A 46,000-year-old worm found in Siberian permafrost was brought back to life, an

[Graybeard]

https://www.businessinsider.nl/a-46000-year-old-worm-found-in-siberian-permafrost-was-brought-back-to-life-and-started-having-babies/

General morphology of P. kolymaensis, female. Foto: PLOS Genetics

Scientists revived a 46,000-year-old worm that was living in Siberian permafrost.
When they brought it back to life, the worm started having babies.
Small worms like this are known to have the ability to shut down biological functions to survive.
Scientists discovered a female microscopic roundworm that has been stuck deep in Siberian permafrost for 46,000 years, the Washington Post reported. When they revived it, the worm started having babies via a process called parthenogenesis, which doesn't require a mate.

According to a press release, the worm spent thousands of years in a type of dormancy called cryptobiosis. In that state, which can last almost indefinitely, all metabolic processes pause, including "reproduction, development, and repair," per the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

In a study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Genetics, scientists reported that after sequencing the worm's genome, scientists said it belonged to an "undescribed species."

Previously, Plectus murrayi and Tylenchus polyhypnus nematodes were resurrected from moss and herbarium specimens after a few dozen years, according to Live Science.  This new species, however, called Panagrolaimus kolymaensis, was dormant for tens of thousands of years longer.

Deep sea biologist Holly Bik estimates there are millions of nematode species living in environments as diverse as ocean trenches, tundras, deserts, and volcanic soils. Scientists have only described 5,000 marine species so far.

William Crow, a nematologist at the University of Florida who was not involved in the study, told the Post that this worm could belong to a species that has gone extinct in the last nearly 50,000 years.

"However, it very well could be a commonly occurring nematode that no one got around to describing yet," Crow said.

The fact that the worm survived all of those years is not a shock to scientists, who have known for years that microscopic organisms, like the worm studied here, can stop their biological functions to survive even the harshest conditions, according to the press release.

"Altogether, our findings demonstrate that nematodes evolved mechanisms potentially allowing them to suspend life over geological time scales," the PLOS Genetics paper said.

[Ranger99]

Dang goofy scientists need to watch out
about what they do
Something they reanimate because of the
blankety blanking novelty of it might very well
have some kind of bacteria or something that
will be fatal to humans or livestock or both.
Science fiction books and shows have had
that very scenario as a subject for many years.
Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science

[Dee]

According to the Bible the earth is not quite 7,000 years old, so I'm gonna call bs on these scientists.

[darkgael]

According to the Bible the earth is not quite 7,000 years old, so I'm gonna call bs on these scientists.

The difference there is that those scientists can prove their claims. You cannot.

[Dee]

According to the Bible the earth is not quite 7,000 years old, so I'm gonna call bs on these scientists.

The difference there is that those scientists can prove their claims. You cannot.

No, the difference is, its totally impossible to determine if that worm is 46,000 years old. Nobody was there when it was born, and they didn't find its birth certificate. They are making that crap up as they go, and folks like you eat it up. 

[Dixie-Dude]

Scientists fudge numbers all the time.  My wife worked for a professor in college dating rocks.  They added time to what the actual carbon 14 dating said.  Same with climate numbers.  Some countries have said they added a few degrees to the numbers they actually gave to either the UN or someone doing climate change data.  Carbon in the atmosphere and rising temperatures are NOT all man made.  The earth has tilted closer to the sun by about 27".  The sun recently knocked out radio transmissions due to solar flare activity which heats up the atmosphere.  One volcanic eruption can spew out more carbon dioxide than all of man's activities in a year.  Can't trust all the modern so called science.  Look at Covid.  It has been proven by 3rd world countries who had a lower death rate that hydroxychloriquine and Ivermectin worked and was far cheaper than the $1,000 a vaccine the government paid the pharmacy companies. 

[Dee]

I've read some concerning carbon dating and simple weather climate changes do not help the carbon dating bs in the way of accuracy.

