How accurate are carbon 14 and other radioactive dating methods
Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely". She started a firestorm of controversy in 20 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone.
Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone.
Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies.
This was news to him, and contradicted prior statements and documents from the university.
Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.
Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in a Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.
The university claimed his appointment at had been temporary and claimed a lack of funding for the position.
Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make.
In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters.
Consequently, we are no longer able to provide radiocarbon services in support of your anti-scientific agenda.