of Evidence
Your paper does nothing to suggest that DNA would be retreivable from bones that are >= 65 ma.
Much less collagen, which has also been retrieved!
See:
No, not if is it truly permineralized as you folks keep arguing. Sure, there would be some, but not to that extent.
Depends entirely on the fossil, the environment it is found in, the method used for extracting carbon, and the instrument.
I would be interested in seeing any papers that specifically address the predicted amount of detectable C14 in specimens that are millions of years old. And their test results.
1 Like
To what extent?
Me too! And the reason you [evolutionists, that is] will not have this data available is because no is looking for it…but you should be…!
1 Like
LOL, exactly. You don’t have data of any kind. So really none of you have room to even speak to this subject matter.
What were these specimens pMC?
What are you on about? You said there should be some C14. But not to this extent. I’m asking what extent. What were the levels?
I would suggest starting here:
You’ll have to explain to me why it matters what Fiorillo says, but somehow it doesn’t matter what Mori and Davies both say.