I wrote:
It might be possible.That’s within an order of magnitude for estimates.
The paper I referenced estimated about a 1MYR range. The plant samples listed were about 17-20MYR. Here’s the section from the paper I referenced:
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.
I mentioned previously that these chemical degradation estimates are secondary to empirical determination as we understand chemical reaction rates are greatly affected by the immediate environments. I’m not surprised that they may be off by roughly an order of magnitude. Of course, the further back sequences are found, the greater the need for independently repeating sequencing results under strict conditions for validation.
Now, this question has been asked previously, but I’m having a hard time understanding how estimates of DNA degradation factor into the age of the Earth and the universe. DNA degradation in an uncontrolled environment is a terrible clock. That is known. Aside: Even then, ages well in excess of 10K years is supported.
Likewise stalactite formation. They aren’t great clocks, though one could calibrate formation against radiometric or isotopic markers. You originally referenced documents that mistakenly used formation rates for cement or gypsum-based stalactites as examples of rapid growth, chemistries which do not apply to formation in limestone caves. Now you are using the more consensus ‘upper-range’ average of about 0.13 mm/year. That’s good, but oddly, you apply calculations against an ‘average’ stalactite length. I sense that you are doing this to arrive at a figure of about 5K years to buttress a YEC viewpoint. However, to support that reasoning, when faced with multi-meter long examples, you would have to also assert that all the longer stalactites grow much faster. But can you back that up? Oxygen isotope measurements that correlate with local temperatures through warming and cooling periods can track such periods in stalactites back about about 180K years. Radiometric methods date some to well beyond 1 MYR.
And still, how stalactite growth or length indicates anything about the overall age the Earth, besides strongly arguing against a 10K year-old work, escapes me. Absolute growth rates can vary, within certain constraints. And we know that caves form and caves collapse as geological events perpetuate the cycle of cave growth and demise. Some caverns persist for a mere eyeblink in geologic time while others may persist for millions of years. If you are investigating the age of a cave, you’re not saying anything about the age of the Earth, beyond the simple fact that the Earth would be older.
Or is this instead an example of ‘poor estimates’ used to date the age of things? Hardly. Bad clocks make bad clocks. Sometimes one can calibrate some of the poor clocks under certain local conditions, but this argument doesn’t ‘extrapolate’ to other, better clocks and physical phenomena.
As I wrote near the top of this thread:
There are rational extrapolations and there are dodgy ones. GCS was wondering about the rational extrapolations behind dating measurements that have been back-checked, validated numerous ways and widely accepted by knowledgeable experts in the many fields the research covers.
And then there are others, like dscccc’s ‘Compatible with young earth’ extrapolations, which are not consistent, do not agree well with the overwhelming preponderance of data, are not remotely justified by historical or archaeological knowledge and are proposed primarily to rescue a dogma.
