Dinosaur bones dated with carbon-14

This escaped my notice at the time (2012 August). We should definitely carbon date more fossils and ignore calls that this is a waste of time because we already know that fossils cannot contain carbon-14 except as a contaminant.

Coal and diamonds both contain radioactive carbon despite supposedly being too old. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years. So after 5700 years there is half the original amount of carbon-14 left. After 11500 years a quarter of the original amount. If we assume all the carbon in an object is carbon-14 (it is however only a fraction) we can get an extreme upper bound on how old it can be (carbon-14 decays into nitrogen so the known presence of carbon-12 lowers this upper bound considerably). If we measure any carbon-14 we know it must be younger than the extreme upper bound age, though it could be much younger.

So carbon-14 has been found in

1. Coal
2. Diamonds
3. Dinosaurs

All of which are claimed to be older than what they possibly can be. This refutes the argument for an ancient earth. The only response possible is contamination.

DNA in dinosaur bones

A recent study published in Bone (doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010) shows evidence of residual dinosaur DNA in dinosaur bones. They retrieved osteocytes (bone cells) from the bone and stained it for DNA.

The dinosaurs were Tyrannosaurus rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis.

Row 1 (ABC) is T. rex. Row 2 (DEF) is B. canadensis. Row 3 (GHI) is ostrich.

Column 1 (ADG) is a anti-DNA antibody stain. Column 2 (BEH) is propidium iodide, a DNA stain. Column 3 (CFI) is 4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride, a DNA stain.

Note that the stains are limited to the nucleus of the cell.

They also identified several proteins including histones which are closely associated with DNA.

They have not yet sequenced the DNA, though that would be of considerable interest.

Fossilised copulating turtles

Palaeontologists are at a loss to come up with the mechanism of death in fossilised copulating turtles. The paired turtles had been known for some time and, while mating had been hypothesised, the confirmation that each of the pairs were male and female, as well as some specific positioning, has strengthened the theory.

Male turtles of this species, like many of their modern relatives, have longer tails than females, said Joyce. Also, males were typically smaller than females, a trend clearly seen in the fossils. Finally, in seven of the nine pairs, the turtles are in direct contact along the edge of their shells just above their tails - and in two of those pairs, the male's tail wraps below the female's shell in mating position.

What mechanism would cause the death of 9 (!) pairs during mating? Toxic algal blooms; carbon dioxide in the water; other toxic substances. The proposal is oxygenated upper lake water and saturation of the lower lake water with carbon dioxide or other toxins. They claim this causes death during the act followed by preservation in the oxygen poor water. This seems a bit of a stretch, and so many pairs. It would be interesting to know if turtles stop mating during forced suffocation.

I prefer the creationist proposal for fossilisation: burial in sediments such as mud and lava flows during flooding and volcanic activity. Rapid death and conditions for fossil formation occur together. This explains the mechanism of fossilisation which does not usually occur when animals die; fossil graveyards; and why animals are found in situations such as eating, or giving birth.

Fraud and forgery in paleoanthropology

The fraud surrounding Piltdown man is well documented. In a recent article from the Answers Research Journal Jerry Bergman notes that not only fraud, but also abysmal science, infects the historical science of paleoanthropology.

Abstract

A review of the history of paleoanthropology leads to the conclusion that the discipline is far less objective than that for physics, chemistry, or even biology. The field is rife with controversy and fraud, including outright faking. Classic examples include Piltdown man and Hesperopithecus, but many other less well-known examples exist that are reviewed in this paper. Several well-documented examples are cited in some detail to illustrate the types of problems encountered, and the results of fraud in paleoanthropology.

The article is interesting not only for documenting the sorry state of alleged human evolution but also raging controversy arising from the hubris and self-aggrandisement of the players in this field. Bergman concludes,

In a field based on little empirical evidence, many assumptions, and strong personalities, the bone wars illustrate the conflicts common among scientists in this area. The unprofessional and at times even fraudulent behavior of the leading participants is far from what one would expect from highly trained professionals.