DNA in “ancient” fossils

The Evidence

1) DNA, without the repair machinery of a living cell, breaks down by itself, at an observed measurable rate which would mean that after 10,000 years there should be none left.

2) DNA has been found in fossils that have been dated by scientists and geologists as millions of years old. I have listed several, but Michael Oard states that there have been a ‘barrage of discoveries’, and that ‘we are being bombarded by numerous scientific reports describing the discovery of ‘living’ organisms in ‘old’ rocks.

DNA found in magnolia leaf fossils (20 million yrs old)
Live bacteria cultured from the gut of a bee fossilised in amber (25 – 40 million yrs old)
Bacteria also resuscitated from soils and vegetable matter trapped in amber (25 – 35 million yrs old)
Red blood cells discovered in bones of a T-Rex (at least 65 million years old)
Salt-resistant bacteria isolated and revived from a salt inclusion (250 million yrs old)

The Problem

It is clear that these two pieces of evidence, as they stand, do not match. We have a problem. Either we are missing something in our understanding of DNA decay, or there is a problem with the aging of the fossils.

The Solutions

1) Evolutionary scientists, having complete faith in their assumptions of the evolutionary timeline, cannot see a problem in the aging of the fossils. Therefore, for them, the problem is with the DNA decay. They cannot dispute the chemistry of decay under normal circumstances, and so their logical deduction is that there MUST be some special conditions which can SOMEHOW ‘hold-up’ the breakdown of DNA quite dramatically, although there has until now been no definite demonstration of how any conceivable ‘special conditions’ can hold up the breakdown of this complicated, fragile chemical.

2) For the Creationist, we have no problem with the DNA decay rate, as it fits with a young earth timeline. Therefore, the problem lies with the aging of the fossils. Considering that the DNA decay rate is scientifically observable and measurable, whereas the aging of fossils is based on an initial assumption, surely the open-minded scientist should be more willing to rely on the DNA decay rate than the aging of the fossils. We know why they don’t, as that would undermine the whole evolutionary worldview.

Your Choice

Considering the evidence, seeing the problem and pondering the two solutions, the question is now yours – which solution seems more rational and more likely? It’s your choice.

[Taken from articles by Carl Wieland ‘DNA Dating’ 1992, Michael Oard ‘Aren’t 250m yr old live bacteria a bit much?’ 2001 and Don Batten ‘Bugs in brine’ 2002, all from Creation magazine]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s