One of the proofs to say the World Cycle is of only 5,000 years old?

[Guest guest]

Molecular History Research Center

Why Are Amino Acids Still Found in Fossils? Why is it that amino acids are

still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of

years? It might be natural to expect that amino acids would be found in fossils.

But this is only true if the fossils are not too old because amino acids break

down with time. According to the Bible, a global flood that distroyed the whole

world, took place less than 5000 years ago. So if we take our hints from

Scripture, the fossils that were buried during this flood have only been around

for 5000 years. Only when we assume the long ages, that hundreds of millions of

years have passed since the fossils were buried, do we find the presence of

intact amino acids in fossils incredible.

This question was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one

ever came up with a viable answer.

Amino acids should not be found in fossils. They should survive only a few

million years at best (Abelson 1956, 1957). So the question, why are they there?

is an extremely important question, it is an enigma!

Because all detectable levels of many amino acids are expected to survive only

a few million years, some have suggested that these amino acids found in older

fossils are not actually from the fossil itself. The presence of amino acids

could very well be a recent contamination.

This idea makes a lot of sense since the fossils are too old, according to the

standard paradigm, to have intact amino acids in them. So various research

groups set about trying to investigate the possibility that the amino acid

presence of older fossils is really a contamination.

Silurian graptolites, which are estimated to be 400-430 million years old by

the usual evolutionary conventional age, has been found to contain detectable

levels of amino acids that are indeed residual in nature (Florkin 1969). They

come from the original proteins when the fossil was buried.

Another group have looked at shells as old as Jurassic, 135-180 million year

by conventional age, and found that they contain amino acids that are bound as

protein and peptides (Akiyama and Wyckoff 1970). So, since the amino acids are

part of the protein and peptide structure of the fossil itself, it is clear that

the amino acids are residual in nature. The amino acids came from the fossil

when it was buried, not by some contamination process later on when the fossil

was buried in the ground.

Because the evidence was so strong and striking, many started to suggest that

the amino acids may survive much longer because they are associated within large

macromolecules. The protein molecule would create a local environment that would

increase the stability of the amino acids. What they were suggesting was that

the fossil matrix somehow holds the amino acid molecules together so they do not

spontaneously decompose as would be expected on the basis of their binding

energies.

As can be seen in the graph to the left or above, the difference in

survivability of amino acids that are associated within large macromolecules

such as wood, bone, coral and dung, and amino acids that are free in nature; are

very small. Most of the points on the graph, whether referring to the free

component or an associated component, fit into the same pattern.

I think this is amazing! Because the long ages supported by the evolutionary

process is not questioned, researchers are forced to try to come up with

unlikely possibilities. They are forced to acknowledge that the amino acids must

have survived for hundreds of millions of years so now they have to come up with

a reason why they are present!

The graph above illustrates the evidence concerning the racemization of

various amino acids suggesting that the variation of amino acid levels found in

fossils is due to factors such as heat and not their differences in ages. See my

Amino Acid Dating page to hear more.

Another issue, very similar to the question why amino acids are still found in

fossils, Concerns DNA. Why is DNA still present in fossils? There is even the

presence of DNA and bacterial spores in fossils which are still viable!

Bacterial have been grown up from fossils that are thought to be hundreds of

millions of years old!

 

DNA

Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki have discovered and have actually revived

(brought back to life!) over 1,000 types of bacteria and other microorganisms.

Some of the life-forms date as far back as 135 million years which was the time

of the dinosaurs. Can DNA survive that long? Many point to the plain physics of

degrading DNA over time and state that organisms cannot survive for millions of

years without having the bases of the DNA, which constitutes the genetic code,

degrade to such an extent that the organisms would no longer be viable.

So, is the presence of amber preserved DNA that is still capable of producing

viable bacteria and other microorganisms, evidence that the specimen is in fact

very young? That is hard to say. There are many who dismiss all claims of

ancient bacteria as modern contamination. Others, however seem to dismiss the

problems that the effect of time has on DNA and say, 'It must have survived,

because here it is'. Neither group entertains the thought that the time factor

might be off several orders of magnitude.

Of course the story of Noah in the Bible suggests that these organisms were

buried during the global flood, less than 6000 years ago. The young age of the

specimens would allow the DNA to still have its original code largely unaffected

by time.

For an interesting introduction to this topic read the news article "Ancient

Bacteria Brought Back to Life" by R. Monastersky in Science News Volume 147,

Number 20, May 20, 1995, p. 308.

Another interesting article: "Prehistoric bacteria revived from buried salt"

by J. Travis in Science News Volume 155, June 12, 1999, p. 373. In this article,

J. Travis has interviewed such men as William D. Rosenzweig and Russell H.

Vreeland of Penn. University who have now announced to have isolated and revived

bacteria from salt deposits that is 250 million years old. Also in the paper, a

researcher is mentioned, who is said to have been ahead of his time claimed,

back in the 1960s, to have revived bacillus and other bacteria from salt

deposits more than 500 million years old.

So now we have bacterial spores lasting for 250 million years and maybe as

long as 500 million years. Is that possible?

You can be sure that this debate over viable fossil DNA will persist. I

especially like what Melanie R. Mormile from the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory in Richland, Wash. said: (I must tell you that Melanie has herself

reported salt-derived microbes of at least 97 million years old in age)

"Whenever anyone claims they have revived organisms that are millions of years

old, she says, you've got to sit back and go, 'Wow, that's incredible. How can

that be?' "

I think this is amazing! Because the long ages supported by the evolutionary

process is not questioned, researchers are forced to try to come up with

unlikely possibilities. They are forced to acknowledge that the DNA must have

survived for hundreds of millions of years so now they have to come up with a

reason why they are present!

 

To know about the complete world Cycle please visit: http://www.bkwsu.org

 

 

 

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.