|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
People are people and have been creating myths for thousands of years. You just don't recognize the process when it comes to evolutionism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Find one post where I use the Bible to argue against the Theory of Evolution, please, and if you cannot substantiate your argument, please retract it.
You won't find any because it's not my approach. Heck, there are even some parts of the Bible that sound like evolution: "let the waters bring forth...", but the issue with evolutionism is selective acceptance of data and logic, as we see here on this topic. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Hey randman,
Please don't take this as an attack. Lately I have noticed that you don't seem to take a firm stance on any particular ground regarding the debate. You don't care about young vs old earth. You seem to even be okay with evolution if it is prescribed by an Intelligent Designer. Is your main beef then just that you think that science rejects God? Are you offended by the methodological naturalism currently built into science? I guess, I just don't understand anymore what your beef is? If your are interested, maybe we could take it to a new thread? Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Rand,
This appears to be another instance where you need to explain to me in words of one syllable or less ('cause after all, I'm an ignorant evilutionist) exactly why you think this bacterium poses any problem to the ToE. Ideally, I'd appreciate it if you could (for once) dispense with random insults, allusions to conspiracy, or claims of sheer scientific fraud/dogmatism/etc. Just plainly explain why you think this has any bearing on the ToE. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have stated throughout my time here that I think the reasoning process of mainstream evolutionism is severely flawed and ignores data and reasoning, and is a believe first, understand later process that makes correcting errors and assessing data objectively very difficult. I could go on, but let's don't get off-topic.
Suffice to say, I have echoed the same refrain since I've been here, and have often pointed out that my reasons for rejecting ToE are not because of the Bible, etc,....but that I think mainstream evo theories are not fact-based. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Modulous lays out the details in the OP. The lack of change suggests that the molecular clock concept, often used in evo models, is incorrect. I will add that the immense amount of time for the bacteria to survive is a problem unless the time periods are off.
The discovery definitely poses a problem for some aspects of mainstream evo models. As far as falsifying ToE, since the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory, it probably is not possible to come up with any data that can do that, but that just shows the inherent flaw within ToE as a scientific theory, imo. It's considered true by definition, and so the data doesn't form the theory, but the theory the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm just doing a quick review, I'll reopen it soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Randman,
This thread is not about how "the evo solution is basically just to deny the evidence." This thread is not about how you think "the reasoning process of mainstream evolutionism is severely flawed and ignores data and reasoning." This thread is not about how "the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory..." This thread is about ancient bacteria with modern DNA. By and large general observations and expressions of opinion are fine, but you are using threads as a vehicle not so much for discussion, though you do engage in some discussion, but more as opportunities to repeat your general observations and opinions. You are more than welcome to propose threads on any of these topics, and I will approve them as quickly as I can. In the future please confine yourself to addressing the topic. From here on I will be suspending your posting privileges for 24 hours each time you fail to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I dunno, rand. There have been a lot of studies calling into question the assumptions (dating from Kimura's neutral evolution paper and continuing to the present) of the molecular clock either in toto or in part. Many of the more recent studies focus on the wide variance in mutation/substitution rate (remember: Kimura based his idea on a straight Poisson distribution, which doesn't appear to be the case generally, the devil being in the details). See, for example, Thomas JA, Welch JJ, Woolfit M, Bromham L, 2006, There is no universal molecular clock for invertebrates, but rate variation does not scale with body size, PNAS 103:7366-7371. There's an on-going research effort to figure out a way to "predict" and quantify the rate variances to permit the "molecular clock" idea to be useful. IOW, it's recognized that Kimura didn't have all the facts and figures right. Doesn't effect the ToE at all, as far as I can see. Additionally, in some cases Kimura's idea has been substantiated (see, for instance, Fitch WM, Ayala FJ 1995, "The Superoxide Dismutase Molecular Clock Revisited", in Fitch and Ayala, eds, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, National Academy Press, pg 235-250).
On the other hand, I'm still not clear why you think this bacteria poses a problem to evolution. In the first place, nothing cited thus far in this thread indicates that Vreeland's original hypothesis concerning the critter being that old has been substantiated. The article you cited simply asserts that the objections have been met, but without much in the way of evidence. Secondly, even if it were shown that everything Vreeland et al claimed was correct, I don't get why it would be a problem. You STATE that it's a problem, but still haven't explained why.
As far as falsifying ToE, since the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory, it probably is not possible to come up with any data that can do that, but that just shows the inherent flaw within ToE as a scientific theory, imo. It's considered true by definition, and so the data doesn't form the theory, but the theory the data. Couldn't make a single post without something like this, could you? Ah well, what did I expect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
OK, here is the reason given that the discovery must be due to contanimation. There is nothing I can see about the procedures that suggests they were flawed. What the criticism is based on is that molecular studies indicate the bacteria must be young. Since the molecular clock angle is considered to be a fact, then any fact such as this that challenges that is considered to be erroneous, and so a circular reasoning is in effect.
Find something that demonstrates ancient bacteria were not so different than a current strain today, and this is dismissed because everyone knows ancient bacteria MUST BE different because ToE says so. The other criticisms have been duly answered with published studies, but you cannot answer the last one as effectively because by it's very nature, it is a circular argument. The conclusion is taken as fact, the molecular clock angle, and so any data that disagrees with that conclusion must be contanimation even if the best measures were taken to prevent it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
In the first place, nothing cited thus far in this thread indicates that Vreeland's original hypothesis concerning the critter being that old has been substantiated. Did you read the links? There certainly has been published studies backing Vreeland up. On the issue of the molecular clock, it may well be there are plenty that call that into question but that doesn't stop the chief and only remaining basis for criticism of Vreeland's find being molecular studies based on the molecular clock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Find something that demonstrates ancient bacteria were not so different than a current strain today, and this is dismissed because everyone knows ancient bacteria MUST BE different because ToE says so. When you've accrued such a weight of evidence for a theory that you have to be ignorant, or ideologically motivated, to reject it, then yes. You get to use the parts of the theory you've so substantiated as essentially fact. Doesn't seem fair? By all means, I invite you to establish a similar weight of evidence for creationism.
The conclusion is taken as fact, the molecular clock angle, and so any data that disagrees with that conclusion must be contanimation even if the best measures were taken to prevent it. Yes. That is because there is a million times as much confirming evidence for the molecular clock models as there is disconfirming evidence. And we do know that, despite our best human efforts, contamination does occur sometimes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The phrase "problem for evolution" is in Modulous' OP. So quetzal and others, I suggest you reread the OP and think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
That is because there is a million times as much confirming evidence for the molecular clock models as there is disconfirming evidence. No, there is not, and merely saying there is evidence does not mean there is evidence. qs By all means, I invite you to establish a similar weight of evidence for creationism.[/qs] Your post is off-topic, and I won't be baited to getting banned. So don't expect me to do anything but ignore your posts, crash. If you want to discuss the topic, please explain why the data should be ignored, crash, and if you cannot discuss the topic, then please don't foul up the thread with more off-topic posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Actually, Modulus carefully placed a question mark at the end of that phrase. Indeed, he has accepted Mammuthus's discussion of why the Vreeland discovery may not be valid. Irreproducible results in biology aren't uncommon - especially concerning "ancient" DNA studies which are subject to contamination, among many other problems. After that point in this discussion, you appear to be the only one who is still hanging on the "problem" issue - the concensus among the other participants (including me), appears to be that the jury is still out.
Since you're the one still insisting on the bacterium being a "problem" for the ToE, I guess I still need an explanation from you why this would be the case. I'm not even saying you're wrong - I'm saying I don't understand your argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024