[darkgael]

here is a link to the paper discussing this find.
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010798

[ironglow]

  DG..Sorry, I didn't stay with your link..because... "I don't need any steenking cookies"..

   However, I am a supporter of the "big bang" theory.   

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So, God said,..."Let there be"...and BANG!..there it was!      

  Actually many of the later "scientific discoveries", may have been lifted from the Bible, especially when we realize that many of the ancient books
   of the Bible, were done in a poetic form.

  Some give Copernicus (1500s) credit for "discovering" that the earth is spherecal (popularly, "round").  Some claim the same for Galileo (1600s).
   Some even give the Greek Eratosthenes (about 200BC), credit for the "discovery"..

   Of course, all three could have easily plucked the same information from the book of Job...who some date as 1000 BC.
   
    "He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing."  (Job 26:7)

   Or they could have plagairized Isaiah (7th  century BC).

   "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  (Isaiah 40:22)

  Then there was the hydrologic cycle, Not well understood by the ancients, or even the Medievals..

  "  He binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not split open under them." (Job 26:

   "For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. (Job36:27,28)

  " Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,  (Job 38:37)

   Kng David (circa 1000 BC)  Wrote about mountains in the sea, and how geologic changes take place.  How could a leader of a tribe of
  "primitives" Gain such knowledge?  Yet he states in his psalms;

  "6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them."  (Psalm 104:6,8)

   Youy can and probably will, simply dismiss these pages, but in God's word there are still other things which "scientists" missed by thousands of years.

  But that is just fine, differences of opinion, experience and thought, are still allowed in the USA..but for how long ?      

   
 

 

   

   

   

[ironglow]

  "Science" is often slow to "catch up"!   Check this out...  ..And you don't need to accept "cookies"..

    https://biologos.org/articles/no-modern-science-is-not-catching-up-to-the-bible?gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw8symBhAqEiwAaTA__MBjHNbujAaS_HulKqmPGSj6akASQ8b1Y8i8

[darkgael]

IG; I would never dismiss anything that you wrote.I often disagree with your conclusions; I never dismiss them. You speak from belief drawn from a deep well of faith. I respect that and do not attack it.

[ironglow]

IG; I would never dismiss anything that you wrote.I often disagree with your conclusions; I never dismiss them. You speak from belief drawn from a deep well of faith. I respect that and do not attack it.

  Thanks for you consideration, but I can take diverse views, since I deal with them on a regular bas sis.  ..And don't sell the Bible too short, since there are a few thousand years of wisdom to be found there..along with solid information.

[Bob Riebe]

https://www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/breaking-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144

How Accurate is Carbon Dating?

At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that once lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, who assure us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost everything around us. However, a little more knowledge about the exact ins and outs of carbon dating reveals that perhaps it is not quite as fool-proof a process as we may have been led to believe.
What is Carbon Dating?

At its most basic level, carbon dating is the method of determining the age of organic material by measuring the levels of carbon found in it. Specifically, there are two types of carbon found in organic materials: carbon 12 (C-12) and carbon 14 (C-14). It is imperative to remember that the material must have been alive at one point to absorb the carbon, meaning that carbon dating of rocks or other inorganic objects is nothing more than inaccurate guesswork.

All living things absorb both types of carbon; but once it dies, it will stop absorbing. The C-12 is a very stable element and will not change form after being absorbed; however, C-14 is highly unstable and in fact will immediately begin changing after absorption. Specifically, each nucleus will lose an electron, a process which is referred to as decay. This rate of decay, thankfully, is constant, and can be easily measured in terms of ‘half-life’.

Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for an object to lose exactly half of the amount of carbon (or other element) stored in it. This half-life is very constant and will continue at the same rate forever. The half-life of carbon is 5,730 years, which means that it will take this amount of time for it to reduce from 100g of carbon to 50g – exactly half its original amount. Similarly, it will take another 5,730 years for the amount of carbon to drop to 25g, and so on and so forth. By testing the amount of carbon stored in an object, and comparing to the original amount of carbon believed to have been stored at the time of death, scientists can estimate its age.
So what’s the Problem?

Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay (both eminently quantifiable), scientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30,000 – 50,000 years. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached.

However, in the 1960s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. This indicated that equilibrium had not in fact been reached, throwing off scientists’ assumptions about carbon dating. They attempted to account for this by setting 1950 as a standard year for the ratio of C-12 to C-14, and measuring subsequent findings against that.
Has it Worked?

In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.

Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”
What does this mean for Contemporary Carbon Dating?

Essentially, this means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is not 100% reliable. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate.

[ironglow]

  It appears that carbon dating is too often corrupted. Seldom is a dating sample found under sterile conditions.  ..And it appears that the further removed date wise, from the original sample deposit, the less accurate it is.

  For example, the famous "ice man" found in the alps, could have been carrying a weapon made from a tree that was already several hundred years old, and if one tester considered it to be a fresh made piece, that could have altered estimates. 
  then there is the possibility of varying rates of radio carbon degredation.

  Another  case where such did cause confusion, is concerning the shroud from Turin.  It was claimed to be from the first century, and a group of scientists looked it over.  They found seed spores from the Israel area and other evidence.. Among the tests, they decided on a radio carbon test, which called the shroud to be from, I believe, the 12th century.

   That looked bad for the shroud backers, and they put it back away, deciding science was no help for their cause.  Years later another team of scientists wanted to take a look.  ..But having figured they were burned once, they were hesitant to trust again, but finally relented.

  The later team found the discrepancy...  It seems the shroud went through a fire at one time, and being folded,the corners were singed...

  Well, some nuns decided to patch the burned spots to prevent it from further fraying or unraveling.  It seems the first team took their sample fom one of those patches.

   NO.. I don't want to discuss the authenticity of the shroud, we went through that circus a few weeks ago. I only spoke of the case, so as to illustrate how miscalculationms can be made.

[darkgael]

IG: ..

Some give Copernicus (1500s) credit for "discovering" that the earth is spherecal (popularly, "round").  Some claim the same for Galileo (1600s).    Some even give the Greek Eratosthenes (about 200BC), credit for the "discovery"..

Hmmm. None of those ideas is precisely correct, Neither Copernicus nor Galileo discovered that the Earth was a sphere. What their observations did was dislodge the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the Solar system which had the Earth at the center. The Catholic Church at the time considered Galileo’s view at odds with holy scripture and, thus, heretical.
Eratosthenes did not discover a spherical Earth. That was already a given. He computed its circumference.
The rest of that table of then and now is similarly flawed.;;;

[ironglow]

IG: ..

Some give Copernicus (1500s) credit for "discovering" that the earth is spherecal (popularly, "round").  Some claim the same for Galileo (1600s).    Some even give the Greek Eratosthenes (about 200BC), credit for the "discovery"..

Hmmm. None of those ideas is precisely correct, Neither Copernicus nor Galileo discovered that the Eartj

 

  I said some give them credit..for discovering that the earth is spherecal, Eratosthanes being another.  ..But Job and Isaiah pre-date them all.

[darkgael]

IG: Job and Isaiah:

He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing."  (Job 26:7)     Or they could have plagairized Isaiah (7th  century BC).     "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  (Isaiah 40:22)

Hmmm. You see in those verses indication that the Bible was way ahead of later observations. Well we disagree about that.

[Dee]

2nd Timothy Chapter 2 verse 23. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strife.

Titus Chapter 3 verse 9. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and striving about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

"MAN!"
1ST TIMOTHY CHAPTER 6 VERSE 4. HE IS PROUD, KNOWING NOTHING, BUT DOTING ABOUT QUESTIONS AND STRIFES OF WORDS, WHEREOF COMETH ENVY, STRIFE, RAILINGS, "EVIL SURMIZINGS,"

Nobody knows how old that silly worm is, they're making it up as they go, trying to look smart,  and get more federal funding. The Bible is pretty clear on the approximate age of the earth, and He hasn't mentioned anything about carbon dating.  But he does talk about "mans surmizings".

