Sea grass found that is older than the earth

[_brade]

How does one measure the age of Sea Grass?

I was wondering this too. I mean, if it's alive wouldn't it just be made up of, like, newish stuff (e.g. carbon)?

[_Quasimodo]

How does one measure the age of Sea Grass?

I was wondering this too. I mean, if it's alive wouldn't it just be made up of, like, newish stuff (e.g. carbon)?

I think the difference is between a new plant that grows from seed and one that continuously produces new stems and sprouts from the original plant.



This creosote bush in the Mojave desert is 11,700 years old. It's in the shape of a ring because it's very slowly growing out from the original root.

[_Some Schmo]

Cool!

They finally found my great-great-great Aunt Stella.


Peace,
Ceeboo

I just thought you were on grass. I had no idea you were grass.

[_beefcalf]

How does one measure the age of Sea Grass?

The major source of carbon-14 on Earth is through high-energy collision in the upper atmosphere, where energetic particle from distant supernovae or quasars strike a stable nitrogen atom which then becomes C14.

If those plants then absorb a molecule of carbon dioxide which contains one of the C14 atoms, that atom is incorporated into the polysaccharide structures of the plant, such as cellulose. At the moment of incorporation into the plant structure, the C14 will begin to decay at a known rate. If you take a sample from that plant and determine the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14, you can get a fairly good idea of when that portion of the plant was formed.

Of course, 200,000 years is well outside the nominal window of accuracy for C14 dating, so my guess is they extrapolated the age based on an observed growth rate combined with C14 tests on newer sections of the plant.

[_Quasimodo]

How does one measure the age of Sea Grass?

The major source of carbon-14 on Earth is through high-energy collision in the upper atmosphere, where energetic particle from distant supernovae or quasars strike a stable nitrogen atom which then becomes C14.

If those plants then absorb a molecule of carbon dioxide which contains one of the C14 atoms, that atom is incorporated into the polysaccharide structures of the plant, such as cellulose. At the moment of incorporation into the plant structure, the C14 will begin to decay at a known rate. If you take a sample from that plant and determine the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14, you can get a fairly good idea of when that portion of the plant was formed.

Of course, 200,000 years is well outside the nominal window of accuracy for C14 dating, so my guess is they extrapolated the age based on an observed growth rate combined with C14 tests on newer sections of the plant.

I think carbon 14 tests only work for organic matter that has died and no longer accumulates carbon 14. I'm guessing that this living plant must be dated by it's growth patterns.

[_beefcalf]

The major source of carbon-14 on Earth is through high-energy collision in the upper atmosphere, where energetic particle from distant supernovae or quasars strike a stable nitrogen atom which then becomes C14.

If those plants then absorb a molecule of carbon dioxide which contains one of the C14 atoms, that atom is incorporated into the polysaccharide structures of the plant, such as cellulose. At the moment of incorporation into the plant structure, the C14 will begin to decay at a known rate. If you take a sample from that plant and determine the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14, you can get a fairly good idea of when that portion of the plant was formed.

Of course, 200,000 years is well outside the nominal window of accuracy for C14 dating, so my guess is they extrapolated the age based on an observed growth rate combined with C14 tests on newer sections of the plant.

I think carbon 14 tests only work for organic matter that has died and no longer accumulates carbon 14. I'm guessing that this living plant must be dated by it's growth patterns.

Hmmmm... I don't think this is a requirement if you can isolate a structure which is not currently incorporating new C14. The cell walls of the woody parts of a plant (once you've removed the contents of the cell, to include all sugars, starches and other) should do the trick. They are, in essence, dead.

In the end, I didn't read about the team's methodology and I'm conjecturing on this as a possible method of dating.

[_The Dude]

Hmmmm... I don't think this is a requirement if you can isolate a structure which is not currently incorporating new C14. The cell walls of the woody parts of a plant (once you've removed the contents of the cell, to include all sugars, starches and other) should do the trick. They are, in essence, dead.

In the end, I didn't read about the team's methodology and I'm conjecturing on this as a possible method of dating.

I think you have the right idea, beefcalf. Scientists have timed the regeneration of adult human fat cells and brain cells by measuring C14 incorporated into the DNA of dividing cells. This is based on the spike in C14 levels created by mid 20th-century nuclear weapons tests.

See work from the lab of Jonas Frisen at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden:
"Dynamics of Fat Cell Turnover in Humans" Nature 2008
"Retrospective Birth Dating of Cells in Humans" Cell 2005

So the the test material doesn't have to be "dead" to be measured and interpreted.

[_Quasimodo]

Hmmmm... I don't think this is a requirement if you can isolate a structure which is not currently incorporating new C14. The cell walls of the woody parts of a plant (once you've removed the contents of the cell, to include all sugars, starches and other) should do the trick. They are, in essence, dead.

In the end, I didn't read about the team's methodology and I'm conjecturing on this as a possible method of dating.

Damn, you forced me to do a Google. I didn't find much helpful, but your conjecture seems reasonable.

I'm still guessing that they are going by the plants growth rates and the volume of the this individual plant.

You may very well be correct, though.

[_Quasimodo]

Ah! The answer:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21433-patch-of-seagrass-is-worlds-oldest-living-organism.html

DNA! Whoda thunk it?

[_beefcalf]

Hey Buffalo, sorry about the derail.

Back on topic: I remember discussing the D&C 77 issue with apologists, and got something from them which was supposed to nullify it as a source of criticism. I think it was something to do with the 'spiritual' age of the earth vs the physical age, or some claptrap...

Anyone run into an interesting apologetic arguments for why this scripture (like many others) doesn't actually mean what the text says it means?