Dingbat, R E A D S L O W L Y....<quoted text>

Sorry, dividing up 65M in 521 equal parts which has absolutely no informational value at all and the 65M is not even a valid data value in this case. It is technically in total error. All you did was manipulate arbitrary numbers to arrive at a very small value. It was nonsense.

The reason to divide 65m by 521 is to find the minimum number of HALVINGS *IF THE SAMPLE REALLY IS* 65 million years old as conventional scientists would demand. Hence 24,700 HALVINGS, HENCE 1/2^24,700, hence if there is any intact DNA present, then the sample should be LESS THAN 65 million years old.

If you were not idiotically jumping to conclusions, you would see that by this route I was AGREEING WITH YOU that there could not possibly be any intact DNA after this many halvings IF the sample WAS 65 million years old (and if the 521 half life is accurate.

There was NOTHING arbitrary about the numbers or the method I used! It was YOUR half life figure, applied to the currently believed minimum age of the dinosaurs.

I was agreeing with you Muddle Head, using the correct logic of half lives, and you still cannot see it.

In other words, you appear to be one more inexorable step closer to Jimbodom.

Sheesh!

111,721 - 111,740of 178,661 Comments Last updatedSunday Jun 28