Now! I ain't condemning the conversation, I'm statin my view on the discussion of how the earth came to be, and how old God says it is. I don't concern myself with it, and I take God's Word over men, like He says to, and I don't try and combine the two.

[Graybeard]

OK guys, I've spoken with the worm via phone. He tells me he knows when he was born and that he really is that old. Who am I to argue with a fellow like that.

[Dee]

OK guys, I've spoken with the worm via phone. He tells me he knows when he was born and that he really is that old. Who am I to argue with a fellow like that.

I'd insist on seeing his birth certificate, then they can debate the credibility of the attending mid worm who signed it.

[ironglow]

OK guys, I've spoken with the worm via phone. He tells me he knows when he was born and that he really is that old. Who am I to argue with a fellow like that.

  Good imput Bill....and timely..    

[darkgael]

“How could a leader of a tribe of primitive gain such knowledge?”
I do not know, and neither do you. Your faith, though, allows you to say “God did it” without any evidence.

[Dee]

“How could a leader of a tribe of primitive gain such knowledge?”
I do not know, and neither do you. Your faith, though, allows you to say “God did it” without any evidence.

And your logic (or lack thereof), allows you to put faith in mans' hypothesis with having never met any of them. And having zero written record dating back 46,000 years. Common sense should tell anyone that to look at that worm and say: Yep! That worm is 46,000 years old.
Do you not realize how silly that sounds? The whole damn conversation is silly regardless of which side your on. Its a worm! Who cares if its 46,000 years old , or 46 seconds?

As for ironglows faith, while I don't agree with some of his personal theology, his faith is based on some 6,000+ years of written record that folks such as yourself, have tried and continuously failed to be able to disprove for about as many years. 

[darkgael]

based on some 6,000+ years of written record that folks such as yourself, have tried and continuously failed to be able to disprove for about as many years.

Disprove?? Not me. As far as I can recall, I have never attacked scripture. I may have criticized the uses to which it has been, never , though have made any attempt to disprove. here is an example; your comment that IG's faith is based on 6000 years of written history is exaggerated. A quick search tells me that the oldest parts of scripture were put down about 3400 years ago. a long time for sure but not 6000. Little things like that. Using the larger figure adds gravitas to what you say....but it is an exaggeration.

[Dee]

LOL, yeah and that well documented worm?

[darkgael]

LOL, yeah and that well documented worm?

At this point, the worm is unimportant......not really the point. it stopped being the point when IG joined the conversation.

[ironglow]

“How could a leader of a tribe of primitive gain such knowledge?”
I do not know, and neither do you. Your faith, though, allows you to say “God did it” without any evidence.

   I gave you evidence...but you evidently did not  read it.  And there happens to be further Biblical evidence that goes beyond the capability of science.

[Dee]

LOL, yeah and that well documented worm?

At this point, the worm is unimportant......not really the point. it stopped being the point when IG joined the conversation.

LOL, thats pretty standard.

[ironglow]

LOL, yeah and that well documented worm?

At this point, the worm is unimportant......not really the point. it stopped being the point when IG joined the conversation.

LOL, thats pretty standard.

   

       "Ridicule is the weapon used when the quiver is found empty."  (Ironglow)

[darkgael]

“How could a leader of a tribe of primitive gain such knowledge?”
I do not know, and neither do you. Your faith, though, allows you to say “God did it” without any evidence.

   I gave you evidence...but you evidently did not  read it.  And there happens to be further Biblical evidence that goes beyond the capability of science.

IG: Seriously.....I missed the evidence or, at least, did not read anything that qualified as evidence. I read everything that you wrote. if you will, please refer me to the posts which contain the evidence.

Biblical evidence that goes beyond the capability of science??   You are going to have to explain that one to me.